Defining Deponency An Investi

DEFINING DEPONENCY:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO GREEK DEPONENCY
OF THE MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICES IN THE KOINE PERIOD
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Stratton L. Ladewig
May 2010
UMI Number: 3415851
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3415851
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy
Examining Committee
ABSTRACT
DEFINING DEPONENCY:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO GREEK DEPONENCY
OF THE MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICES IN THE KOINE PERIOD
Stratton L. Lade wig
Readers: Daniel B. Wallace, Joseph D. Fantin, Richard A. Taylor
Deponency has been treated with great inconsistency in studies of Greek
grammar with adverse implications to exegesis of the NT. In recent years, some
grammarians have denied that deponency is a valid expression of voice. This work serves
to contribute to a better understanding of this phenomenon in the Koine period so that the
NT can be interpreted with accuracy. As a result, Greek deponency of the middle and
passive voices in the Koine period is investigated in order to discover its validity. Once
validated, a refined definition of deponency in the Koine period is offered. The body
proceeds with four emphases: historical inquiry, deponency's validation and refined
definition, critique of the dissenting view, and application of the method for determining
deponency to exegetically significant passages.
The historical treatment makes four contributions to the whole. First, it
documents the ways deponency has been treated diachronically. Second, the
inconsistency of usage of the term is observed. Third, the investigation of the ancient
period demonstrates that deponency is a phenomenon whose origins are archaic. Finally,
this treatment presents the views of those who hold to the dissenting perspective.
Deponency is validated by analyzing it in Greek against its Latin counterpart.
The salient features of deponency in Latin were tested in Koine Greek. Ample Greek
texts were evaluated in order to substantiate the falsifiable hypothesis: the Greek middle
iii
and passive voices in the Koine period include deponency as a legitimate expression of
voice. A refined definition of deponency is offered. Based on this definition, application
is made to verbs in the NT with the result that a list of NT deponent verbs is provided in
Appendix E: New Testament Deponent and Semi-Deponent Verbs.
A critique of the dissenting view is an evaluation of the perspective that
denies the validity of deponency in Greek. In particular, the work of four scholars is
considered: Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T.
Pennington. The historical inquiry along with the validation and redefinition of
deponency form the basis for the critique.
Five potentially deponent verbs in four passages are investigated to
demonstrate the significance of recognizing the phenomenon, the method of determining
deponency, and the accurate resulting interpretations: nopevQevxeq and EV£TEiA,aur|v in
Matt 28:19-20, rryep0r| in Mark 2:12, eêXeâxo in Eph 1:4, andTConjaovToain 1 Cor
13:8.
IV
CONTENTS
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Orientation 1
Prolegomena 9
The Need 9
The Established Definition of Deponency 10
Challenge to the Established Definition of
Deponency 11
Summary 13
The Method, Scope, and Limitations 14
Language 14
Voices 15
Time 15
Linguistics 16
Overview 16
2. A HISTORY OF DEPONENCY 18
The Ancient Witness (ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 500) 21
Dionysius Thrax 22
Apollonius Dyscolus 30
Macrobius 36
Summary 41
The Gothic Witness (ca. A.D. 500-1100) 42
The Medieval Witness (A.D. 1100-1453) 43
Maximus Planudes 46
Gennadius Scholarius 47
Summary 48
The Modern Witness (A.D. 1453-Present) 49
Classical Greek Grammars 49
John William Donaldson 49
Kuhner-Blass/Ktihner-Gerth 55
Antonius N. Jannaris 59
Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve 63
William Watson Goodwin 63
Herbert Weir Smyth 64
K. L. McKay 67
Chrys C. Caragounis 68
Koine/New Testament Greek Grammars 69
Georg Benedict Winer 69
Ernest De Witt Burton 71
James Hope Moulton 71
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey 73
v
A. T. Robertson 74
Blass, Debrunner, Funk 77
G. Mussies 78
Hoffman-von Siebenthal 79
Stanley E. Porter 80
K. L. McKay 81
Daniel B. Wallace 82
Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf 84
Disappointment with Deponency 85
Neva F. Miller 86
Bernard A. Taylor 88
Rutger J. Allan 91
Jonathan T. Pennington 92
Conclusion 99
3. DEPONENCY'S VALIDATION AND REDEFINITION 103

Introduction 103
The Established Definition of Deponency 103
Method 104
Voices 105
Active 105
Middle 106
The Difficulty of Distinguishing
the Active from the (Indirect) Middle 107
Passive Ill
The Evidence for Deponency Ill
The Anatomy of Deponency Ill
Mismatch between Form and Function 112
Formal Morphological Opposition 116
Active and Middle/Passive 117
Normal Realization 120
Lexically-Specified Set: Semi-deponency 125
Normal Function No Longer Available 126
The Distinction between Active and
Middle 127
The Lexical Argument 131
The Logical Argument 135
The Historical Argument 136
Lacking an Active Form 137
Summary 144
A Composite View of Deponency's Anatomy 144
Deponency in Koine Greek 146
A Form-Function Mismatch 146
Aorist Passive Investigation 148
Aorist Middle Investigation 151
The Conclusion Extended 154
VI
Absence of an Active Form 158
Absence of Lexical Intrusion 159
The Behavior of Deponency 160
Conclusion: A Refined Definition of Deponency 162
4. A CRITIQUE OF THE DISSENTING VOICE 164
Introduction 164
The Dissenting Voice Speaks 164
Disgruntled without Rejection 164
Complete Dissension 167
Neva F. Miller 167
Bernard A. Taylor 170
Rutger J. Allan 175
Jonathan T. Pennington 180
Conclusion 194
5. EXEGETICALLY SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES 196

Introduction 196
Matthew 28:19-20 196
Mark 2:12 202
Ephesians 1:4 206
1 Corinthians 13:8 208
Conclusion 213
6. CONCLUSION 214
Appendix
A. AORIST PASSIVE INVESTIGATION 218
B. AORIST MIDDLE INVESTIGATION 232
C. BDAG'S "ONLY MIDDLE" AND "ONLY PASSIVE" VERBS 251
D. NEW TESTAMENT VERBS 253
E. NEW TESTAMENT DEPONENT AND SEMI-DEPONENT VERBS 295

Deponent Verbs 296
Semi-Deponent Verbs 297
New Testament Deponency by Principal Part 297
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303
vii
TABLES
Tables
1. Dionysus Thrax's Examples off] (xsaoxrn; Voice 28
2. Donaldson's Middle Deponents 53
3. Donaldson's Passive Deponents 54
4. Donaldson's Passive and Middle Aorist Deponents 54
5. Donaldson's Present and Imperfect Only Deponents 54
6. Donaldson's Future Middle Deponents 55
7. Kiihner-Blass's Passive Deponents 57
8. Kuhner' s Passive Deponents with Aorist Passive and Future Middle 58
9. Kiihner's Active Verbs with a Future Middle 59
10. Jannaris's Old Deponents 60
11. Jannaris's New Deponents 60
12. Jannaris's Middle Deponents 61
13. Jannaris's Passive Deponents 62
14. Jannaris's Future Middle Deponents 62
15. Middle Deponents Denoting Bodily or Mental Action 65
16. Smyth's Passive Deponents 65
17. Smyth's ui Verb Deponents 66
18. Winer's Deponents 69
19. Winer's Misidentified Deponents 71
20. Moulton's Future Middle Deponents 72
21. Dana and Mantey's Deponents 74
viii
22. Robertson's Deponents 76
23. Robertson's Future Deponents 76
24. Robertson's Passive Deponents 76
25. Robertson's Aorist Passive Deponents 76
26. Robertson's Future Passive Deponents 76
27. Robertson's Transitive Passive Deponents 77
28. Wallace's Deponents 83
29. Wallace's Verbs That Look Deponent but Likely Are Not 84
30. Actives and Middles with Distinct Meanings 108
31. Morphological Opposition Illustrated 117
32. Corbett's Canonical Inflection: The Criteria 122
33. Normal Indicative Inflection 123
34. Deponent Indicative Inflection of Suvaum 123
35. A Sample of NT Semi-deponent Verbs 133
36. Synonymous Active and Middle Voice Verbs 134
37. Syncretism with Active Morphology 139
38. Syncretism with Middle/Passive Morphology 140
39. Deponency 140
40. Deponent Verbs in BDAG 147
41. Aorist Passive Verbs with a Form-Function Mismatch 149
42. Aorist Middle Deponents 151
43. Aorist Passive Investigation 219
44. Aorist Middle Investigation 232
ix
45. BDAG's "Only Middle" and "Only Passive" Verbs 251
46. Legend for New Testament Verbs 256
47. New Testament Verbs 257
48. New Testament Deponent Verbs 296
49. New Testament Semi-Deponent Verbs 297
50. Legend for New Testament Deponency by Principal Part 297
51. New Testament Deponency by Principal Part 297
x
ABBREVIATIONS
0 an active form exists for a particular principal part of a verb
— used in Appendix E to indicate that a particular principal part of a verb
does not occur in the NT
act. active
A.D. anno Domini (in the year of the Lord)
AF Apostolic Fathers
AJP American Journal of Philology
aor. aorist
B.C. before Christ

BDAG Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Revised and edited by Frederick
William Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
BDF Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and translated
by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BM body motion
BSac Bibliotheca sacra
© deponent
dep. deponent
D.O. direct object
E&C emotion and cognition
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
ESCOL Eastern States Conference on Linguistics
ESV English Standard Version
xi
fem. feminine
fig. figuratively, figurative of
fut. future
gen. genitive
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
imp v. imperative
impf. imperfect
indie. indicative
inf. infinitive
intr. intransitive
KJV King James Version
LI lexical intrusion
LIb/rs lexical intrusion with a beneficiary/recipient-subject
LSJ Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th
ed. Revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones with Roderick
McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. Reprint with a revised supplement,
1996.
LXX Septuagint
masc. masculine
mid. middle
MM Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.

Hendrickson Publishers' ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.
Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
N/A not applicable
n note
xn
N normal (used in Appendix E to indicate a verb's normal function in a
particular principal part)
NA 27 Nestle-Aland, after Eberhard Nestle, and Erwin Nestle. Novum

Testamentum Graece. 27th rev. ed. Edited by Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland,
Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.
NASB New American Standard Bible (1995)
NET New English Translation
neut. neuter
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIV New International Version
nom. nominative
norm. normal
NovTSup Supplements to
NRSV New Revised St
NT New Testament
opt. optative
P perception
p. (pp.) page (pages)
part. partial
pass. passive
perf. perfect
pi. plural
plpf. pluperfect
pres. present
Xlll
ptc. participle
R reciprocal
RSV Revised Standard Version
SA speech act
sec. section
sing. singular
subj. subjunctive
s.v. sub verbo, sub voce, under the word
MSJ The Master's Seminary Journal
TJ Trinity Journal
TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae
trans. transitive
v. (vv.) verse (verses)
VMA volitional mental activities
w/ with
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
xiv
To my wife, Jennifer, whose patience and support with my graduate studies
have been greater than should have reasonably been expected.
And to my children, Hannah, Emily, Joshua, Karis, Megan, and Phoebe, who
are tremendous blessings to me.
xv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Greek language possesses a rich history. This Indo-European language
can be traced back in written documentation to the fifteenth century B.C., making it "the
oldest continuously spoken and written language in Europe."1 Furthermore, the inception
of grammatical study commenced with Greek. Its place as a continuously written and
spoken language and as an object of study gives it a prominent status among the
languages of the world. Into this abundance of research, the current work also adds its
voice.
Orientation
The task of grammatical research—a task to which this dissertation is
dedicated—is a difficult one. Grammatical studies have a long history, but more recently,
linguistics has entered the discussion.2 In addition to traditional grammar,3 linguistics has
'Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology,
Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, WUNT, ed. Jorg Frey (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004;
repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 17.
2
The inception of modern linguistics is commonly given a date of 1916, when Ferdinand de
Saussure's class notes were published posthumously as Corns de linguistique generale (Joseph D. Fantin,
"The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach" [Ph.D.
diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003], 385). See Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de linguistique
generale, ed. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, and Albert Riedlinger (Paris: Payot, 1916).
3
"The phrase 'traditional grammar' refers to the body of knowledge about the correct usage of
word-forms and syntax transmitted in the West at least since the early Middle Ages for the study of Latin
and Greek and whose categories were used as a template for the study of other languages" (David Blank
and Catherine Atherton, "The Stoic Contribution to Traditional Grammar," in The Cambridge Companion
1
2
provided another helpful means of evaluating language. Since its inception, linguistics
has been in tension with traditional grammar. Each has its own assumptions and methods,
and both are useful approaches to grammatical study. However, caution must be utilized
when using them in order to avoid a distortion of the evidence and to avoid wrong
conclusions. The orientation of this dissertation with regard to linguistics and traditional
grammar must be established before the task can progress.
This work is broadly within the realm of linguistics. Linguistics is comprised
of a number of subfields, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.4 This
study delves into the fields of morphology, semantics, and syntax. What is the form of the
verb? What does the verb mean? The most important feature of the verb is the meaning it
conveys.5 This study focuses on how to arrive at that meaning for a particular class of
verbs: deponents.6 In this way, this investigation into deponency is a work in the area of
general linguists.
However, a particular method of linguistics will not be followed for many
reasons.7 Stanley E. Porter establishes a foundation for utilizing linguistics in the study of
to the Stoics, ed. Brad Inwood, Cambridge Companions to Philosophy [New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2003], 310).
4
These four fields deal with "speech sounds," word formation and its related meaning, word
arrangement and its related meaning, and meaning itself, respectively (David Alan Black, Linguistics for
Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1995], 23,53,96-100,120).
5
J. P. Louw observes the tension between form and function. "What is important in such cases
[cases where one language prefers passive forms and another language prefers active forms] is not the
formal structure, but the meaning which is carried by such forms" (J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament
Greek, Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies, ed. Dan O. Via Jr. and William A. Beardslee
[Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982], 12). I concur with Louw's statement.
6
See "The Established Definition of Deponency" on p. 10.
7
Other recent grammatical studies have likewise embarked without utilizing a linguistic
method: Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs
3
ancient languages. He discusses principles of modern linguistics, linguistic models, and
linguistic assumptions.8 In the same article, Porter explains what linguistics is not.
Among the features that he emphasizes is the fact that linguistics is not "traditional
grammar." Despite Porter's assertions about all that linguistics is and all that traditional
grammar is not, there seems to be a middle ground for establishing a viable method for
approaching grammatical study of ancient Greek—that is, 'refined traditional grammar'.9
This dissertation will follow a model of refined traditional grammar for its
method. Let us first identify the characteristics from linguistics and traditional grammar
about which we are in full agreement with Porter. These are principles with which both
the linguist and the refined traditional grammarian can agree. "First, modern linguistics is
empirically based and explicit."10 This means that the data utilized in the study of
language must be accessible to all observers. Due to the nature of studying an ancient
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), v-vi; J. William Johnston, The Use of nag in the New Testament, Studies
in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 11 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), which follows the method of
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1-10 (see Johnston, The Use of nag, 36nl); and Daniel B. Wallace, Granville
Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol.
14 (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 19.
8
Stanley E. Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages from a Modern Linguistic Perspective:
Essential Terms and Terminology," Filologia neotestamentaria 2, no. 4 (November 1989): 147-72.
9
I am using the term 'refined traditional grammar' to refer to a method which respects and
utilizes both traditional grammar and modern linguistics. Although he does not use this term, the words of
David Alan Black accurately summarize the method of refined traditional grammar: "To the extent that
both traditional and linguistic grammars are descriptive disciplines, there is no reason each could not profit
from the experience of the other. Adherence to the linguistic point of view entails a preference for a more
revealing and exact description, and eventually explanation, of linguistic facts, but it need not entail a
rejection of traditional values and emphases" (David Alan Black, "The Study of New Testament Greek in
the Light of Ancient and Modern Linguistics," in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and
Issues, rev. ed., ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001],
249). "The best of both traditional and linguistic approaches can be combined for a more exact and
productive understanding of the biblical languages" (Black, "Ancient and Modern Linguistics," 251). Such
is the approach taken in this dissertation. For further discussion, see "The Method, Scope, and Limitations"
beginning on p. 14.
'Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages," 151.

language, such as Koine Greek, written samples of the language must be the basis of
investigation.11 In the present work, emphasis will be laid upon a substantial number of
written samples from the NT, LXX, and Apostolic Fathers which are readily available to
an observer who wants to verify the results of this study. Second, "modern linguistics
emphasizes synchronic over diachronic analysis."12 Although this premise may have been
unique to linguists initially, a refined traditional grammarian would also affirm this
premise.13 Models of linguistics such as tagmemics and stratificational linguistics offer
descriptive methods of inquiry; nevertheless, descriptive methods are not exclusive to the
linguistic community and will be employed here.14 Thirdly, "modern linguistics believes
that linguistics should be descriptive, not prescriptive."15 Again, refined traditional
grammarians are in full agreement here. The task of the grammarian is to investigate the
ancient language and describe what it does.16 Such an approach will be followed in this
dissertation. As a result, linguistics and refined traditional grammar operate on common
ground in these areas.
"Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages," 151.

12
Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages," 153.
"Emphasizing synchrony does not mean ignoring diachronic investigation. See "Time" on
p. 15.
14
See the discussion concerning time on p. 15.
15
16
There has been a long running debate about how grammatical studies should be conducted.
Those of the analogous school argued that grammar should be analogous to logic. As a result, the grammar
of a language should not be formed in an illogical way (e.g., inconsistent verb endings or irregular noun
forms). In contrast, anomalists argued that language and its grammar is an anomaly. As a result,
irregularities crept into its grammatical makeup. These two schools approached grammatical study from
their respective perspectives. The analogists corrected language; the anomalists observed language. These
two perspectives gave birth to the feud that continues today: prescriptive grammar (analogists) versus
descriptive grammar (anomalists) (Black, "Ancient and Modern Linguistics," 235-36). The approach of
this study is decidedly descriptive.
5
Furthermore, linguistics has several weaknesses, which are significant enough
to prevent me from subscribing to a particular linguistic model in this work. For example,
linguistics claims to be "systematic in its method and concerned for structure in
language."17 This claim is admirable and one to be pursued in this dissertation; however,
linguistics is far from perfect in its application of this goal. Porter says,
Linguistics should be systematic in the sense that there is a method in effect

which proceeds according to recognized principles and procedures. And these
principles and procedures are applied to discovering the structure of a given
language or languages. Modern linguistics is often called structural linguistics
because of its concern for coherence in language, such that choice of a particular
element within a language implies not choosing other elements.18
This description of linguistics as systematic raises questions about the achieved results. Is
it not possible that at times this "concern for cohesion" has caused linguists to see
cohesion where it did not exist? In fact, this may be the situation with deponency. The
opponents of deponency argue that theirs is the more unified understanding of the issue.
Their pursuit of cohesion may prevent recognition of a mismatch between form and
function in verbal voice that actually describes the phenomenon as it existed in Koine
Greek. Porter further says, "the linguist's task is to report this structure systematically."19
What if the data from a language does not fit within the system? It seems that the
linguist's commitment to systematizing the data into a coherent unit could force the
linguist to violate the third principle noted above (i.e., descriptivism).20 The system that
17
18
"Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages," 153.

20
This danger is one to which linguistics is especially susceptible when studying deponency. If
deponency is valid, then there is a mismatch between form and function. This mismatch does not provide
for a coherent understanding of the language. It is possible that those who are now denying deponency are
potentially doing so due to a linguistic model which forces a cohesion in the structure of the language. (The
6
insists on cohesion also insists on prescriptivism. In addition, there is a wide range of
linguistic models.21 These models compete against one another, and the field is always in
a state of flux. The result is a field of soft science in which there is no 'correct' method
but many methods. Due to the instability of the field, no particular linguistic model is
followed.
Inasmuch as a linguistic model is not being used, this work will be a refined
version of traditional grammar. Porter notes seven characteristics of traditional grammar,
and the tone of these characteristics in his presentation is strikingly negative. Although he
brings criticisms against traditional grammar, the approach taken here would also
concur.22 The most pertinent characteristics will be discussed.
"First, in traditional grammar priority is given to written over spoken
language."23 This may be true, but there is no other method for studying an ancient
language such as Koine Greek. Although Porter urges caution even for dead languages,
there are two reasons for placing priority on the written language in this study. First,
written remains are all that can be studied. Secondly, the results of this study will be
terminology of "mismatch" used to describe deponency comes from the title of a recent monograph:
Matthew Baerman et al., eds., Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. 145 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007]).
21
Porter, "Studying Ancient Languages," 155-56.
22
In effect, Porter has "thrown the baby out with the bath water." His criticisms of traditional
grammar are valid, but they do not reflect all traditional grammar. In reality, his criticisms are of bad
traditional grammar, criticisms with which a (refined) traditional grammarian would agree. As will be seen,
although some of these criticisms are valid, they are not difficulties for this particular project. In other
words, some of these characteristics are indictments against traditional grammar used to study other
languages, but when applied to the study of Koine Greek, the indictment is no longer sustainable.

7
applied directly to the NT, which itself is a collection of written documents.24 Therefore,
the most applicable evidence would then be evidence of a written nature. Because the
results of this study will be applied to the NT, which is itself a form of conversational
Greek,25 it seems that this criticism of traditional grammar does not apply to this
particular study. Consequently, an emphasis on the written is more acceptable and even
preferable for this study.
Second, "languages studied according to traditional categories are usually
regularized forms of the language found only in grammar books."26 This may be true at
times of traditional grammatical study; however, refined traditional grammar, which will
be utilized in this study, will not fall prey to such a. faux pas. This study will make a
concerted effort to observe many examples from the NT, LXX, and Apostolic Fathers;
TLG will be used to gain access to literature outside of these corpora. As a result, this
criticism of traditional grammar is not applicable to the refined traditional grammar used
here.
Finally, "the concerns of traditional grammarians have often been dictated in
terms of the interests of other, related subjects, such as theology, history, philosophy,
24
This assertion that the NT is a collection of written documents applies even to the epistle to
the Hebrews, which is commonly called a homily. Even though Hebrews is in the genre of a homily, it still
bears the marks of an epistle in some respects (Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989], 13-14), and it is a written document. Thus,
our written record of this oral sermon would likewise demand research of written records to validate
grammatical claims. Even the narrative sections of the NT that record the speeches of its characters bear the
marks of written literature. The author has framed the characters' words in such a way that his (the
author's) message is communicated. Consequently, the study of written language is necessary for
investigating the grammar of the NT.
25
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 22-23.

8
rhetoric, literature, etc."27 This characteristic, while true of traditional grammar, will not
be avoided in this dissertation. A study such as this one has both conceptual and practical
significances. The conceptual significance is to advance the understanding of Greek
voice, and the practical dimension emphasizes the improved comprehension of the NT.
This practical dimension requires a cross-discipline approach. Ultimately, the results of
this study will be related to the exegesis of the NT. In fact, chapter five will provide
discussions of exegetically significant passages.28 Therefore, this characteristic of
traditional grammar raised by Porter is one that will be embraced in this study.
In conclusion, on the one hand, this dissertation is intentional in its focus. It is
within the broad realm of descriptive linguistics; however, there is no allegiance to a
particular linguistic model. On the other hand, this dissertation follows the method of
refined traditional grammar. This traditional grammar is refined in that lessons learned
from linguistics will be utilized in order to strengthen the method. Porter's caution—"the
approach [of traditional grammar] and its categories should not be relied upon
uncritically in modern linguistic study, including the study of Biblical languages"29—is
heeded. Chrys C. Caragounis's words accurately reflect the sentiments presented here:
"Perhaps linguistics—which admittedly has given some interesting insights to the study
of language—is not yet ready to supply the definitive model for explaining the Greek
27
28
The resulting methodology naturally leads to places where my background is not as strong
as a specialist would like. In that case, I ask for patience. See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, v-vi and Wallace,
Sharp's Canon and Its Kin, 19; Daniel B. Wallace, "The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by
KCU in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance" (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995),
20 for a similar approach.

9
verb, one that can supersede the classical model."30 Refined traditional grammar has been
critically evaluated in order to remove the rough edges from its method.
Prolegomena
The Need
Deponency is an issue that has not received a full, critical examination.
Matthew Baerman's words on the subject are especially perceptive: "'Deponency' is a
convenient term [small caps removed] for morphological mismatches, but it is also a term
without an accepted definition."31 Stanley E. Porter concurs: "This is a term [deponency]
which has not commended itself to all grammarians . . . primarily because of the
difficulty in finding stable criteria by which one can determine how deponency works."32
Although the term deponency was originally applied to Latin verbs, its existence in Greek
has long been assumed. Scholars are now taking an intentional interest into the concept of
deponency in Koine Greek. The goal is to isolate precisely how the language of the
period was functioning.
Despite this intentional investigation, many questions remain unanswered.
What is the definition of deponency? Does deponency exist in Koine Greek? In what
30
Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 335. Admittedly, in this
quotation, Caragounis is not addressing linguistics with reference to the voice of the verb. The context of
this quotation relates to his critique of Stanley Porter's work on verbal aspect, which itself relied on modern
linguistics. Nevertheless, these words can equally be applied and are particularly relevant to the present
context of studying deponency.
31
Matthew Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," in Deponency and
Morphological Mismatches, ed. Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 145
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1.
32
Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 70.
10
voices does deponency occur? What are the characteristics of deponency? What
irregularities exist with deponency? What exegetically significant passages are affected
by deponency? What verbs are deponent? What verbs are partially deponent? It is to the
resolution of these questions that this dissertation is focused.
In light of the uncertainty pertaining to the term deponency in Koine Greek, in
order to expound further the need for this study, the established definition of deponency
and the challenge to that definition will be presented.
The Established Definition of Deponency
Deponent verbs are defined similarly in Classical and NT Greek grammars.
Herbert W. Smyth says, "Deponent verbs have an active meaning but only middle (or
middle and passive) forms."33 He is not alone in his understanding of deponency. H. E.
Dana and Julius R. Mantey also repeat this established definition of deponency:
"Deponent verbs are those with middle or passive form, but active meaning. . . . The
distinctive fact about the deponent verb is that its voice form is different from its voice
function."34 Maximilian Zerwick does not provide a clear definition of deponency but
assumes its validity. As he discusses active verbs that lose ground to the passive, he has
an a priori acquaintance with deponency.35 First-year grammars perpetuate deponency as
an aspect of Koine Greek. J. Gresham Machen expresses a classic presentation of
"Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1956), 107.
34
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New
York: Macmillan, 1955), 163.
"Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, English ed., adapted from the
fourth Latin ed. by Joseph Smith, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114 (n.p., 1963; repr., Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1994), 74-75.
11
deponency: "Many verbs have no active forms, but only middle or passive forms with
active meaning. These verbs are called deponent."36 Similarly, William D. Mounce writes
that a deponent verb "is a verb that is middle or passive inform but active in meaning. Its
form is always middle or passive, but its meaning is always active. It can never have a
passive meaning."37
As a result, these definitions of deponency from several sources illustrate that
the fundamental understanding in both Classical and NT grammars is the existence of
deponency. Traditionally, the established definition of deponency adheres to a mismatch
between morphology and function with regard to the voice of the verb. It is usually
explained by saying that the Greek laid aside the active form for verbs that lack an active
function.38
Challenge to the Established Definition of Deponency
Standard Greek grammars have assumed the validity of deponency and have
perpetuated its very existence by teaching generations of students this concept. Despite
the unified way in which Greek is taught, some scholars have begun to clarify and
challenge its definition. Among the first Greek grammarians to indicate uneasiness with
the established definition of deponency was A. T. Robinson. Robertson said, "The truth is
that it [the term 'deponent'] should not be used at a l l . . . . As concerns voice these verbs
36
J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (New York: Macmillan, 1923), 61
(§116).
"William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009), 152 (§18.11).
38
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 811-12. Robertson does not agree with this understanding
of the development of this phenomenon.
12
were defective rather than deponent."39 In another place in the same tome, he said, "The
name 'deponent' is very unsatisfactory."40 Although disgruntled by the term 'deponent,'
Robertson continued to utilize it as a category.41
Daniel B. Wallace illustrates the uneasiness with deponency with his
definition. He argues that the definition of deponency must include both a morphological
element (lack of active morphology) and a semantic element (demonstration of an active
force): "A deponent middle verb is one that has no active form for a particular principal
part in Hellenistic Greek, and one whose force in that principal part is evidently
active."42 As a result, it is apparent that thinking on deponency has shifted slightly in the
past century.43 Within the last decade, deponency has been strongly questioned.44 In fact,
39
Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 332-33.
^Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 811.

41
See Robertson's discussion of the aorist passive (Robertson, A Grammar of the New
Testament, 817-18).
42
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 428. Although Jonathan Pennington goes further, even denying
deponency, he sees value in a definition such as Wallace's (Jonathan T. Pennington, "Deponency in Koine
Greek: The Grammatical Question and the Lexicographal Dilemma," 77 24NS, no. 1 [Spring 2003]: 64n43;
Jonathan T. Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New
Testament Studies," in Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek
New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, New Testament Monographs, ed.
Stanley E. Porter, vol. 11 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009], 184,186).
43
Three quotations illustrate the need for more work on deponency. The inside cover of the
dust jacket to Deponency and Morphological Mismatches alludes to the anticipation of a definitive work on
deponency: "There is as yet no definitive statement of the problem [the situation presented when the form
and function of a verb do not correspond], nor any generally accepted definition of its nature and scope"
(Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," dust jacket). Next, Stanley E. Porter states, "There is
room for much more work in areas related to Greek voice. One of those areas is deponent verbs . . . . "
(Porter, Idioms, 62). Similarly, Wallace writes, "The criteria for determining deponency still await a
definitive treatment" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 430n65).
44
Hints at the uneasiness with the term deponency were extant prior to the last decade, but
these intimations were not developed. Among those who hinted at dissatisfaction were the noted Greek
grammarians John William Donaldson, Kiihner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth, James Hope Moulton, A. T.
Robertson, Herbert Weir Smyth, G. Mussies, K. L. McKay, and Stanley E. Porter. See John William
Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Students, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell;
London: Bell and Daldy, 1859), 440; Raphael Ktihner and Bernhard Gerth, Satzlehre, 3rd ed., part 2, vol. 1
13
there are several who have been so dissatisfied with the term 'deponent' that they have
questioned the validity of deponency at all. Several fall under this umbrella: Neva F.
Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger T. Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington.45
Summary
In summary, the climate has changed with respect to acceptance of the
established definition of deponency. The term has been questioned, even to the point of
denying its existence. The result is, in the words of Baerman, that deponency is "a term
without an accepted definition."46 Due to these factors, there is a perceptible lacuna in the
study of the grammar of Koine Greek—deponency. This dissertation will fill that void by
of Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (Hannover; Leipzig, 1898; reprint, Miinchen: Max
Hueber, 1963), 119 (§377); James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament
Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, [1908]), 153; Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament,
332-33; Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393 (§1730); G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in
the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism, NovTSup, vol. 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 234; K. L.
McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, Studies in Biblical
Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 26; and Porter, Idioms, 71-72 (§1.4.2). For
further detail, see the second chapter on a history of deponency beginning on p. 18, especially the section
beginning on p. 49 entitled "The Modern Witness (A.D. 1453-Present)."
45
Neva F. Miller, "Appendix 2: A Theory of Deponent Verbs," in Analytical Lexicon of the
Greek New Testament, by Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Baker's Greek New
Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and Timothy Friberg (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 423-30;
Bernard A. Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography:
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),
167-76; Rutger J. Allan, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam Studies in
Classical Philology, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm Pinkster, vol. 11 (Amsterdam: J. C.
Gieben, 2003); Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 55-76; Pennington, "Setting Aside
'Deponency'," 181-203. Carl Conrad should also be listed as one who opposes the validity of deponency;
however, because he does not defend his claims (see n 221 on p. 85 in chapter two) systematically, his
work will not be critiqued specifically: Carl W. Conrad, "Propositions Concerning Ancient Greek Voice,"
Web page, rev. October 13,2005, http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ (accessed September 25,2007); Carl W.
Conrad, "Observations on Ancient Greek Voice (LONG!)," BGreek, Web page, May 27,1997,
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-05/19077.html (accessed April 26,2007); Carl W.
Conrad, "New Observations on Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb," PDF, November 19,2002,
http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007); Carl W. Conrad,
"Active, Middle, and Passive: Understanding Ancient Greek Voice," PDF, December 16,2003,
http://www.ioa.com/%7Ecwconrad/Docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007).
'Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 1.

14
probing the issue. Greek deponency of the middle and passive voices in the Koine period
will be investigated in order to discover the validity of deponency. If deponency is found
to be valid, a refined definition of deponency in the Koine period will be offered so that
deponency will no longer be "a term without an accepted definition." Because the NT
was written in Greek during the Koine period, gaining a clearer understanding of this
feature of voice will sharpen our understanding of the NT. It is with an eye on the NT
that this work proceeds.
The Method, Scope, and Limitations
The method, scope, and limitations of this dissertation are discussed under one
subheading. These topics are related; thus, they are combined to facilitate fluid
discussion. The method discussed here relates to the dissertation as a whole. Further
method will be discussed in the introduction to the third chapter, "Defining
Deponency."47
Language
The language of this inquiry is limited to Greek. Deponency has received
discussion in many other languages, especially—but not exclusively—Latin. Depth of
discussion of deponency in other languages is outside of the scope of this project.
However, on occasion where the literature discusses a comparison between Greek and
another language, another language may be incorporated into the discussion for
comparative purposes.
See p. 103 for the introduction to chapter 3.

15
Voices
The voices included in the discussion of deponency are both middle and
passive. Because it is important for the definition of deponency to be able to distinguish
the middle or the passive from the active voice, the active voice also receives attention.
Therefore, three voices will receive attention with an emphasis on the middle and
passive.
Time
This study of deponency is primarily a synchronic study. Emphasis is applied
to literature that falls within the Koine period, which ranges approximately from 330 B.C.
to A.D. 330.48 Nevertheless, on occasion diachronic investigation into the features of the
Greek language is discussed in order to explain the history of how the Greek language or
a Greek verb developed in the way that it did.49 In other words, preliminary inquiry into
Koine Greek begins with an investigation into Attic, which sets the stage for what is to
follow.
48
Koine Greek and Hellenistic Greek are synonymous terms (BDF, lnl; Wallace, Exegetical
Syntax, 17). The beginning and ending dates of Koine Greek are approximate. The dates suggested above
correspond to the times "from Alexander's conquests to the removal of the Roman Empire's capital from
Rome to Constantinople" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 18). Other similar dates have been suggested. For
example, Antonius N. Jannaris dates Post-Classical Antiquity from 300 B.C. to A.D. 600. In his system, the
first two subdivisions of Post-Classical Antiquity consist of approximately the same times as those
suggested above for Koine Greek. Jannaris suggests a Hellenistic period from 300 to 150 B.C. and a Greco-
Roman period from 150 B.C. to A.D. 300 (Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of
the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded upon
the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek [London: Macmillan, 1897], xxii).
Contrary to Jannaris, I understand Koine and Hellenistic Greek as synonyms. Chrys C. Caragounis also
provides similar dates for Koine Greek. He uses 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 for the Hellenistic period (Caragounis,
Development of Greek and the New Testament, xx).
49
For a brief but helpful presentation of the development of Greek diachronically, see
Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 21-60.
16
Linguistics
Although a particular theory of linguistics will not be followed,50 the proposed
method is not completely isolated from linguistics. In fact, the method employed relies
significantly on linguistics. The investigation of deponency will engage four features of
linguistics: morphology, syntax, semantics, and descriptivism. In particular, in as much as
deponency relates to the form of the verb, this research is a study in morphology. What is
the form of a deponent verb? Are there any variations of that form? At times, syntax can
aid in the determination of the voice function of verb; thus, this study delves into syntax.
The meaning conveyed by the verb is the ultimate goal of this study, which suggests the
realm of semantics. What does the deponent verb mean? Finally, descriptivism will be
employed in the method of inquiry. R. H. Robins says, "Descriptive grammar seeks to
discover and describe the structure and functioning of the language of a particular
community or group within a community just as it is and with no preconceived standards
of what should or should not be the case."51 The method is simply to describe the
legitimate way(s) in which the Greek language worked in the Koine period. As a result,
the method of this study engages the realms of morphology, syntax, semantics, and
descriptivism from linguistics.
Overview
The body of this dissertation contains four chapters: (1) a history of
deponency, (2) deponency's validation and redefinition, (3) a critique of the dissenting
50
See "Orientation" above on p. 1.
51
R. H. Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular
Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine (London: Bell & Sons, 1951), 16.
17
voice, and (4) exegetically significant passages. Chapter 2, which covers a history of
deponency, traces the understanding of deponency from ancient to modern times. Stress
is laid upon the development of thought on deponency as well as on those who currently
deny the existence of deponency. Observations from this study include the inconsistency
in the usage of the term and its archaic origins. Chapter 3 provides the grounds for the
validity of deponency. The positive evidence for deponency, the characteristics of
deponency, and a refined definition of deponency are the central components of this
chapter. The fourth chapter is a critique of the dissenting voice, based in part upon the
findings from chapters 2 and 3. Finally, chapter 5 encompasses a discussion of several
exegetically significant passages in light of deponency. These are theologically rich
passages of two kinds: (1) those in which scholars have misused or misunderstood
deponency, and (2) those in which a deponent verb is utilized. This treatment
demonstrates the significance of recognizing deponency, the method of its identification,
and accurate interpretations which result.

Chapter 2
A HISTORY OF DEPONENCY
A history of deponency in Koine Greek is not the same as a history of the
Greek language. A history of Greek deponency is not even a history of the middle voice
or a history of the passive voice. Although there will be overlap with such endeavors, the
history of deponency in Koine Greek is a journey which heretofore has not commenced.1
Nevertheless, deponency's history must be framed within the development of
the Greek language itself and within the development of the voices. It has been well
documented that originally Greek possessed only two voices: active and middle. The
passive was a later addition to the verbal structure.2
Several observations suggest the passive voice's later development. First, the
passive form was not fully developed in Homeric Greek. In that period, all tenses used
the middle form, but a distinct form for the passive was only sometimes used in the
'Nikolaos Lavidas and Dimitra Papangeli have authored an essay entitled "Deponency in the
Diachrony of Greek," but is it of a different nature than what follows. See Nikolaos Lavidas and Dimitra
Papangeli, "Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek," in Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, ed.
Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 145 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007), 97-126.
2
K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach,
Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 21 (§2.1.2), 24 (§2.5.1);
James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, [1908]), 152; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical
Languages: Greek (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 62; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 332;
Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, English ed., adapted from the fourth Latin
ed. by Joseph Smith, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114 (n.p., 1963; repr., Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1994), 72 (§225).
18
19
aorist. Furthermore, Homeric Greek finds the future passive only twice, and aorist middle
is used in a passive sense. Second, there are remnants of Homeric Greek in later Greek.
For example, Greek after Homeric Greek continued to occasionally use the future middle
form for the future passive, and the aorist passive uses active endings. Third, the source
for the origination of the passive was possibly the causative middle.3 Fourth, active verbs
in the Classical period that used the middle-only forms in the future shifted to an active
ending in the Koine period. Fifth, Ttoieco in the middle voice is used as a periphrasis for
the active (middle voice of raneco + D.O. which is a noun denoting an action = active of a
simple verb). For example, in Phil 1:4, TT|V 5er|Givrcoioijuevoq,"to pray" is used rather
than TTIV 8et|aivTCOICOV,"to compose a prayer."4 Finally, in deponent verbs, the passive
form is used more frequently in the Koine period than the middle form, which was
previously preferred (e.g., ocrceKpiGri is deponent, while aTteKptvorco is not).5 As a result,
Robertson concludes, "Of one thing we may be sure, and that is that both the active and
the middle are very old and long antedate the passive."6
Although various verbal morphologies were used to reflect the voice of the
verb (active, middle, passive, or middle/passive), the usage was not always clear. There
were times when the voice form and voice function did not correspond. Such a situation
spawned this comment from Juan Signes-Codoner: "As is well known, Greek
grammarians initially used the label 'middle' (ueaoq) without any precision, to mean that
3
Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 332.
4
The use of the middle form of noieco with an active function cannot be considered deponent
because actives forms exist. It seems that the NT's usage of the term is an example of stereotypical usage
that has carried over from a previous era of Greek.
5
Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 72-74 (§§226,227,229). See also BDF, 161 (§307).
6
20
there were intermediary and ambivalent categories and, especially, disagreements
between the form and meaning of the words."7
Two factors in particular contributed to the voice form-function disagreement
in the Koine period. First, Chrys C. Caragounis explains, "the feeling for the fine
distinction between the active and middle has been lost."8 He validates his claim from
Matt 15:2, where the middle form vi7ixovxai is used with an explicit direct object.9 It
seems that Caragounis is suggesting that an absolute distinction between the active and
middle is lost, not that all distinction is lost. Wallace hints at the same shift in the
language when he writes, "(1) subtleties drop out; (2) refinements blur; (3) the language
tends toward greater explicitness."10 He continues by explaining the way in which voice
shifted in the Koine period: "Voices: Direct middle declining; active voice with reflexive
pronoun normally used."11 This understanding probably captures the sentiment of
Caragounis's words because a direct object does not nullify an indirect middle
understanding, only a direct middle one. Second, a shift resulted in the domination of the
usage of the passive over the middle.
The passive won owing (a) to the loss of the feeling of the fine shade of
distinction between them, (b) to the fact that the passive forms (-8r|v, -Qr\c,, -Qr\,
7
Juan Signes-Codoner, "The Definitions of the Greek Middle Voice between Apollonius
Dyscolus and Constantinus Lascaris," Historiographia linguistica 32, no. 1-2 (2005): 4.
8
Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology,
repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 152; emphasis added. For more on the distinction between
the active and the middle, see "The Difficulty of Distinguishing the Active from the (Indirect) Middle" on
p. 107.
'Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 152.

10
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.
"Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 20.

21
-GnuEv, -6r|T£, -0riaav) were more regular and thus easier than the middle forms
(-a&frnv, -aco, -aaxo, -ad(ie9a, -aaaGe, -aocvto), and (c) to the popularity of
employing the reflexive ejiavixov, etc., which was clearer, in the place of the
indirect middle.12
The shifting of the dominance of the middle voice to the passive voice, which began in
Classical Greek, presented a situation in which the time was ripe for voice form-function
disjunction. Because the passive gained dominance, the passive endings apparently came
to function for both the middle and the passive. The combination of these two shifts
resulted in a situation in which middle and/or passive form verbs were used in situations
for the active.13 The passive forms could be used for the middle, but the function of the
verb was actually active because the fine distinction between the active and middle was
diminished.
These disagreements between voice form and function, as we will see, have
been an issue of study for more than two millennia. As a result, a history of the
deponency discussion will be set forth with five emphases: the ancient witness, the
Gothic witness, the medieval witness, the modern witness, and the disappointment with
deponency. We will keep a keen eye for how Greek grammarians have handled these
disagreements. The history provides the background and the impetus for the investigation
of deponency.
The Ancient Witness (ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 500)
"The Ancient Witness" is a survey of witnesses to verbal voice during the
ancient period (ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 500), especially as these witnesses intersect the history
'Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 152-53.

22
of deponency. The texts of three significant ancient grammarians will be evaluated to
determine the ancient perception of the relationship of the action of the verb to the
subject: Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius.
Dionysius Thrax
Dionysius Thrax, who lived ca. 170-90 B.C., was born in Alexandria, but he
took the name Thracian (Thrax) because his father was from Thrace. He was a disciple of
the grammarian Aristarchus of Alexandria. Dionysius Thrax's most famous work, Techne
Grammatike,lA was produced in c. 100 B.C. This date, which is linked to authenticity for
Techne Grammatike, is disputed today.15 If this early date is accepted, then Art of
Grammar was the grammar upon which all Greek grammars for eighteen hundred years
were based!16
H
Techne Grammatike is also called Art of Grammar. The Latin form of that title is found in
titles of two works: Dionysii Thracis, "Ars Grammatica," in Grammatici Graeci, ed. Gustavus Uhlig, vol.
1.1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1965); Benjamin I. Wheeler, review of Dionysii
Thracis Ars Grammatica qualem exemplaria vetustissima exhibent subscriptis discrepantiis et testimoniis
quae in codicibus recentioribus scholiis erotematis apud alios scriptores interpretem Armenium
reperiuntur, ed. Gustavus Uhlig, AJP 6, no. 2 (1885). The first mentioned work is the standard edition of
Dionysius Thrax's grammar.
15
Thomas Davidson, introduction in The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, by Dionysios Thrax,
trans. Thomas Davidson (St. Louis: R. P. Studley, 1874), 3; Vincenzo Di Benedetto, "Dionysius Thrax and
the Tekne Grammatiks," in History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution
of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, ed. Sylvain Auroux et al., 3 vols., Handbook
of Linguistics and Communication Science, ed. Armin Burkhardt, Hugo Steger, and Herbert Ernst
Wiegand, vol. 18 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 394.
16
David Alan Black, "The Study of New Testament Greek in the Light of Ancient and Modern
Linguistics," in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, rev. ed., ed. David Alan
Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 236. "Dionysius' TEKVT)
rpajuîaziKri served as the model for every handbook of Greek grammar at least until the end of the
XVIIIth century. Even in the Greek grammars now in use both the arrangement of the material and the
grammatical terminology still largely go back to his manual" (Alfons Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri
from Graeco-Roman Egypt: Contributions to the Study of the 'Ars Grammatica' in Antiquity,
Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van
Belgie: Klasse der Letteren, vol. 41, no. 92 [Brussel: Paleis der Academien, 1979], 35).
23
In recent decades, denial of the authenticity of Techne Grammatike has been
spearheaded by Vincenzo Di Benedetto. Although its authenticity was questioned in
antiquity, it came to be regarded as the authentic work of Dionysius Thrax. Di Benedetto
briefly summarizes the history of scholarly consensus on the grammatical work.
The attribution of the Tekhne to Dionysius Thrax was rejected already in

Antiquity . . . . The denial of authenticity was not an ad hoc conjecture, but was
based on facts.
In the first half of the 19th century the authenticity of the Tekhne was denied
by C. G. Goettling and K. Lehrs, but since the work of M. Schmidt (1852-53) its
authenticity was generally regarded as an established fact, until it was called into
question by Di Benedetto (1958,1959).17
Despite its disputed pedigree, it should be noted that in both the nineteenth
century and today, authenticity is often accepted.18 For example, in a review of the critical
edition of Techne Grammatike in 1885, Benjamin I. Wheeler asserts the authenticity of a
second century B.C. date and concludes that its author was Dionysius Thrax.19 The
authenticity of this work is observed even in the current work of Chrys C. Caragounis.20
There are several important questions to consider which bear upon the
authenticity of Techne Grammatike. Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter state these well:
- Could a book like the Techne have existed in the time of Dionysius Thrax?
- At what point in the history of grammar in Antiquity can we expect the concepts
and terminology of the Techne to have been available?
- How unified was grammar at any given point between the first century BC and
the fifth century AD?
l7
Di Benedetto, "Dionysius Thrax and the Tekne Grammatike," 397.
18
In antiquity, the manual's authenticity was disputed because of discrepancies between the
outline at the beginning of the work and the content in the body and because of contradictions with other
authors who were later quoting Techne Grammatike (Wouters, Grammatical Papyri, 36). For a list of
scholars who hold to the authenticity of Techne Grammatike, see Wouters, Grammatical Papyri, 36nl7.
19
Wheeler, review of Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica 225.

24
- Assuming that Dionysius's own grammar in fact existed in the first century BC,
could it plausibly have got lost, in whole or in part? Who would have wanted to
rewrite it, and why?
- What was the Techne meant for? Was it a textbook for students, or intended for
colleagues?21
The inauthenticity of Techne Grammatike is largely deduced from internal
criticism. Di Benedetto has surmised that because the grammatical milieu of the first
century B.C. was not conducive to writing a grammatical treatise such as Techne
Grammatike, it must have been written in the fourth century A.D. when the Sitz im Leben
was ripe.
There are five specific arguments against the authenticity of Techne
Grammatike. First, there is a discrepancy between §1 and §§2-20 in Techne Grammatike.
This discrepancy seems to indicate multiple sources (i.e., two authors). Di Benedetto
argues that the first section is authentically from Dionysius Thrax. However, §§2-20 are
from a fourth-century grammarian who used Dionysius Thrax's definition of grammar
(§1) at the beginning of his work.22 Second, later writings ascribed authority to
Apollonius Dyscolus, not to Dionysius Thrax. Similarly, later writings define the verb
differently than Dionysius Thrax, following Apollonius Dyscolus in substance. If Techne
21
Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter, "Introduction," in Dionysius Thrax and the Techne
Grammatike, ed. Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter, The Henry Sweet Society Studies in the History of
Linguistics, ed. John Flood et al., vol. 1 (Munster: Nodus, 1995), 11.
22
Di Benedetto, "Dionysius Thrax and the Tekne Grammatiki," 397'. David Blank holds a
similar view. He holds that the work originally penned by Dionysius Thrax must have been more elaborate
than the scanty text we now have called Techne Grammatike (David Blank, "The Organization of Grammar
in Ancient Greece," in History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of
the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, ed. Sylvain Auroux et al., 3 vols., Handbook of
Linguistics and Communication Science, ed. Armin Burkhardt, Hugo Steger, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand,
vol. 18 [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000], 407). See also Wouters, Grammatical Papyri, 36.
25
Grammatike were extant, why would authority and the treatment of the verb not have
followed Dionysius Thrax?23
In the first century AD the xexvai are only sketch compendia which differ from
the Techne not only in extent, but also for a considerable part of their contents.. . .
The manuals of the second and third centuries AD, on the other hand, treat some
points of grammatical doctrine in considerably more detail than does the Techne,
whereas for their contents they generally show more similarity to the works of
Apollonius Dyscolus (first half of the second century AD) and to the later Latin
grammarians than to the Techne itself.24
Fourth, no manuscripts are extant of Techne Grammatike until the fourth century A.D.
Fifth, the Techne Grammatike is not cited until the fifth or sixth century.25 In summary,
five principal arguments are used in order to refute Techne Grammatike's authenticity.
Let us return to the questions about the authenticity of this work. Law and
Sluiter write, "Assuming that Dionysius's own grammar in fact existed in the first
century BC, could it plausibly have got lost, in whole or in part? Who would have wanted
to rewrite it, and why?"26 If these questions can be answered, then most of the arguments
against authenticity can be answered. These questions relate to the grammatical Sitz im
Leben in the ancient world. The papyrological evidence suggests that a milieu that would
produce a work such as Techne Grammatike is precisely what did exist in the ancient
world. In the first century A.D., there were elementary manuals of Greek grammar found
23
Di Benedetto, "Dionysius Thrax and the Tekne Grammatike," 398. See also Wouters,
Grammatical Papyri, 36.
24
Alfons Wouters, "The Grammatical Papyri and the Techne Grammatike of Dionysius
Thrax," in Dionysius Thrax and the Techne Grammatike, ed. Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter, The Henry
Sweet Society Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. John Flood et al., vol. 1 (Miinster: Nodus, 1995),
96. Wouters is the greatest proponent of the authenticity of Techne Grammatike (Signes-Codoner,
"Definitions of Middle Voice," 3n4).
25
Di Benedetto, "Dionysius Thrax and the Tekne Grammatike" 398-99.
'Law and Sluiter, "Introduction," 11.

alongside of contemporaneous, more detailed grammars. The inference is that these
manuals were based upon a model. It seems that this grammatical manual that was a
model for other xe%vai was actually Dionysius Thrax's Techne Grammatike?1 Wouters
explains, "Some new papyri of the first-second centuries show a remarkable resemblance
with §§6-20 of the Techne as we have them now."28 It is known from the textual history
of other ancient written documents that it is not unusual to find a document for which its
early history is no longer extant, especially one written in the B.C. era. Di Benedetto's
claim that the textual history indicates a later date is weak. The data simply do not
demand such a conclusion. As a result, it seems that it is best to accept the authenticity of
Dionysius Thrax's Techne Grammatike, giving it a date of approximately 100 B.C.29 The
result is a document whose pedigree demands that it be given attention, and it rests as the
foundation of formal grammatical study.
Having established the authenticity of Dionysius Thrax's work, let us now
focus on the meaning of his discussion of voice and how it relates to deponency.
IIEPI 'FHMATOZ
Tfj|j,& eaxi Xefyq aTCxcoxot;, 87U5£KTIKTI xpovcov xe KOU 7rpoarimcov iced
dpiGjj-cov, evepyeiav r\ naQoqrcapio-xaaa.Ilaps7teTai 8e xa> pfmaxi OKXCQ,
eyKA,iaet<;, SiaSeaeiq, eiSr|, a%fiuaxa, apiGuoi, 7tpoaco7ia, %povoi, tru^vyiai.
'EyKAacnec; uev ovv eiaircevxe,6piaxiKf|, 7tpoaxaKxiKfi, £TJKXIKTI,
TLmoxocKxiKri, &7Eape|J,(t)axo<;.
27
Wouters, "The Grammatical Papyri," 96-98.
28
Wouters, "The Grammatical Papyri," 98.
29
It must, however, be admitted that Techne Grammatike underwent changes over the
centuries (Wouters, Grammatical Papyri, 36). In the very least, even if the authenticity of Techne
Grammatike is rejected, the conclusions drawn still apply to the grammatical milieu of the ancient world
(500 B.C.-A.D. 500). Because I am comfortable with Techne Grammatike's authenticity, I will place more
weight in the conclusions. In other words, I affirm that Dionysius Thrax's work was the foundation for all
grammatical studies for eighteen hundred years. (See n 16 on p. 22 and the sentence that it supports.)
27
AIOCOECJEK;eiai ipelq, evepyeia, 7ia0o<;, uEaornq- evspyeia U.EV olov TUTCTCO,

7id0o<; 8e olov ru7tTO|ioa, u£a6Tn<; 8E f] 7ioxe UEV evepyeiav noxe 8e 7ia0o<;
Tiapiaxaaa, olov 7i87triYoc Si£<|>0opct £7r.ovr|GauT|v eypa\)/d|a,Tiv.30
CONCERNING THE VERB

The verb is a word peculiar in form without cases, capable of containing
tenses and persons and numbers, representing activity or passivity. But eight
[characteristics] belong to the verb: moods, voices, species, forms, numbers,
persons, tenses, conjugations.
Therefore, there are five moods: indicative, imperative, optative, subjunctive,
infinitive.
There are three voices: active, passive, middle; active such as xvuico, but
passive such as TUTtToum, but middle representing at one time active and at
another time passive, such as 7t£7rnya 8i£(t>0opa ETtovnaauTrv £ypou|/aur|v.
Techne Grammatike provides us with important information about the
understanding of voice at ca. 100 B.C. The first paragraph provides a definition of the
verb. In the first sentence, we observe £V£py£uxv (activity) and 7t&0o<; (passivity)
mentioned for the first time. The second sentence clearly identifies eight characteristics
of the verb. Among those, the second mentioned characteristic is 8i&0£ci<; (voice). The
three voices are distinctly noted in the third paragraph: EVEpyEia, 7t&0o<;, and \ieooTV\q
(middle).
However, there is an apparent discrepancy between paragraphs one and three.
In the first sentence, only two voices are mentioned: EVEpyEtav and 7i&0o<;, whereas in
the third paragraph, there are three voices mentioned: EVEpysioc, naBoc,, and UEaoxriq.
This is not a real discrepancy if figurative language is recognized. In the first occurrence
of only two voices, synecdoche is being utilized. The parts (Evspysmv and naQoq) are
30
Thracis, "Ars Grammatica," 46-53. The English translation that follows is my own and was
translated from the standard edition for Dionysius Thrax's grammar. For another English translation, see
Dionysios Thrax, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, trans. Thomas Davidson (St. Louis: R. P. Studley,
1874).
28
being used for the whole (5I&0£OK;). The recognition of the figure of speech eliminates
the apparent discrepancy.
Dionysius Thrax says that ueaoTnt; fluctuates between reflecting an active and
a passive verb. The interpretation is extremely difficult. Rijksbaron notes, "The ultimate
problem with the category of 'middle' [in Dionysius Thrax] would seem to be that it is
too wide: 8ie<|)0opa, £ypa\|/6:|xnv . . . can only be brought together under one heading at
the cost of a considerable loss of clarity."31 There are two possible interpretations of the
seminal grammarian's statement: (1) there is an incongruity between the form and
function of the verb32 or (2) there are "verbs that individually have forms that may have
active as well as passive meaning."33 To understand the description of \iea6ir\q, we must
look at his examples, which are listed in Table 1: Dionysus Thrax's Examples off]
(xeaoirn; Voice.
Table 1: Dionysus Thrax's Examples of r\ usaoTnc; Voice

evepyeiav naQoq [ieooxr\q
.„ . ,. , „. TU7rroaai (Pres, Pass, Indie, 1, 7i£7trrYa (Perf, Act, Indie, 1, Sine

TimTco(Pres, Act, TIndie, 1, Sing „. IT , . T . , . T '
fw.m-rvw-r,-*
from TIOTTCD, mooninnrrtriM
meaning I strike) Sing from TUTITCO, meaning I am from 7irr/vvui, meaning I fix
struck) [for/by myself])
8ie(|>0opa (Perf, Act, Indie, 1,

Sing from 8ux<t>0£ipco, meaning I
destroy [for/by myself])
31
Albert Rijksbaron, "The Treatment of the Greek Middle Voice by the Ancient
Grammarians," in Philosophic du langage et grammaire dans I'antiquite, Cahiers de philosophie ancienne,
vol. 5 (Editions Ousia: Grenoble, 1986), 433.
32
Albert Rijksbaron says that the incongruity connotes "verbs that have active forms but
passive meaning and vice versa" (Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 428). However, I understand the text
to indicate a verb whose morphology is active or passive but its function is middle.
'Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 428.

29
evepyeiav naQoq [teoovriq
£7iovnad|rnv (Aor, Pass,34 Indie,

1, Sing from Ttoveco, meaning I
do [for/by myself])
35
£Ypa\(/auT|v (Aor, Pass, Indie,
1, Sing from ypdcfico, meaning I
write [for/by myself])
For our discussion of deponency, the examples, TtETrnycx, 5iec|)0opa,
£7rovnaaur|v, and eypottj/au.r|v are significant. The first two forms are perfect verbs that
possess active endings with passive meaning, and the last two convey active function.36
Nevertheless, Dionysius Thrax tells us that they are all middle. It seems that the correct
interpretation of Dionysius Thrax is the first interpretation: there is an incongruity
between the form and function of the verb. The designation of these verbs by Dionysius
Thrax as middle tells us that there was an understood incongruity between the form of
these verbs (either active or passive) and their function (middle).37 As such, the function
34
See n 36.
35
See n 36.
36
Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 428. We would now say that £7tovna&UTiv and
EYpa\|/&uriv are conjugated as middles.
"Nevertheless, the second interpretation is not impossible. However, for our purposes, we
simply want to observe the inconsistency between form and function. Whether the cause is semantic or
lexical is inconsequential at this point (Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 428). Paul Kent Andersen has
gone too far in his interpretation of Techne Grammatike. He argues that the ancient grammarians
understood well this incongruity between the form and function of verbs. However, Andersen claims, based
on his interpretation of Dionysius Thrax, that there is no passive voice in Classical Greek. He says that
evepyeuxv means active, and 7td8o<; means middle. Then, |a.eooxr|q, the exception to the rule, is a
contextually dependent categorization of a verb that reflects this mismatch between form and function.
UEO6XT|<; then can refer either (1) to an active verb which functions as a middle or (2) a passive verb that
functions as an active (Paul Kent Andersen, "Remarks on Dionysios Thrax's Concept of 'Diathesis',"
Historiographia linguistica 21, no. 1/2 [1994]: 1-37). Although this second category is appealing to this
study, it seems that Andersen has read more into his interpretation than the text can support. He even
alludes to the fact that his interpretation had not previously been well received (Andersen, "Dionysios
Thrax's Concept of 'Diathesis'," 17).
30
of the verb is at odds with its morphology. This is a category that the ancient
grammarians struggled to explain. Rijksbaron sums it up succinctly:
All things considered, the discussion of the 'middle' voice in Dionysius . . . can
hardly be called satisfactory. There is a constant hesitation concerning verbs that
'behave improperly', i.e. whose meaning is not what it may [sic] expected to be
on the basis of their morphology. The primacy of the 'normal' verbs that have
either active morphology and active, or, rather, transitive, meaning, or passive
morphology and passive meaning, apparently was so dominating that the verbs
whose morphology and meaning are at variance were a permanent source of
uneasiness.
The active or passive form with a middle function is the inverse of what is
called deponency today. Therefore, it seems that this unusual use of the verb, which is
exceptional because of its incongruous state, was known in our earliest Greek grammar.
The exceptional verbal function existed and was wrestled with even in this early stage of
the language.39
Apollonius Dyscolus
Apollonius Dyscolus (ca. A.D. 100-150) lived in Alexandria and wrote several
works. However, only four of his works on four different subjects are extant: pronoun,
conjunction, adverb, and syntax. His publications raised the study of Greek grammar to a
scientific endeavor40 and "formed the most complete treatment of Greek grammar in the
world of ancient Greek scholarship."41 There are two passages in the writings of
38
Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 433.
39
Rijksbaron has further explanation from Heliodorus that supports his conclusions. See
(Rijksbaron, "Greek Middle Voice," 428-29).
40
M. C. Howatson, ed., The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2nd ed. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989), 44.
41
31
Apollonius Dyscolus that provide us with information on the voice of the verb in the
ancient period. Let us examine each individually.
De constructione
30. "Ecxi Kod em 8ux0£G£co<; TO xoiowov enibelâi. xd yap KaXouuEva u£aa

a%Ti)j,axa ar>v£U7r.xcQGiv dve8eâxo evepynxiKfic; Kai 7r,a0r|xiKfi<; 8ia0£O£co<;, cov ye
ccKpiPeotepov £7u8£ti;ou£v EV xfj 5eoi3crn auvxdêi xcov prpaxcov, Kai EV6EV OTJ
7capa xd; 8ia0£O£i<; duapxdv£xai. xo yap £?iouo-dur|v Kai £7tovnaduT|v Kai
£xpttj/dur|v Kai xd XOTJXOK; ouoia e%ei EKStiA-oxaxrvv xfiv cruvxaîv oxe UEV
ev£pyr|xiKf|v, oxe 8e 7ta0r|xiKr|v, eiye xo £xpiv|/a XOTJ expu|/duT|v 8ia(|)epei Kai xo
eôtiaa XOTJ eA-OTjo-dfrnv, TtapaKetxai 8e xa> Ercovnaa xo ETtovnaduriv Kai exi xco
TrpofJKa xo 7ipot|Kd|xriv. 01 ye \ir\v aTteipoxepov 7iepi xd; XOTJTCOV 8ia(|>opa;
KaxaywouEvoi o'iovxai eaG' oxe 7ta0TixiKd; 8ia9eaei<; evxi evepynxiKcov
7rapa?ia|iPdvea0ai, ov uxKpov d|j,dpxri|j,arcpoadTtxovxec;xoi; ôyoiq. xo yap dvxi
evepynxiKoti 7ra9rixiKcp %piT,a0ai XoyoTj eaxiv XOTJ dKaxaAA,t|A,OTj- OTJK dv youv xi;
xo (|)-6aei evepynxiKov r\ xo tyvcei TraGnxiKov e-upoi dv ev x>naXkayf\ xcov
SiaGeaecov, ?ieyco xo e7roir|aa dvxi XOTJ e7toifi0r|v f| xo £7r.oif|0r|v dvxi xot>
eTioiriaa. ouoXoyov OTJV xo
duôxepco KeK07ic6; {N 60}
r\
KEK'krYfCdc, dyopii0ev {B 264}
pdp8co nenh^yvla {K 238}

<il>
oxi pa 0vf)aKovxa; opdxo {A 56},
xd XOTJXOK; ouoia, ax; 8id xov TEpoetprpevov ?t6yov xfjc; uecroxrixo; OIJK
dv0\)TcriA,A,aKxai Kaxd xfjv 8id0eow, Kaxd 8e xov Seovxa A,6yov xfi; cruvxaêoo;
en' d|a.(j)OX£pa<; xdq SiaOecei; e<|)0aaav.42
30. It is even to show the similar thing on 8id0£Gi; 43 For the ones called middle
forms take up with coincidence active and passive SidGecn;, of which indeed we
will demonstrate accurately with the proper syntax of the verbs, and thereafter
there is no missing the mark by the SiaGeo-ei;. For eXoTjaduiiv, £7ioitiad(xriv,
£xpi\|/duT|v, and similar ones have corresponding syntax, sometimes active but
42
Apollonii Dyscoli, "De constructione," in Grammatici Graeci, ed. Gustavus Uhlig, vol. 2.2
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1883; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), 296-97 (§30). The English translation that
follows is my own and was translated from the standard edition for Apollonius Dyscolus' grammar, which
can also be read in TLG. An English translation can also be found in Fred W. Householder, The Syntax of
Apollonius Dyscolus, trans. Fred W. Householder, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of
Linguistic Science: Series III—Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. E. F. Konrad Koerner, vol. 23
(Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981), 165 (§30).
43
Not all scholars are satisfied with the term 'voice'. For this reason, I have left untranslated
the Greek term which means essentially voice, 8id0eot<;.
32
sometimes passive, if indeed expu|/a differs from eTpi\j/&|xnv, and eXovoa from
eXouG&frnv, but £7i;oiT|adu.r|v is closely connected with £7rovncja and 7tpor|K&uT|v
with 7ipofiKa. Indeed those who busy themselves with these differences you
consider ignorant when passive SuxGeaeu; is to be employed for active, not
fastening a little failure to the words. For to use a passive of a word in place of an
active is ungrammatical. At least a person would not find the active by nature or
the passive by nature in hypallage of the voices, I say TO ETtoiriaa in the place of
TOVJ e7toif|0r|v or TO £7r.ovn.0r|v in the place of xov £7toir|0"a. Therefore, agreeing
OCUÔTepOO K8KO7l(0(;
or
nenXr\y(oq dyopfjGEV
or
pdp5co neKXr\yvla
or
OTI pa 8vfiaK0VTa<; opdTO
resembling such ones, as because of the word which was said beforehand about
the middle, it has not substituted according to diathesis, but according to the
necessary word of syntax it was applied on both the diatheses.
In this description of voice, Apollonius Dyscolus focuses specifically on verbs
with middle form (axfju.cc); however, his words here are cryptic. In fact, Fred W.
Householder summarizes this passage by saying "this is hardly a satisfying account of the
middle."44 The morphology of these 'middle' verbs' can indicate either activity or
passivity. He illustrates his point with eXovaa\ir\v, ETtoinaduriv, and £Tpu|/dur|v. Each of
these is parsed according to its morphology as aorist, middle, indicative, first person,
singular. Nevertheless, Apollonius Dyscolus informs us that these verbs can function as
actives or passives.45 This is evident in his comparison and contrast in the verbal sample
used. He says that £Tpi\|/a and eXovca are different in meaning from 8Tpiv|/duT|v and
£A,oi)aduT|v, which seems to indicate that he sees these middle forms as related to the
passive. He stops short of saying that they were passive because these words do not
44
Householder, Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 166.
45
More specifically, Apollonius Dyscolus may have in mind the concepts of transitive and
intransitive, respectively (Householder, Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 165).
33
actually carry a passive function. In contrast, e7tovna&uT)v (and 7tpoT)KauT|v46) are
described as being similar to enm-noa (and 7tpof|Ka), which seems to indicate that these
middle verbal forms connote an active function.47
The remainder of the passage is especially difficult. He explains that those
who consider the interchange of voice functions as valid are ignorant because such an
exchange would be unnatural and ungrammatical. Householder explains that there are
only two voice possibilities for Apollonius Dyscolus: active and passive. The middle
forms do not carry a distinct middle meaning.48 His examples seem to illustrate that
middle forms for which a passive sense would be expected are found with a transitive
active.49
In conclusion, although Apollonius Dyscolus's first description of the middle
voice is cryptic, one thing is clear: there is room within his understanding of voice for a
discrepancy to exist between the form and function of the verb with reference to voice. It
should also be observed that this understanding of voice corresponds closely to the
definition of diathesis by Dionysius Thrax. However, the situation in Dionysius Thrax is
the opposite of the one found here in Apollonius Dyscolus. In Dionysius Thrax, the verbs
have active or passive morphology but middle function. In Apollonius Dyscolus, the
verbs have middle morphology but active or passive function. In either case, there is
incongruity between form and function.
46
It seems odd that Apollonius Dyscolus would introduce another example into the discussion
at this point. This further illustrates the cryptic nature of his description of diathesis here.
47
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 20.
48
Householder, Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 165.
"'Householder, Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 166.

34
Apollonius Dyscolus' second contribution to our understanding of the way in
which ancient grammarians comprehended voice is considered next.
De constructione
151. xd yot>v 5id xov ueaoi) eveaxcoxoq ev xmcp 7r.a8r|xiKcp evepyeiav

armaivovxa drcapaSeKTOv e%ei xf|V 5id xov co Kaxd?ir|îv, evepyr|XiKf|v ouaav,
ercei TO xavxrn; evxpriaxov 8id xov 7tpoeipr|uevoi) ueaou eveaxcbxoc; KaxeiA,r|7r.xo,
cb<; £%ei TO Pidôum ae, |xd%o|a.ai aoi, %pcouod aoi Kai dXA,a 7rA,eiaxa. cafyec, ovv
oxi 7iavx6<; 7ia0rixiKO\) sic; uai A,f|yovxoc; evepynxiKov eaxiv TiapaSeâaGai, eav
uexd xf\q KaTaXfii;eco<; ai)vxpe%r| Kai xd xr\q auvxaêax;, laxaum k o aou—
laxripi ae, 8epoum vnb GOV—Sepco ae, e^Koum IOTO aou—eA,Kco ae- ouî to
Ttexaum vnb GOV, Sid xcuxo o\)5e xo nexripi ae. 6 avxbq Xoyoq Kai eni xo-O
ayauai, Suvaum, epauai. 50
151. Hence, the ones [verbs] which signify activity by the present middle in the
passive pattern have the -co ending inadmissible, which is active, since its use had
been seized by the aforementioned present middle, as Pidôum ae has, adjourn
aoi, %pcoum aoi and many others. Therefore, it is clear that every passive which
terminates in -urn has an active, if it should agree with the ending and the things
which are of syntax, taxaum 10716 GOV—laxrpi ae, Sepouai vnb GOV—8epco ae,
eA-Koum vnb GOV—eA,Kco ae: not xo 7texa(xai k o GOV, because of this neither xo
Ttexrmi ae. The same word also is for xov dyaum, Suvaum, epaum.
In this segment, Apollonius Dyscolus has further contributed to our
understanding of voice, specifically deponency, in ancient grammatical studies. He tells
us that there are occasions in which a verb with present middle morphology is used to
signify a verb with present active function. In such cases, the co ending, which itself is
active, is no longer available to be used by the verbal paradigm. Although not explicitly
stated, the inference is that the corresponding verbal endings for the present active also
are not available (-co, -exq, -ei, -ouev, -exe, -ovai). The reason the co ending is no longer
available to the verbal paradigm, Apollonius Dyscolus tells us, is that the active function
was seized (KaxeiA,r|7rxo) by the present middle. BDAG says that KaxaA,a|j.(3dvco generally
50
Dyscoli, "De constructione," 398 (§151). The English translation that follows is my own and
was translated from the standard edition for Apollonius Dyscolus' grammar, which can also be read in
TLG. An English translation can also be found in Householder, Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 209 (§151).
35
means "to seize, lay hold of."51 The result of this phenomenon is that the active
morphological ending is no longer used in this situation. In this sense, it seems that
Apollonius Dyscolus viewed these verbs as defective in some way.52
The examples used demonstrate that the ancient understanding of the use of
voice knew well the concept of deponency. The second two examples (\iaxo\iai and
Xpcouai), because they are widely viewed as deponents, seem to be apropos illustrations
of the discussion. The first example, Pi&ôuod ae, is a middle form with an active use, as
the direct object signifies. However, the active form is found in classical Greek. LSJ and
BDAG tell us that the usual form for Pi&ôo was Pioôum.53 Why then did Apollonius
Dyscolus include this verb, which seems contrary to his thesis, as an example of a verb
with middle morphology but active function? There are two answers. First, based on his
silence, it may be that Apollonius Dyscolus simply did not conceive of pi&ôum
(fk&ôum vnb GOV) as functioning passively. A search of TLG reveals that the present
active indicative of Piocôum is only found four times in the second century A.D.; thus,
Apollonius Dyscolus may not have been aware of the active forms. Later grammarians
may have introduced a passive understanding into the discussion. Secondly, because
Pi&ôum was grouped so closely with ua%o[ioa and xpwuxn, which are both generally
regarded as deponent verbs, it seems that he viewed them as analogous examples.54
BDAG, 519. See LSJ, 897, which also supports the nuance of "seize" for KOCTOCXOCUPOCVCO.
!
Signes-Codoiier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 18.
'LSJ, 314 (s.v. II); BDAG, 175.
'Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 18.

36
Signes-Codoner summarizes, "He treated them all [fk&ôum, n&%oum, and %pcouou] in
fact as deponents, although we have an active Pid^co."55
Therefore, this use of the middle voice in ancient grammatical discussion
provides evidence for deponency. Although the term 'deponent' was not used, the
prevailing conceptualization of the phenomenon was understood well. The resulting
interpretation of this text by Apollonius Dyscolus is that this ancient grammarian did in
fact conceive of the mismatch between form and function by which the middle/passive
form functioned actively, a description corresponding to deponency!56 In the situation as
described by Apollonius Dyscolus, the active morphology would cease to be used
because it was overtaken by the middle morphology, although this principle is not
universally true.
Macrobius
Macrobius, whose major work was done ca. A.D. 410-430, is an influential
ancient grammarian who wrote On the Differences and Similarities of the Greek and
Latin Verb (De differentiis et societatibus graeci latinique verbi).57 His information on
deponency is strategic because he wrote in (and thus knew) Latin, and he published
discussion on Greek grammar. His purpose was to compare the Latin verbal system to the
55
Signes-Codofier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 18.
56
"Accordingly, through Def. B.2 [middle implies discrepancy between form and meaning in
the whole paradigm of some verbs] the middle verbs are somehow equated with the deponents, for which
Greek grammarians never developed a specific category until the Renaissance" (Signes-Codoner,
"Definitions of Middle Voice," 18).
"Michael Grant, Greek and Latin Authors: 800 B.C.-A.D. 1000, The Wilson Authors Series
(New York: H. W. Wilson, 1980), 271. Two additional grammarians exist between Apollonius Dyscolus
and Macrobius: Aelius Herodianus (second century A.D.) and Theodosius of Alexandria (early fifth century
A.D.) (Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 28). Aelius Herodianus, whose extant work is
mostly in the realm of phonology, was the son of Apollonius Dyscolus (Householder, Syntax of Apollonius
Dyscolus, 5).
37
Greek verbal system.58 The text that follows is an excerpt from a "ninth-century
abridgement of Macrobius' exposition of the Greek middle voice."59
(A.2) Sunt apud Graecos communia, quae ab illis uecxx vocantur, quae, dum in
urn desinant, et actum et passionem una eademque forma designat, ut Pid£ou.ai
oe Kod (3idôu.ai vnb GOV, dv8pa7to8i£o|j.ai ae Kai dvSpa7to8i£oum k o GOV. (C)
Sola quoque passiva hoc nomine, id est u£aa, vocantur, ut f)X£i\|rdur|v fiadur|v
eA.o'ua&u.riv. Haec enim licet xr\c, u£crn<; dxaQeoewq dicant, nihil tamen aliud
significant nisi 7td0o<;: nam hoc est fi^£i|v)/dur|v quod riA.ei(j)8riv; hoc est f)ad(xnv
quod Tia0r|v. Item £ypa\j/dur|v £<j)du.r|v ESOUTIV |xeaa appellant, cum nihil
significant praeter actum. Hoc est enim Eypaydfrnv quod £ypa\|/a, nee umquam
dicitur vnb GOV eypa\|/&ur|v, et hoc s(j)d(xriv quod £§r\v, hoc est ESou/nv quod
e8cov. (B.2) Ergo et ilia quae superius diximus, (j)et8o(j,ai GOV, KT|8OUOU, GOV,
i7i7rd0ouai \ia%o\iai 8ia?i£yo|j.ai nspifiXeKoiiai ScopcOfxai %ocpiôja.cxi ev%o\iai
dya|j,ai, cum actum solum significent, u£aa tamen appellantur; licet his similia
Latini non communia, sed deponentia nominent. (skipped) Est et haec Graecorum
a Latinitate dissensio, quod cum Latini numquam verbum commune dicant, nisi
quod sit simile passivo, (B.l) Graeci tamen quaedam et activis similia ueacx
dixerunt, ut 7i£7tr|ya, quod UECTOV dicitur et sub activo sono solam significat
passionem: hoc est enim 7t£7rnya quod 7r£7rnyu.oa. (A.l) ri£7iA.riya vero, d(])' ov TO
'7t£7cA,r|yd)<; dyopflGev',
Kai K£K07ia, d(j)' ov xo
'dp,(|)OT£pa) K£K07l(b<;',
tarn de actu quam de passione dicuntur. Lectum est enim et 7t£7rA,r)yco<; GE et
7T£7tA,riy(b<; VKO GOV,
'nenXrYYioq dyopfi0£v'
Kai
'pdp5co 7i£7tX,riyma'.60
(A.2) There are in Greek communia, which is called by this u£aa, which while
they end in um, both active and passive indicate a single form, as (3idôu.ai GE
Kai (3id£ouxxi vnb GOV, dv8pa7to8i£ouai a£ Kai dv8pa7io8iô|j,ai vnb GOV.61
(C) Forms which have only a passive meaning are also called by this name, that is
58
Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 63.
59
^Paolo de Paolis, Macrobii Theodosii: De verborum Graeci et Latini differentiis vel

societatibus excerpta, Testi grammaticali latini, vol. 1 (Urbino: QuattroVenti, 1990), 163,165. The
numerical divisions which are within parentheses are not a part of the text in de Paolis; they have been
added in order to facilitate the discussion about voice in this passage. The divisions correspond to the way
in which Signes-Codoner has divided the text (with the exception that he does not discuss the section
labeled "skipped") (Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 10,12,16,18,21).
The English translation is my own.

38
to say, u£aa, like r|X£U|/auT|v f|aaur|v and eXov<5aiir\v. Although they [the Greek
grammarians] speak of these forms as if pertaining to the u£ar| 8id0eaiq, they
have no other meaning but ndQoq, for the same means f|?i£ttj/au.T|v as fi^£i(|)9r|v,
and the same fiaocur|v as fjaGnv. Similarly, they name UECTOC forms like
£ypavj/dur|v, £(|)du.r|v, E86UT|V, when these forms have no other meaning but
activity, for the same means £ypa\|/auriv as eypa\|/a—you never say vnb GOV
£Ypa\j/&|xnv—, and the same £<|)d|j.r|v as e§r\v, and the same £86ur|v as ESCOV.62
(B.2) Therefore even the ones that we said earlier, <))£i8opai GOV, KT|8oum GOV,
imtdGoum u.a%ou.ou SiaÊyouai 7t£piP^£7io|a.ai 8copo,uu.ai xapiôpoa Euôum
ayaum, since they signify active alone, however they are accustomed to be
named middle, although similar to the Latin [are] not communia, but they are
named deponentia. (skipped) Although even at this point that the Greek and Latin
are at variance, because when Latin never generally indicates a verb, except that
may be a similar passive,63 (B.l) [t]he Greeks [however] named as middle some
verbs that are similar to the actives, like 7t£7rnya, that is named middle, means
only passivity and has only the active form, for 7r,£7rnya is the same as 7i£7iny|a.ai.64
(A.l) n£7tA,rrya however, atf ov TO
'7i;£7i?ir|y(b(; dyopf|9£v',
KOU K£K07ia, d(|)' OV TO
'du.()>OT£pC0 K£K07lO)<;',
So, from the active was indicated the passive. The selected is for instance both
7t£7r^riyco<; GE and
7i£7rX,riyd)<; vnb GOV,
'nenh^ycoq dyopfl0£v'
KOU,
'p&P8cp 7i£7i^riyma' .65
Signes-Codofier rightly interprets Macrobius' text as affirming three different
but related understandings of the middle voice, which as we will see relate directly to the
present discussion of deponency.
Nuances of Middle Voice in Macrobius

A. Middle means activity or passivity according to the syntactic context
1. In some forms of the verbal paradigm.
Signes-Codofier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 21. The text within brackets was included
in the quoted translation.
63
"Signes-Codofier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 16. The "however" which is included in the
brackets was included in the Latin but omitted in Signes-Codofier's translation.
65
39
2. In the whole paradigm of some verbs.

B. Middle implies discrepancy between form and meaning
1. In some forms of the verbal paradigm.
2. In the whole paradigm of some words.
C. Middle as an ambiguous category meaning activity in some verbs and
passivity in others [i]n some forms of the verbal paradigm.66
Macrobius provides us with insight into the range of uses of the middle voice.
First, with regard to use A (activity or passivity), a fluctuating function of use of the
middle—activity or passivity—seems to reflect a situation in which the use of the middle
voice is recognized as possessing fluidity. Its function is not strictly controlled by its
form. There are times in which the verb indicates activity, and there are other times in
which the verb indicates passivity—depending upon the syntactical context. Further
notice that the variation occurs either (1) in the entire paradigm of a particular verb or (2)
only in some stem(s) of a particular verb. In this way, lexeme plays a role in how the verb
portrays activity or passivity.67
Second, with regard to use B (discrepancy between form and function), we
find a description of voice that coincides with the description of voice found in Dionysius
Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus.
Middle voice is said to comprise some specific forms or tenses like the active
perfect with passive meaning or the middle aorist with active meaning, and
excludes these same active perfects when they have active meaning (for they are
then active) and these same 'middle' aorists (with passive endings!), when they
have passive . . . meaning (for they are then passive.)68
66
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 10,12,16,17,19.
67
It is understood that the way in which lexeme affects the voice of the verb is heretofore
undefined. Determining the affects of lexeme on deponency will be a chore for the next chapter, "Defining
Deponency." See p. 103.
68
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 16. Andersen also understands Dionysius
Thrax in this way (Andersen, "Dionysios Thrax's Concept of 'Diathesis'," 1-37). See the discussion above
in n 37 on p. 29 regarding Andersen's understanding of Techne Grammatike.
40
It seems that uses B.l and B.2 are simply a variation of uses A.l and A.2, respectively.69
As a result, the nuances of voice from Macrobius are not mutually exclusive. Use B
seems to reflect the exception to the normal use of voice.70
Use B.2 is particularly pertinent to our discussion of deponency. Here we
observe verbs whose function does not match their form. A passive form is used to
indicate an active meaning, and the passive meaning is subverted. Macrobius even calls
these deponentia. In this discussion, the influence of Macrobius' Latin is felt, inasmuch
as Macrobius (1) is writing in Latin and (2) compares Greek's communia to Latin's
deponentia.71 As with the previous use, notice that the variation occurs either (1) in the
entire paradigm of a particular verb or (2) only in some stem(s) of a particular verb.
Third, with regard to use C (ambiguous category), we observe (1) some verbs
that are perfect active in form but which function (a) sometimes as actives and (b) at
other times as passives and (2) some verbs that are aorist middle but which function
(a) sometimes as actives and (b) at other times as passives. This is a broad category that
encompasses the other uses of the middle voice.72
These uses recognized by Macrobius span the entire gamut of uses of the
middle voice in ancient grammatical discussions. Thus, his treatment is broad and
informed. He articulates in a clear fashion what previous grammarians described but were
69
Signes-Codoiier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 16,18.
70
Signes-Codoner calls this "a grammatical oddity" (Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle
Voice," 16).
''"Accordingly, through Def. B.2 the middle verbs are somehow equated with the deponents,
for which Greek grammarians never developed a specific category until the Renaissance" (Signes-Codoner,
"Definitions of Middle Voice," 18).
72
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 19,21.
41
not yet able to vocalize. In particular, use B—middle implies discrepancy between form
and meaning—corresponds with the traditional understanding of deponency. This is not
to say that Macrobius articulated a grammatical category for the first time and named it
deponency. After all, we have already documented the similarities between the
description of voice between Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius.
Macrobius recognized this use of the verb as describing what his predecessors had also
described, but he was able to apply a label to this category. The application of a label did
not create the category; it simply provided terminology, a tool, for discussing the
phenomenon. Therefore, Macrobius, like Greek grammarians who preceded him,
recognized the relationship between the subject and the action or state of the verb as a
phenomenon in which there is occasionally variation or irregularity, and he was able to
apply a label to this situation—deponentia.
Summary
In summary, three significant witnesses to grammatical discussion were
evaluated from the ancient period: Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and
Macrobius. Their understandings of voice recognized situations, sometimes affected by
context or lexeme, in which there was a discrepancy between the form and function of the
verb. Macrobius called this phenomenon deponency. Although the discussion of
deponency in the ancient witnesses is still relatively primitive, the foundation is
established upon which further clarification is made later in grammatical history.

42
The Gothic Witness (ca. A.D. 500-1100)
The Gothic period, which is sometimes called the Dark Ages,73 is a period in
which little grammatical development in Greek occurred. In fact, Robins states, "Latin
was the only ancient classical language to which attention was paid, largely because
Greek works, except in translation, were no longer available."74 Beyond this fact, little
original progression was procured because even Latin was given little attention. The
Latin that was studied was obscured by the study of the Latin Vulgate, which was
different from literary Classical Latin. Because the Latin Vulgate was seen as superior
due to its content, Latin of the Gothic period was compared to and evaluated in light of
the Latin Vulgate, which was translated in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. The result
was stagnation in Latin language studies.75 Because this study is primarily focused on the
development of deponency in Greek and the Gothic period "is not of great interest to us
in tracing the history and development of grammatical studies,"76 the Gothic witness
provides infertile ground for inquiry.77
n
The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1072-73 (s.v. "Middle Ages").
74
75
Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 70-71.
76
77
Signes-Codoner lists several scholiasts as contributors to the grammatical discussion of
middle voice whose definitions he arranges following the pattern explained in the discussion above on
Macrobius (see "Nuances of Middle Voice in Macrobius" on p. 38). The scholiasts continue to utilize and
expand upon the nuances of the voice as expressed by Macrobius. The most important nuance for our
history of deponency is definition B—middle implies a discrepancy between form and meaning—because
this nuance directly reflects deponency. Of the Gothic scholiasts, Signes-Codofier only lists two as
supporting this definition (Scholiasts Marciana and Choiroboscus); however, it seems that he has mis-
categorized their nuance. Both would be better categorized as A—middle means activity or passivity
according to the syntactic context. For this reason, the Gothic scholiasts are not discussed in detail here (see
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 16-19).
Nevertheless, the Gothic scholiasts who accentuate nuance A (middle means activity or
passivity according to the syntactic context) seem to wrestle with the discrepancy between the form of the
verb and its function. The result was the creation of additional voices. The scholiasts had five voices:
43
The Medieval Witness (A.D. 1100-1453)
The medieval period was a time in which studies of Greek grammar were
recovering. Due to the decline in grammatical inquiry during the Gothic period,78 the
medieval period had to struggle in order to regain its handle on the subject. Walter
Berschin explains, "There was no textbook in the early and high Middle Ages from
which anyone in the West could learn grammatical Greek . .. ,"79 The reason no
textbooks were available was because those types of sources were intended for native
speakers, not foreigners. Once Greek was lost, the absence of grammars and lexicons
intended for the non-Greek speaker made the journey back difficult.80 The following tale
of the method that Ambrogio Traversari81 used to attain proficiency in Greek illustrates
the difficulty of learning Greek in the high Middle Ages without a suitable reference
grammar.
But since you say that you have discovered that I learned Greek without the aid of
a teacher . . . I will disclose to you how I came to my moderate knowledge of this
language. I had a Greek Psalter, quite familiar to me through religious education. I
active, passive, middle, neutral, and inclusive. Michael Syncellus even created subclasses of the active and
passive: (1) intrinsic active (passive form but active meaning) and (2) intrinsic passive (active form but
passive meaning) (Signes-Codofier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 12-16). These additional voices were
an attempt to understand a phenomenon that was apparent in which there was inconsistency with the
execution of the voice; it varied according to the syntax. As a result, although the relationship between the
subject and action of the verb was not completely comprehended, the Gothic period recognized and
wrestled with the tension caused by a discrepancy between form and function.
78
Although Greek was largely lost, some was still used: trade Greek (used for exchange with
Byzantine merchants) and phrase books were available (hermeneumata). The Greek that was lost was the
type which was useful for understanding ancient texts (Federica Ciccolella, Donati Graeci: Learning Greek
in the Renaissance, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, ed. William V. Harris et al., vol. 32
[Leiden: Brill, 2008], 86-87).
79
Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicholas of
Cusa, rev. and expanded ed., trans. Jerold C. Frakes (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1988), 34.
80
Ciccolella, Donati Graeci, 87-88.
'Ambrogio Traversari died in 1439 (Berschin, Greek Letters, 35).

44
thus began to compare it with the Latin Psalter, to note first the verbs, then nouns,
then the remaining parts of speech, and to commit the meaning of each to memory
and, to the extent possible, to remember the signification of all the words. Thus I
made a beginning. I then passed on to the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the
Acts of the Apostles, and made myself intimately acquainted with them; for they
contain a very great number of words and are all translated faithfully, diligently,
and not without elegance. Soon I indeed wished to see the books of the heathen
and understood them easily.82
Latin grammatical study had two tracks available for its development. Robins
provides a very perceptive explanation of the situation:
In grammatical studies, as in most other academic disciplines, the Romans found

already developed a body of knowledge and something like a systematic approach
to the subject, the development of which has already been considered. The history
of Latin grammatical work is therefore radically different from that of the Greeks.
There was no beginning from scratch; the two alternatives open to the Romans
82
Berschin, Greek Letters, 35.1 have provided the English translation from Berschin because
Ambrogio Traversari's text is in Latin. The Latin text follows:
Accepi litteras tuas magna certe cum uoluptate; animaduerti enim quantum me diligas quantique
facias necessitudinem nostram, quoniam quidem adeo ingenue et liberaliter mecum agis.
Conmendas mihi Karulum nepotem tuum, ut in grecis addiscendis litteris illi adiumento sim,
addisque quid uelis ad te mitti. Non tamen, Francisce carissime, id de me postulas attentius, quam
a me prestaretur gratius, si qua comoditas adsit. Verum id fateor amicissimo animo tuo quod
exhibere haud quaquam possum, nihil enim eiuscemodi penes me est, quod habeat una et greca
uerba et expositionem latinam, non modo ex Plutarcho aut ex gentilibus reliquis, uerum ne ex
sacris quidem litteris. Quoniam uero compertum tibi dixisti me grecas litteras absque miniculo
preceptoris adsecutum, atque adeo consilium atque opem in adulescentulo instituendo postulasti,
ut meis scilicet ille uestigiis per ignota itinera nitatur, pandam tibi, quo pacto mediocrem huiusce
lingue peritiam adeptus sum. Psalterium habui grecum mihi per religionis institutionem admodum
familiare. Id igitur cum latino conferre incepi atque notare turn singula turn verba turn nomina et
reliquas orationis partes, quidque singula significarent mandare memorie ac uim uerborum
omnium tenere, quantum fas erat. Ibi profectus inicium sumpsi. Transiui deinceps ad euangelia,
epistulas Pauli actusque apostolorum hisque familiariter obseruatus [obversatus?] sum; habent
enim satis magnam uerborum copiam suntque omnia translata fideliter ac diligenter nee
inconcinne. Postmodum uero et gentilium libros uidere uolui, eosque haud facile intellexi. Mihi
igitur factum optimum uidetur, si adulescentulus ipse eodem incedat tramite, neque passim
quibusque huiuscemodi profitentibus scientiam intendat animum solisque inhereat
interpretationibus ueterum sacris dumtaxat, que, quod ad uerum traducte sint, et proprie facilores
atque illius accomodatiores profectibus sunt. Prestaret quidem doctore uti; sed is nisi egregie
peritus sit et linguam probe calleat, proficiet nihil, imo oberit plurimum rudi animo ac per id satis
censeo certis niti quam ambigua et incerta sectari; loquor enim que expertus ipse sum. Sed
huiuscemodi librorum copia apud nos non est, iuris scilicet mei ut mittere possim. Psalterium
quidem et euangelia et huiusmodi teneo, sed ita ut ea mittere nequeam; sunt enim partim
amicorum, et que nostra sunt occuparunt adulescentes nostri quidam grecitatis item studiosi;
uenale uero prorsus nihil habeo. Si quid iam fieri posse censes per me, rescribe; nusquam enim,
quoad licebit, deero uotis tuls. Vale. (Ludwig Bertalot, Studien zum italienischen und deutschen
Humanismus, ed. Paul Oskar Kristeller, Storia e letteratura: Raccolta di studi e testi, vol. 129
[Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975], 262-63)
45
were to apply as they stood, with the minimum of alteration, the classificatory and
descriptive framework of Greek grammar to the Latin language, or, a better plan,
to re-examine Greek grammatical systems in the light of the facts exhibited by
Latin, and so, using the work of the Greeks, build up a grammar for the Latin
language as it actually was. The majority of Latin grammarians belong to the
former class; of those whose work survives to any substantial degree only Varro
exhibits considerable re-thinking of grammatical terms and concepts specifically
to fit the Latin language.83
Robin's words capture well the context of the times. The quotation also places the study
of the two languages into correct relationship. A progression can be observed.
Grammatical study began with Greek, which we have observed in our survey of the
ancient witness. Then, the study of Latin took its grammatical framework from Greek.
Finally, the study of Greek reemerged based upon a Latin foundation.
It is acknowledged today that a descriptive method is the better way to study
grammar (as opposed to imposing the framework of one language onto another).
Although Latin grammatical study largely utilized an unsatisfactory method, in the case
of Greek grammatical study, it comes full circle. Fortunately for Greek, the languages are
similar in structure; thus, the results of inquiry do largely translate, which is not always
the case with non-classical languages. The two greatest differences between the two
languages were the number of cases of the nouns and the lack of a definite article in
Latin.84 For our purposes, it is significant to note also that Latin does not have a middle
voice, while Greek does.85 "They [grammars] were written in, and illustrated from, Latin,
83
Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 4 8 ^ 9 .
84
Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 49,61,91-99.
85
"The middle voice and dual number are absent as formal categories from Latin" (Robins,
Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 56n3). However, several do recognize a middle voice in
Latin. James Hope Moulton writes, "In Latin the middle has been somewhat obscured formally by the
entrance of the r suffix . . . " (Moulton, Prolegomena, 153). Philip Baldi wrote his dissertation on
deponency and the middle voice in Latin (Philip Baldi, "Deponent and Middle in Latin" [Ph.D. diss.,
University of Rochester, 1973]). Suzanne Kemmer even recognizes the middle in Latin in her work on the
the international language of European culture of the time, but sought to give a universal
validity to the rules exhibited in Latin grammar."86
As attention to grammatical study rejuvenated, Roger Bacon provided the best
introduction to grammar, although his grammar was not widely circulated.87
Unfortunately, it seems that his work does not contribute significantly to the history of
deponency. Two medieval grammarians, Maximus Planudes and Gennadius Scholarius,
have contributed directly to our understanding of the development of deponency, and it is
to their work that we now turn.
Maximus Planudes
II. Tnv xcov UEOCOV Se KA,fjcw exouaw, oxi ir\q Ttpoôpaq 7ia6r|xiKf|<;
TU%6VT£<;, evepynxiKriv £KA,r|pcoaavxo armaoiav, (he, aKOTjaoum KOU Qj\oo\iax
Kod fiveyK&uriv KOU eSp£\j/6cu,r|v.
N. Elev- xox) be ye Xcuaoum Kai eTiouoduTiv, Kai eaxvv cov XOIOTJXCOV OIJ% f]
amf| KariyopEixai xwv £ipri|j,evcov %povcov r\ <yx\\iaoia;. ..
N. . . . 61X' t|8ri Kai xo Xox>GO\iai Kai eX,otiad|iriv oSriyw aoi %pc6uevo<; xoi<;
evepynxiKoic; evapi6(a.ia xi6r||j.i.88
P. Middle verb forms are so called because they have passive shapes but
active meanings, like akousomai [dKoiJooum] 'I shall hear', thesomai [0f|ao(xai]
'I shall place', enegkdmen [riveyK&uTiv] 'I carried off, and edrepsdmen
[e5p£V|/duriv] 'I culled'.
N. Yes. But is it not the case that lousomai [\ox>ao\im\ 'I shall wash myself
and elousdmen [£A,owd|xnv] 'I washed myself and other verbs like them are also
called middle like the tense forms just cited?' . . .
middle voice. She places three Latin verbs in her table of indirect middle verbs (Suzanne Kemmer, The
Middle Voice, Typological Studies in Language, ed. T. Givon, vol. 23 [Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
1993], 78).
86
87
Berschin, Greek Letters, 34; Ciccolella, Donati Graeci, 94-96.
88
R. H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History, Trends in Linguistics;
Studies and Monographs, vol. 70 (New York; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993), 203,205.
47
N. . . . Under your guidance I now put the middle forms lousomai [Xouooum]
'I shall wash myself and elousdmen [eôuadcuriv] 'I washed myself among the
active verbs.89
Maximus Planudes is teaching grammar with a dialogue between Hakaix\,\x,oc,
and Ne6<t>pa>v in which ricxâmuo<; is clearly the instructor. The first paragraph expresses
a deponent understanding of the middle voice—a verb with passive morphology and
active function. In addition, Planudes discusses the middle forms of the future and aorist
because they have separate forms from the passive. The idea of the second paragraph "is
that the future and the aorist were the only tenses formally distinguishing the middle
voice."90 The final conclusion of the passage is that the middle verbs align with the active
verbs in function.91 Planudes does not address the issue of universality. In other words, do
all middle verbs function as actives? Or, are there some verbs that function contrary to
their morphology? Signes-Codoner interprets Planudes's discussion of middle voice as
reflecting partial deponency.92
Gennadius Scholarius
u£TaPcxTiKf| 8e TtaGrrniai, fjiii; ei<; um Xr\yo\)oa Sp&cnv crnuaivei, olov u.a%ou.oa,

avGiaxaum iced xa ouoia,
But the translative93 passive, which means active with a -\xai termination, like
ua%o|j,ca, avSiaxauou, and similar ones.
89
Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians, 206, 208.
90
Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians, 206nl.
''Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians, 209.

92
Signes-Codoner, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 16-17.
93
Signes-Codoiier, "Definitions of Middle Voice," 19.
Gennadius Scholarius wrestles with the use of voice. He turns to the invention
of a new voice: (lexaPaxiKri 7ia0r|i:iKf| (translative passive). Deponent verbs that utilize
the middle or passive morphology with an active meaning are included in this category.
Like Maximus Planudes, Gennadius Scholarius is not exhaustive in his treatment of this
category. It is not known if this is a universal situation or if particular verbs function this
94
way.
Summary
In the end, understanding of the concept of deponency made little
advancement on during the medieval period. The state of grammatical study was on a
rebound. The insights were not significantly developed beyond the ancient period. There
was an acknowledged discrepancy between the form of some verbs and their
corresponding functions. For this situation, Gennadius Scholarius coined a new voice
(translative passive); it seems that he was simply identifying deponency. Likewise,
Maximus Planudes uses words that express what is now called deponency. Although
rejuvenated grammatical study of Greek was based on a Latin slab, the Latin slab itself
was laid upon a Greek foundation. Because of the similarities between the structures of
the two languages and grammatical study began from Greek, there does not seem to be a
disjunction; rather, there is a continuity, particularly with the results of how grammarians
viewed the function of the middle and passive voices.
l
The Modern Witness (A.D. 1453-Present)
The modern witness is a period that began with the fall of Constantinople and
continues to today. The works of many contributors to grammatical studies during this
period will be surveyed in order to glean their respective contributions to the
understanding of our subject and to observe the inconsistency in the conceptualization of
deponency. They will be divided into three groups. Those scholars who comment
specifically on Classical Greek are John William Donaldson, Kuhner-Blass/Kiihner-
Gerth, Antonius N. Jannaris, Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, William Watson Goodwin,
Herbert Weir Smyth, K. L. McKay, and Chrys C. Caragounis. The works of several
grammarians who made their contributions in the realm of Koine or New Testament
Greek are considered: Georg Benedict Winer, Ernest De Witt Burton, James Hope
Moulton, H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A. T. Robertson, Blass-Debrunner-Funk, G.
Mussies, Hoffman-von Siebenthal, Stanley E. Porter, K. L. McKay, Daniel B. Wallace,
and Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf. Finally, the views of four modern scholars who deny
deponency are presented: Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and
Jonathan T. Pennington. The inspection of these works will provide insight to the
understanding of deponency by the most influential grammarians in the modern era.
Classical Greek Grammars
John William Donaldson
John William Donaldson provides an extensive presentation of deponency,
including several lists of deponent verbs.
A deponent verb is one which, though exclusively passive or middle in its

inflexions, has so entirely deponed or laid aside its original meaning, that it is
50
used in all respects like a transitive or neuter verb of the active form.... But in
these cases [verbs that actually belong to the middle] the coexistence of the active
form leads to a recognition of the proper middle force of the verb; and we cannot
give the name of deponent to any verb which is ever active in form or passive in
usage.
The proper classification of deponent verbs is according to the usage of the
middle in which they respectively originated.95
Donaldson gives a classic definition of deponency where he even makes
reference to laying aside of the verb's original meaning (from Latin). His definition
proper of deponency is in line with the traditional description of deponency. However,
his last quoted paragraph seems to indicate that deponent verbs are simply middle verbs.
In fact, this is how Winer has understood this sentence.96 It seems that this comment is
restricted to middle deponent verbs for two reasons. First, this block quotation is taken
from Donaldson's broader discussion within a section on the middle voice. Second,
Donaldson elsewhere acknowledges the passive deponent verb, which has no relation to
the middle in either form or function.97 Furthermore, it should be noted that deponency is
viewed by Donaldson as the first (primary) anomaly of signification, when there is "some
95
John William Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Students, 2nd ed.
(Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1859), 440.
96
"Considering all deponents to be properly middle, Donaldson classifies them . . . " (G. B.
Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament
Exegesis, 3rd ed., trans. W. F. Moulton [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882], 325n4). Donaldson alludes to
this same idea (i.e., deponent verbs are middles) in the first edition of his grammar. In an explanation of
voice, he writes, "When the inflexions represent different cases of the pronominal elements, these
differences are called voices. According to the inflexions there are only two voices, active and passive: but
the latter may express, not only that the action refers to and terminates with the.person implied in the
inflexion; but also that it proceeds from this person: in which case, the passive verb is called middle or
deponent" (John William Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Learners [London: John
W.Parker, 1848],89 [§287]).
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 265-69,440.

51
apparent contradiction between the form of the personal-endings and the action
expressed."98
Donaldson describes four types of deponent verbs: (1) middle deponent (see
Table 2: Donaldson's Middle Deponents on p. 53), (2) passive deponent (see Table 3:
Donaldson's Passive Deponents on p. 54), (3) passive and middle aorist deponents (see
Table 4: Donaldson's Passive and Middle Aorist Deponents on p. 54), and (4) present and
imperfect only deponents (see Table 5: Donaldson's Present and Imperfect Only
Deponents on p. 54). 'Middle deponents' are those aorist verbs that lack an active form
but function actively using the middle form. These verbs may also have a passive form
that functions passively." 'Passive deponent' verbs are aorist verbs that have only the
passive form but function actively. 'Passive and middle aorist deponents' are those verbs
that have both the middle and passive forms in the aorist stem. Some of these prefer the
passive form; some of these prefer the middle; some of these use both the middle and
passive forms indifferently. 'Present and imperfect only deponents' are partially deponent
verbs, being deponent only in the present and imperfect stems. In addition to these
deponent verbs, Donaldson also observes a category of verbs that seem to function as a
partial deponent—that is, some verbs that possess an active form always function actively
in the middle form in the future (see Table 6: Donaldson's Future Middle Deponents on
'Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 265.
'Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 265-66.

l0
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 266-70.
Inconsistency of signification is recognized by Donaldson's work. For
example, "deponent middle verbs sometimes use a perfect of the passive form, with both
an active and passive signification . . . ."101 He concludes with a striking statement about
deponency. "Perhaps the greatest difficulty which can arise from these anomalies of
signification, is the employment of a middle form, which is strictly discriminated by
common usage from the active, in a merely deponent or active sense."102
Thus, Donaldson provides us with an extensive discussion of deponency in the
nineteenth century. His discussion covers twenty-two pages in two different sections in
his grammar.103 He seems to affirm deponency with many different types of verbs;
however, his comments about middle deponents simply functioning according to a
legitimate usage of the middle seem to imply that deponency may actually fit into the
syntactical functions of the middle voice.104 If this were the case, then Donaldson has
planted the seed for the modern denial of deponency.
101
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 274. Linguists call this 'syncretism'. See p. 138.
102
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 275. This recognition of anomalies of signification
lead Donaldson to include an extensive section in his grammar in which he discusses "Middle or Deponent
Verbs with peculiar significations" (Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 442).
His explanation of this anomaly of signification is somewhat inconsistent. In this paragraph
on anomalies of signification, which is focused on deponent middle verbs, he says to see his discussion of
5i8ocoKouca; however, the discussion of SiS&OKOum is not a discussion of a 'deponent middle' verb but of
a 'middle' verb proper. We know that in Donaldson's perception, SiSocoKouai is not a 'deponent middle'
verb for two reasons: (1) 8i8acncoum is not listed in his list of deponent middle verbs [see Table 2:
Donaldson's Middle Deponents on p. 53] and (2) according to his own definition of deponency [see p. 49],
the deponent verb cannot have an active form, which 8i8doKou.ai has. He explains that 8i8aoKO|xai has a
range of uses, reflecting the active, middle, and passive. It can mean "I learn" (active), "I teach myself
(reflexive middle), or "I get another taught" (causative passive). He admits the difficulty with
distinguishing between the active and middle and explains the distinction as one of intensity (Donaldson,
Complete Greek Grammar, 445-46). Therefore, although Donaldson's discussion of 8t8dcKO|iai does
reflect an anomaly of signification, it seems to relate to a 'middle' verb proper, not a 'middle deponent'
verb.
103
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 265-72,440-53.
'See n 96 on p. 50.
53
Table 2: Donaldson's Middle Deponents 105

utxajioa oo^paivojiai
dyocioiam
aiviy|j,axi£o|j.oa,
urxoum 0(j)p\)OU€tt
aiviaao|j,oa
oda0dvojj,oa KaA.ap.doum 6\|/do|j.ai
odxido|j.oa Keifxai 7raXa|a.do(a.ai
6cKeo|j.ai K£A.oum TtapaKEA.E'uou.ai
dicpaxiôum Kivupoâi 7tapap,£0£op,ai
dicpodoum KA-auOu/upiôuoa TcappriCTidô|j.ai
aXA,o(j.ai Kvu^doum rcaxEOjiai
dva(3icoaKO|a,ai îvo7txdo|j,ai 7T£X0|jm
dvaivo|a.ai Aaaaoum 7t£ij8o)j.ai
dvcmr|vi£ou.ai A.oyi£o(iai 7tA,r|Kxi£o|jm
&7to8l07i;0[J.7t8G)|J.OU, A,copdo(a,ai Tt^co'iôfiai
dpdo|4.oa p,aio(j.ai 7roxvido|a.ai
do7tdô|iai |a.apTUpo|j,oa Ttpay)j,ax£iJO|j,ai
liaadoum,
pidôfxai TipoKaAiôum
|xaaodo(j.ai
P^T|%dop,ai p.d%o|j.ai 7tpooi(ivdô|iai
PpocuKavdoum,
uriSoum 7tpo<t>aai£oôa
Pp-uxttvôâi
Ppuj.doum,
uT|Kdo|j.ca ntepvoooiiai
Ppuiooum
Ppcojidofxat Ixnp-UKdoum pEyKoum
yiyvoum linxiofiai pt)0|j.ai
5ei5iaK0(a,ai (j,rixavdo(j.ai pwo(j.ai
8£i8iaooum,
|a,i(X£op,ai cKapuj>doum
885iaao(j.ai
8riêo(a.ai jaavupofica 0KO7UG>p£OUm
8r|pido|j.oa, u.iaTuA.doum,
axnfxovi£o|jm
Sipiouai [ivoxikaoiiai
8iaKeXet)0(xai p.op|ioA/uxxo|j.ai axo%d£oum
8i£nu,oa (x\)0£O(j.ai ax(0(a.ijA,X,o(j.ai
8copeop,ai |i/UKaou.ai xo^dôp.ai
£YKava%do|j,oa |j,coKdop,ai \)7iia%v£0|xai
£^£(|)aipoum vf|%o(j,ai \)7ioKopiô|xai
e7ii8op7iiô|j.ai •U7ioKpivo(j.ai
^-uAlôum
EKO\iai oyKdopm <])£i8o(j.ai
epydônai 68ijpoum (|)0£yyo(j.ai
e'uxojj.ca 68t>caa0ai (J)p\)yaviÔ|a.ai
e\)/ido(j.ai oi%oum %api£oum

54
Tiyeojxai oicoviôum %aa\iao\iai

0edo|j,ai oAxxjrupoum XEA/uaaoum
idoum opxeofxai Xpdoum
iepdo(j.ai 6a|j,do)a.ia cbvEoum
iKveofom 6caeiJO|xctt (optional
Table 3: Donaldson's Passive Deponents 106

dvxiooum Suvocum e-uôc(3eo|j.ai
Evavxiooum 8x>aapeax80|iai ExmopEoum
6c7iovoeo(j,ai EvGuuEoum KpEiaaum
d7iopeo|j.ai EWOEOUXXI oiouai
£7UU£A,oum,
Pcuôum TtpoGuuEOum
ETUuEÊOum
8eo|iai Emaxctum oe(3o|a.ai
8epK0âi EuGvuEoum \)7C0X07lE0|J.CXl
SiavoEOum
Table 4: Donaldson's Passive and Middle Aorist Deponents 107
Aorist passive is the usual form,

dyaum dpvEouai vEueadoum
ai8£0|aca SiaX^youm {juXoxiuEoum
a]xikXdo\iai Epocum
Aorist middle is the usual form.

duEipoum (3pu%do|ica uEuôum
drcoKpivoum Gowdoum <|)iA,o(j>pov£ou.ca
d7ioXoy£0|j.ai
Both aorists are used.

ocuMôum TioiSopEoum opEyouca
£7civoEOja,ai 6to|j.ai 7t£ipdo(j.ai
iuEipouai ovoum rcpovoEojaoa
,108
Table 5: Donaldson 's Present and Imperfect Only Depo
aC,o[iai EpETCTOUm, viaaoum
ouvu|j,oa EUXExdoum oGoum
dKoudôpxu r\\im 07ciô(a,ai
dvotppi%doum GpEOuoa opyidôum
dvTOjjm ivSd^ôuai oaaoum.
106
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 268.
""Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 268-69.

108
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 269.
&7toKpauro$A£o|ioa KaweiaQoum Ttevoum
A,d£ou.oa,
apvuuxia nXioao\iai
Ppeu.oum TuAmoum aivoum
ppev0t)ou.oa,
(idpvajxai GKvC,o\±ai
PpevOvvoum
8cau.ovi£o}a,ca He8ou.ai aovum
eikvcnao[iai u/upouxxi axemen.
eA,Sou.ca (icoum Tpo(xeo(xai
£[maC,o\iai V8(j.eai^0|a.ai ((^Poom
Table 6: Donaldson's Future Middle Deponents 109

eSoum,
aaoum (|)dYop,ai 7ti.ou.cu
ocKCuaoum 0at>|j.daoum Tteao'Ou.ou
7tX,e\)ao|j,ai,
fpapTnoouai 8ei)ao|iai
7tA£t)aot>uou
6c7tavfiao(j.ai 0r|pdGou.oa pO(|)r|aouou
aTtoXocuaoum 0avouum avyTiaoum
Pa8iotiaou.ou Kccfxo'Oum aia)7tf)oou.cu
pf|aoum Kixnaoum aKcov|/o|iai
Puocoum KâTJCTOjxai a7tot>8daou.ou
Pof|ao(xai K?l£V|/OUm TETJÔUOU
ye?idao(xat, 0pe£oum,
Xr\Z,o\ia\
Y8A,daco Spauo'Oum
Yripdaouoa Xfi\|/o|j,ai xpcoôuou
(êijôuou,
Yvcoooum Ha0f|aoum
<|)e'u£o,uu,ai
ypijô(j,ai,
oiu.co£ou.ai (j)0fiao(j,m
YpiJ^ca
8ap0f)aou.oa ouo'Ouoa %avoi3ucu
%a)pf)Gou.ou,
8pdaoum rceicopm
7ipoa%copria(o
Kiihner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth
Kuhner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth offer a clear definition of deponency along with
discussion of it: "Die sog. Deponentia sind Medialformen mit reflexiver Bedeutung, die
der Aktivform ermangeln. Je nachdem sie ihren Aorist mit medialer oder mit passiver
Form bilden, werden sie in Deponentia Medii und in Deponentia Passivi

eingeteilt.. . ." (My translation is as follows: "The so-called deponents are middle
forms with reflexive meaning, which lack the active form. As the case may be, they form
their aorist with middle or with passive form, they are divided into middle deponent or
passive deponent. . . .") Despite the definition, which includes the absence of an active
form as an element, Kiihner-Gerth indicate that some deponent verbs historically had an
active form, and sometimes that active form will present itself (e.g., dyvi^co, aud^m,
Pid^co, 8copeco, and ur|%ocv&oo). The reason for the disappearance of the active was due to
the verb's complete identification with the reflexive usage. The way in which deponents
distinguish themselves from the active verbs is that deponents have a subject with a
reciprocal relationship (e.g., 5s%oum). Those that have a reflexive meaning can also
often be used in a passive sense. The function of deponent verbs can be reflexive,
intransitive, or transitive.111
Kiihner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth explain that in deponent verbs distinction is made
between aorist middle and aorist passive when found in the aorist or future tenses.112
Much of the balance of the discussion focuses on the development of the preference for
aorist passive deponency over its aorist middle counterpart. Earlier poets preferred the
""Raphael Kiihner and Bernhard Gerth, Satzlehre, 3rd ed., part 2, vol. 1 of Ausfiihrliehe
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (Hannover; Leipzig, 1898; reprint, Munchen: Max Hueber, 1963),
119 (§377). Similarly, in another work Kiihner states, "Verbs, which are used only in the Middle form, are
called Deponent. They have either a reflexive or an intransitive meaning. They are divided into Middle
Deponents, which construct their Aorist and their Future with a Middle form . . . and into Passive
Deponents, which construct their Aorist with a Pass, form, but their Fut. commonly with a Middle
form . . ." (Raphael Kiihner, Grammar of the Greek Language: For the Use of High Schools and Colleges,
trans. B. B. Edwards and Samuel H. Taylor [Boston: Mussey, 1849], 127 [§102]).
'"Raphael Kiihner and Friedrich Blass, Elementar- und Formenlehre, 3rd ed., part 1, vol. 2 of
Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (Hannover; Leipzig, 1892; reprint, Hannover:
Hahnsche, 1966), 2 (§189), 245 (§324); Kiihner and Gerth, Satzlehre, 119-20 (§377).
'Kiihner and Blass, Elementar- und Formenlehre, 2 (§ 189).

57
aorist middle for their deponents, but the later prose writers preferred the aorist passive.113
In particular, four notes are presented that clarify the behavior of deponent verbs. Note
one indicates that several verbs use both the aorist middle and the aorist passive form.
Second, some deponent verbs are found in only the aorist middle form. The third note
states that the remaining deponents occur only in middle form or are only common in the
present and imperfect tenses. Finally, aorist passives deponent verbs sometimes retain
their passive function.114
Middle deponents are found with or without a direct object. Thus, German
usually translates middle deponents with both transitive and intransitive active verbs.
Although they may have middle form, the reflexive sense of many deponent verbs is
weak, which seems to reinforce the transitive notion.115
Kuhner-Blass includes a table of deponent verbs entitled "Verzeichnis
samtlicher Deponentia Passivi (bew. Media mit passivem Aorist)." 116
Table 7: Kuhner-Blass's Passive Deponents 117

Ayocum evavxiooum [iiuvfiaKoum
ai8eo(j.ai evGuueoum (j,uaccTTO|a.ai
6cA,6co|j,oa evvoeoum vEuea&oum
ocuiAA-doum eni\ieXo\iai o'ioum
avxiooum £7uvo£0|j.oa oAayapxeouai
arcovoeoum ETticrcaum opyiôum
"3Kuhner and Gerth, Satzlehre, 119 (§377).
"4Kiihner and Blass, Elementar- und Formenlehre, 246 (§324).

115
Kiihner and Gerth, Satzlehre, 119 (§377).
"6Kiihner and Blass, Elementar- und Formenlehre, 246 (§324). My translation is as follows:
"A Complete Table of Deponent Passives (respectively Middles with [that take] Aorist Passives)."
"7Kuhner and Blass, Elementar- und Formenlehre, 246 (§324). The first word in the table,
Ayanai, is capitalized in Kiihner-Blass's list. A similar list is also found in Grammar of the Greek
Language, but Ppuxaoum, ettSuuEOum, etmopeouou, oAayapXEoum are also included there (Kuhner,
Grammar of the Greek Language, 226 [§197]).
58
cmopEoum spa^ca opumuai

dpiaxoKpaxEoum £aTia>um rceipaoum
dpvEOum E\)A.apeoâi TtEpatoouoa
d%0oum EWOUEOUm 7i?iavdouai
PouXoum £ijco%£0|a,ai 7top£ik>uai
8a7ravdo(a.ai rjSoum 7toxdo(j,ai
SEOUXXI fixxdoum 7tpO0t)|i.£O|J,ai
SEpKoum. 0£poum 7ipOVO£0(iai
8r|uoKpaT£ouai Kp£\ia\iai aEPouai
8ioaxdoum tan5op£0|ioa c|)avxd£ouai
8iaA,£yo|j,ai umvouai (|)i,?ioxiu£Oum
8iavo£Ofxai UExauEXouai (()o(3£0|j,ai
Suvaum \)7tOT07i:£0|J.ai
Kuhner also provides two additional tables of verbs pertinent to the discussion
of deponency. The first is a representative (i.e., not exhaustive) list of passive deponent
verbs, which he describes in this way: "Among the Deponent Passives, are very many
Active verbs, which in the Mid. express a reflexive or intransitive action, but have a
Passive form for their Aorist; on the contrary, a Middle form for their future . . . ."11S (See
Table 8: Kuhner's Passive Deponents with Aorist Passive and Future Middle.) The
second list contains a non-exhaustive list of active verbs that take a future middle form.
(See Table 9: Kuhner's Active Verbs with a Future Middle.)
Table 8: Kuhner's Passive Deponents with Aorist Passive and Future Middle119
dyEiv KOUiÊW PCOVVTJVOU,
dyvuvoci K p i V E l V CTEIEIV
dvidv A,£yeiv OT171EIV
aipEiv ÊlTtEW GKESavvuvm
dAAdxTEiv "kVElV oTtav
dpuo^siv UE0UCJKEIV GXEAAEW
da%o?i£Tv (xiyvuvai axp£(|)£iv
aij^dvEiv UXUvf|GK£lV G^dX'kEiy
PdAAeiv opudv acbÊiv
£7E£iy£lV 6%£W Xp£7t£lV
Eaxidv 7t£l0£lV Xp£(j)£W
118
Kuhner, Grammar of the Greek Language, 227 (§197).
119
Kiihner, Grammar of the Greek Language, 227 (§197).
59
£1)C0%£IV Ttnyvuvai tyaiveiv

T]XTOtV nXaC,eiv (|)£p£lV
iSp-ueiv nXavav (()G£lp£lV
KiveTv nXiyzieiv (()Op£lV
KMVEIV Kopzveiv %£W
Koi(igcv pnyvuvca
rable 9: Kiihner'ii Active Verbs with a Future Mid

AyvoEco ETUOpKECO rcdcjKco
aSco EOGICO TttiSdco
OCKOTJOi Qav\iaC,(o Tiivco
6câA.d^co 0£CO 71171X0)
duapxdvco Gnpdco, GripEiJco nXea)
oatavT&co Giyydvco 7WEC0
anoXaxxo GvnaKco nviyco
apnaC,(o Gpcbaicco TCOGECO
PaSi^co Kd^VCO TCpOCfKUVECO
Paivco Koodoo p£CO
pioco K?l£7CXCO aiydco
P^87l(0 KO?ld^C0 aiamdco
Podco KCOUXX^Cfl CnCGOTXCO
yeX-dco A,ay%dvco arcot>5d£co
yripdaKco A,ap.pdvco <xopixxcfl
yvyvcbaKco îXfxdco XIKXCO
8dKvco uavGdvco XpE/CO
SapGdvco VECO xpcbyco
8eiaai 018a xt>y%dv(fl
5i5pdaKoo oiuxb^co xcoGd^co
8l(OKC0 b'ko'k\)t)(o ((jE'uya)
syKcojxid^co 0\lVV[ll (|)0dvco
etui opdco XdaKco
euaiveco naiC,(o XCOpECO
Antonius N. Jannaris
Antonius Jannaris clearly views the voice of the verb as functioning
deponently at times. He defines deponency in this way: "In many cases the middle and
passive (medio-passive) voice has an active meaning. In that case it is called deponent, in
particular Middle deponent (MD) or Passive deponent (PD), according as it has a middle
'Kiihner, Grammar of the Greek Language, 227-28 (§198).

or a passive form in the future and aorist...." For Jannaris, deponency is an anomaly
of meaning.122 He gives five lists of deponent verbs. The first list, Table 10: Jannaris's
Old Deponents, is a list of verbs that were deponent in classical antiquity (500-300 B.C.)
but discontinued deponency in the postclassical to neohellenic periods (300 B.C.-present).
These verbs began to utilize the active form in the latter periods.
Table 10: Jannaris's Old Deponents123

5p&TTOum Pidôum 7reipco|j.ai
Kxcoum \iaaao\iai %api£ou.oa
au9a8iôum e^riyeoum Scopeouai
Ppco|a.dco|xai
Jannaris's second list is a group of verbs that were not deponent in classical
antiquity (500-300 B.C.) but became deponent in the postclassical to neohellenic periods
(300 B.C.-present). Table 11 is restricted to those verbs that became deponent in the
postclassical to the Byzantine periods (300 B.C.-A.D. 1000) because this period more
closely corresponds with the Koine period than the neohellenic period (A.D. 600-present).
See Table 11: Jannaris's New Deponents.
Table 11: Jannaris's New Deponents124

Suaocpecrco'uoum Ttapouaiaôum vnepacniC,oâi
,
eu7UGT£ uo|jm (et))a7iA.aYxviô|a,ai •U7cepr|(|)av8'uo|j,ou
£7U%eipi£oum aiKxorivoum xaipoum
£%6aipoum
121
Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written
and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts,
Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: Macmillan, 1897), 179 (§674).
122
The larger section within which his discussion of deponency falls is the section titled
"Anomaly in the Meaning" (Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 282 [§997]). He seems to recognize the
disjunction between the form of the verb and its function.
123
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 284 (§1000).
'Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 284 (§1000).

61
Jannaris's third list is a list of middle deponent verbs. Middle deponent verbs
are those verbs that in the aorist are commonly middle in form (as opposed to passive)
and active in function. Some of these verbs also have a passive meaning, and some of the
perfects have both an active and passive meaning. See Table 12: Jannaris's Middle
Deponents.
Table 12: Jannaris's Middle Deponents 125

cdoGdvoum utTauai TtaXauaouai
amdoum Kaâuaouai TtapeKEÊiJouca
diceouai Kvu^douai rcapauEGeouai
dicpodouai A,oyiôuai rcapprio-idôuai
aAAouai X'uu.aivou.ai 7texopai
&7lOKpi.VO|J,0U A,copdouai rcpayumEiJoum
dp doom uapTupoum TtpoKa?iiÔ(j,ai
darcdôuai uaadouai rcpoouudôuai
Pidôuai ua%ouai 7ipo<|)acn.£oum
P?ir|%douai u.eu.<|)Ou.ai puouai
Ppcoudouai [ieiane[ino\iai aTO%dôuai
yivouai ur|Kdouai To^dôuai
uruEouai x>7ua%v£ouai
Scopeouai vnicdouai moKpivouai
evxeAAoum oyicdouai <|)£i8oum
£7ioum 68t)pofiai <j)6eyyo|j.at
epydôuai ofyouai %api£ouai
£v%o\iai oicoviôuai Xaau.dou.ai
fiyeoum otaxjrupouai XEipoouxxi
Gsdouai opxeoum Xpdoum
idouai oauaouai cbveouai
iKveojim oaâivouai dbpuouai
The fourth list of deponent verbs that Jannaris provides contains passive
deponent verbs. These verbs utilize the passive form for its deponency, and they are
mostly made up of verbs of motion, emotion, or thinking. Some of these passive
deponents also have a middle aorist and are middle deponent too. See Table 13:
Jannaris's Passive Deponents.
'Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 285 (§1001).

Table 13: Jannaris's Passive Deponents126
ctyau.oa £7ii(xeô(j.ai opyiôfxott
aiSEOu,ou £7U<XT(X|J.0a 6pu.doum
duaXA,dou.ca Eaxidoum 7ieipdo(a.ai
dpveou.oa Ei)X,a(3eop.ai rcâvdoum
6cx9o|a,oa £V(OXSO[l(Xl 7iopeiJO|j,ai
Pot>Ax)u,ai rj8ou.oa 7ipo0t)(j.eojxai
8eou.ca fixxdoum rcpovoEoum
Siaxdoum KpEaauca oEpoum
8mA,Eyoum |xaivou.ai (|)avxd£ou.oa
SiavoEoum u£xau.£A,ou.oa <|)iA,oxiu£Ou.oa
Suvap-ou u.iu.vfiaicou.ai <|)0p80(j.ai
Evavxiooum |at>G(rrTO|i.ca WOXOTTEOUm
EV0t)(xeo(iai o'ioum
Finally, Jannaris teaches that many middle future verbs function actively. He
does not name these specifically as deponents probably because even some of these also
possess the future active form. They seem to function as partial deponents.127 This list is
provided in Table 14: Jannaris's Future Middle Deponents.
Table 14: Jannaris's Future Middle Deponents 128

ocaoum ercoaveaoum ciomrio-ouai
dKOiJooum 8at)(j.dao|a,ai aKco\|/o(iai
d7tavxr|ooum Kêyoum CTtouSdaoum
d7ioâ-uao|j.ai oi|xco£ou.ai xeôum
dp7tdcoum 7iT|5f|0'ou.ou xpobôum
PaSicuum nXex)GO\iai xeijôu.ai
Pof|aou.oa 7ivet)ao|j,ai (t>£ij£ouai
yeXdooum pwiaouai <|>0f|aoum
Sicbôum aiyrjaoum
As a result, Jannaris clearly defines deponency and provides ample verbs in
several lists that he classifies as one type of deponent or another.
126
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 285-86 (§1002).
127
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 283-84 (§§998-99).
l28
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 283 (§998).
63
Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve
Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve does not have a section on deponency subsumed
under the middle voice but seems to assume such exists.129 He does, however, include a
succinct definition of the term under his discussion of the passive: "The deponent is a
middle form which has no active."130 Two verbs are given as examples: yiyvouai and
GECCOUXXI. These verbs sometimes use the aorist passive and without having an aorist
middle.131 He completes his presentation with a note on the way in which many deponent
verbs indicate the passive—that is, by way of periphrasis. For example, avriav e%eiv is
used as a passive for amaaGoa.132
William Watson Goodwin
William Watson Goodwin includes a rather typical presentation of deponency
in his Greek Grammar.133 He defines deponency: "Deponent verbs have no active forms,
but are used in the middle (or the middle and passive) with an active, often intransitive,
sense."134 He continues and provides three descriptions of the phenomenon. First,
deponent verbs can be called 'middle deponent' (7ropi£oâi/£7ropiaauT|v) or 'passive
deponent' (S-uvocum/eSwriGriv) respective to the form of the aorist each takes. Second,
Goodwin observes that some deponents have both aorist middle and aorist passive forms.
l29
Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and with the co-operation of Charles Emil Miller, Syntax of
Classical Greek: From Homer to Desmosthenes (Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis B.V., 1980), 66 [§149].
l30
Gildersleeve and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek, 11 (§177).
"'Gildersleeve and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek, 75 (§169), 77 (§177).
'"Gildersleeve and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek, 77-78 (§178).
'"William Watson Goodwin, Greek Grammar, 3rd ed., rev. Charles Burton Gulick ([Boston]:
Ginn, 1930).
134
Goodwin, Greek Grammar, 97 (§449).
64
In those cases, the passive form will carry a passive function (pid£o|aai/ePiaadur|v/
ePidcGrrv). Thirdly, there are many active verbs that take only a middle form in the future
tense (|iav0dv(D/p,oc6f|croum, 7cn8dco [7tr|8(b]/7ni8fiGoum, &Ko-uw/&KO'uao|a.ai).135 Goodwin
finally states the principal parts of deponent verbs: "present, future, perfect, and aorist (or
aorists . . . ) indicative,"136 followed by examples.
(fyyeoum) fryo'Ou.ai lead, fryr|ao|j,ca, fiynaduT|v, fiyrpoa, fiyf)Gr|v (in composition).

PouXoum wish, pou^fiaoum, PePoijXrium, ePou^fiGrrv.
yiyvoum become, yevfiaoum, yeyevrpou., 2 aor. eyevouriv.
(cd8eoum) ai8o,G|j,ai respect, ai.8eaou.oa, ^yeaum, Ti8ea0r|v.
epydôum. work, epydaoum, fipyaaduTyv, e'ipyaauxxi, ripydcGriv.137
Herbert Weir Smyth
Herbert Weir Smyth treats deponency fairly extensively in his grammar.
Nevertheless, his definitions of deponency from various places in his text are puzzling.
He defines deponency succinctly in a section discussing voice:
Deponent verbs have an active meaning but only middle (or middle and passive)
forms. If its aorist has the middle form, a deponent is called a middle deponent
(%api£oum gratify, e%apicduT|v); if its aorist has the passive form, a deponent is
called a passive deponent (evGDuEoum reflect on, eveGxiuriGriv). Deponents .
usually prefer the passive to the middle forms of the aorist.138
This definition seems straightforward; however, when he defines middle deponent and
passive deponent, he adds other elements. "Deponent verbs whose aorists have an active
or middle meaning with middle forms are called middle deponents ."139 Notice here he
135
136
137
138
Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1956), 107 (§356c).
139
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 220 (§810).
65
adds the element of a middle meaning, which likewise qualifies a verb as deponent. A
clue to middle deponents is bodily or mental activity.140 Likewise, he does the same for
the definition of a passive deponent. "Deponent verbs whose aorists have the passive
form but the active or middle meaning are called passive deponents."141 Yet, the function
of deponents continues to expand in the next quotation in which the passive function is
allowed in deponents. "Some deponent verbs have a passive meaning."142 This
phenomenon, which comes in Smyth's section on peculiar uses of voice, where
deponents function passively occurs more frequently in the perfect and pluperfect passive
than in the present, imperfect, or aorist. The future and aorists use the passive form when
a deponent functions passively.143 Therefore, in one place Smyth states that deponents
function actively. In another place, he states that deponents function either actively or as
middles. In still a third place, he allows for a passive function of deponents. Table 16:
Smyth's Passive Deponents contains a list of his passive deponents.
Table 15: Middle Deponents Denoting Bodily or Mental Action

aXkeaQai Po-uêaQoa oieaQai
7ieTeo0ai aia66cvea8ai fiyeia0ca
oi%£O"0oa oacpoaoGai oXocjropEo-Boa
8epKeo8ai (xeuêo-Oca
Table 16: Smyth's Passive Deponents144

t ayocum, TiyaaGriv f f|8oum, fiaGrrv
*t od8£ouoa, fiSeaOryv * fiTcaouai, TircfiGriv
140
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393 (§1729). See Table 15: Middle Deponents Denoting Bodily or
Mental Action.
141
142
143
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 221 (§813), 395 (§1742).
144
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 220-21 (§812). Following Smyth's notations, verbs marked with
* have a future passive and future middle, and verbs marked with f have an aorist middle.
aXaoum, f|?if|8r|v EV0UU£OUCU, EvO'DuTiOriv
t a\xik'kao\iai, fiuxM,r|0riv 7tpo0,uu.£O[j,oa, 7ipo£0'U|j,fi0r|v
t apvEoum, fipvfi0rrv *t 8iaA,£yo|am, 8i£A,£%0r|v
* a%0oum, Ti%0ea0riv EmuEôuoa, £7t£|j.£A,r|0r|v
PouXouai, £Pou?if|0r|v u£xau£A.oum, u£X£U£fi0r|v
8£oum, e8£r|0r|v d7ioveo(xai, a7t£vof)0r|v
SEpicoum, £8£px0riv * SiavoEoum, SIEVOTJOTIV
Svvaiioa, £8i)vr|0r|v EWOEOUOCI, EvEvofiGnv
Evavxiooum, fivavxicbGnv f £7uvoeou.ai, £7t£vor|6r|v
£7uaxauat, r|7n.Gxr|6r|v trcpovo£ou.ca,7tpo£vori6r|v
Epafxai/fipdco, fipacGnv oioum, COTIGTIV
£\)?LaP£0|j.ai, n\)A,apf)0r|v (|)iA,oxiu£Oum, E<jnXoxiur|0riv
Like Goodwin, Smyth's treatment of deponency also lists the principal parts
of deponent verbs: "present, future, perfect, and aorist indicative."145 The ui verb
deponents that he lists are found in Table 17: Smyth's ux Verb Deponents.
Table 17: Smyth's ux Verb Deponents146

ayocfioa Emaxocum ovoum
8£aum Epochal 7t£xaum
8i£um loxaum £jrpi6cur|v
Suvauai KpEuaum axE-Gum
Finally, Smyth seems to indicate that there is no distinction between a
deponent verb and a direct or indirect middle. "Deponent verbs are either direct or
indirect middles."147 This comment is difficult to interpret for a couple of reasons. First,
this comment comes within the larger section on middle deponent verbs. So, it is unclear
if this comment relates to all deponent verbs or only to middle deponents. Second, he
seems to say different things in different places. He says that deponents function
(1) actively, (2) actively or passively, and (3) as direct or indirect middles.
l45
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 109 (§370). William Watson Goodwin also includes a description
of the principal parts of deponent verbs (Goodwin, Greek Grammar, 99 [§464]). See also "William Watson
Goodwin" on p. 63.
146
'Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393 (§1730).

67
K. L. McKay
In his grammar on Classical Greek, K. L. McKay provides the customary
definition of deponency, but he finds the term unsatisfactory. "Deponent verbs . . . are
often described as being middle or passive in form but active in sense."148 A brief
paragraph expresses the nature of deponency.
Not all verbs have all these inflections. A verb which lacks part of the full
inflection is called defective. A verb which lacks the active voice is called
deponent, and may be further specified as middle deponent or passive deponent
according to the form of its aorist. Where two or more defective verbs supplement
each other so that together they cover much of the full range of inflection, they are
called suppletive (cf. English go, went)}49
He finds deponency an unnecessary descriptive of this Greek verbal
phenomenon because it reflects the English perception of the verb's voice but does not
capture completely the Greek conceptualization. He bases his view on two facts: (1) that
it is difficult to distinguish between active and middle verbs (e.g.,rcoico/7roio'U|a.oa)and
(2) that it is difficult to distinguish between synonymous active/middle verbs (e.g.,
e7to|j,aiyaKoA,OD9eco). Furthermore, deponent verbs often have a voice meaning that is
true to its inflected form, either middle or passive deponent, and sometimes have an
active form (e.g.,rcopeija)).He illustrates by validating the middle sense of a middle
deponent (u£TOC7teu7i:oum). Moreover, he states that a distinctively passive idea is found
in 7topEiJO|j,ai.150
148
K. L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with
Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Dept. of Classics at Australian National University,
1974), 136 (§22.5).
l49
McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 51 (§8.1.2).
'McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 136 (§22.5).

68
Chrys C. Caragounis
Chrys C. Caragounis's work, The Development of Greek and the New
Testament, is not a grammar per se but "is a monograph on the unity etc. of the Greek
language."151 As such, he does not endeavor to articulate the intricacies of deponency;
nevertheless, he does affirm the validity of deponency. In personal correspondence, he
writes, "If by deponency we mean that a verb has middle/passive form but active
meaning, the phenomenon, of course, exists, and cannot be denied. The other question,
whether this phenomenon should be described as deponency—which implies that it has
laid off its active form—is another matter altogether. Perhaps it never had any active
form to lay off."152 The omission of the term 'deponent' from The Development of Greek
and the New Testament does not indicate any reluctance on his part to use the term.153
Although he does not use the term 'deponent', he seems to describe the phenomenon. He
explains that the middle and/or passive is used for the active and that the phenomenon is
ancient, able to be traced back to Classical Greek (500-300 B.C.). He also notes the
opposite occurring (i.e., the active being used for the middle). &7i£Kpi9r|v is used to
illustrate a passive form with an active meaning. He provides representative verbs that
possess an active function with a passive form: "For instance, the forms &7i£Kpi6r| 6
Tnaotif; (e.g. Jn 3:5) and drcoKpiGeii; 6 'ITIGO'U<; (e.g. Mt 3:15) occur each dozens of times
in the Gospels. Other verbs are: TtopEuGeii; (Mt 18:12), e(j)opf|0r| (Mt 2:22),
'Chrys C. Caragounis, e-mail message to author, May 9,2008; used by permission.

2
Caragounis, e-mail message to author.
3
Caragounis, e-mail message to author.
69
enXavr\Qr\oav (2 Pt 2:15), eKoiuriGn (Act 7:69), f)8wri8r|aav (Mt 17:16), exapnv (2 Jn
4), TIYEPGTI (Jn 11:29), euvr|a&nv (Act 11:16)."154
Koine/New Testament Greek Grammars
Georg Benedict Winer
Georg Benedict Winer (1789—1858)155 defines deponency clearly. "These
[deponent] verbs, with a passive (middle) form, have a transitive or neuter meaning: their
active form either does not occur at all (in prose), or is used in precisely the same
signification."156 Then, he provides us with a representative list of deponent verbs. See
Table 18: Winer's Deponents.
Table 18: Winer's Deponents157

Suvaum ev9i)u.eoum acOT&£ou.ai
Soopeoum epyaôum epxoum
yivou-ca e\)X.aPeo|iai fyyeoum
Pi&ôum n&%oum i&oum
8VTeA,Xou.ca u.eu.(|)ou.ai Tioyiôuai
sx>%o\\.a\ êiSoum Ttpoamaoum
Following this brief list of deponent verbs, Winer makes five observations on
the deponent verbs.158 First, most aorist verbs that are deponent utilize the middle voice;
I54
Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 108-11, 152-53,153n75.
'"Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, rev. and expanded ed.
(Minneapolis: Fortress,2003), 111.
156
Winer, Treatise, 323-24. Winer provides the same definition with slight variation in
wording in Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid
Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, 7th ed., rev. Gottlieb Liinemann (Andover: Warren F.
Draper, 1869), 258.
'"Winer, Grammar, 258-59; Winer, Treatise, 324. Winer actually lists the infinitive form of
these verbs; however, I have listed the present, indicative, 1st person, singular forms.
158
It seems that these five observations are on deponent verbs as a class as opposed to the
specific deponent verbs that he listed. In A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, he prefaces his
comments by stating that he is referring to "Deponents" (Winer, Grammar, 259); in A Treatise on the
however, some aorists use the passive. Thus, in the aonst, both middle deponents and
passive deponents are observed, but the normal pattern is for the verb to use either the
middle or the passive exclusively. Second, despite the fact that most aorist deponents use
the middle or the passive exclusively, some utilize both the aorist middle and the aorist
passive to express deponency. Even in these occasions, one form or the other is
predominant. Third, some aorist or perfect verbs which function as a middle deponent
(actively) likewise have an aorist or perfect passive which indeed functions true to its
voice (passively). Winer's fourth and fifth observations can be handled together. Some
present, future, and perfect passive deponent verbs retain occasional passive usage of the
passive morpheme for passive function although it normally functions actively. These
verbs seem to occur as deponents only inconsistently.159
In conclusion, Winer clearly affirms the existence of deponent verbs. He
provides a clear definition along with ample discussion of characteristic behaviors of
these verbs. However, he also recognizes the potential for abuse of the category.160 In
other words, there are some verbs that are identified as deponent that in fact are not; they
are simply middle verbs with middle usage. For the verbs that Winer lists as misidentified
deponents, see Table 19: Winer's Misidentified Deponents. The determining factor for
Winer is whether or not the middle nuance is present, which he calls reflexive.
Grammar of New Testament Greek, he prefaces his comments by stating that he is referring to "these"
(Winer, Treatise, 325), which is ambiguous. In light of A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, it
seems that these observations apply to all deponent verbs.
159
Winer, Grammar, 259. See these texts for Winer's examples.
160
Winer's words here are difficult to follow; Robertson calls them "not very lucid"
(Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 812).
71
Table 19: Winer's Misidentified Deponents 161

TtoJUTEWjim neyoaaôvnai ^ e p o ^ i (active in
^ ^ ' ^ ^ NT, but active also exists)
Kxdou.ca 8exo|a.ai fiTTdoum (passive)
dycoviC,o|j,ca drj7td£o|j.ou umvoum (passive)
Pidôum 7i^ripo'0|j.ai
Ernest De Witt Burton
Ernest De Witt Burton recognizes two types of verbs in which the voice of the
verb does not correspond to the verb's form. He explains these two syntactical situations
because they both deviate from the anticipated standard. First, he says that aorist passive
verbs sometimes function as middle verbs. He lists three references to validate this claim:
Mark 5:21; Matt 2:21; and Jas 4:7. Furthermore, Burton observes that there are occasions
in which a deponent verb functions as a passive verb. He supports his claim by listing a
few references: Matt 6:1; Mark 5:29; Rom 4:4, 5; cf. vv. 6, 8.162 Although he does not
define deponency, Burton accepts deponency as 'normal'. It is the deviation from
deponency that Burton sees as odd.
James Hope Moulton
James Hope Moulton is dissatisfied with the term 'deponent'; nevertheless, he
utilizes it to explain a particular phenomenon in Greek voice. He first describes
deponency in terms of morphology. He says a deponent verb is one that is "found in
active only or middle only."163 The result is active form verbs that lack a middle form
161
Winer, Grammar, 260.
162
Ernest De Witt Burton, Notes on New Testament Grammar, rev. ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1904), 30.
163
Moulton, Prolegomena, 153.
(5i8co)j.i and peco) and middle form verbs that lack an active form (veoum, 87ioum,
umvoum, uTyrioum, KOtO-num, and KeTum). The distinction between these two scenarios
is minute. Both connote "an action, an occurrence, or a state";165 the difference is that the
middle-only forms also emphasize the subject's participation in the action. Moulton
warns us that if the distinction between the active and middle is so fine, then we are in
danger of "over-refining" if we try to identify this undetectable distinction. The uses of
the perfect active forms that correspond to present middle forms illustrate this point:
ytvoum—yeyovot and ep%o|o.ai—eXr\kvBa. Furthermore, intransitive perfect verbs also
illustrate the same point: avecpyoc, Eccavat, oaioXoyka, aear|7ia, and Tte7ioi0a. Similarly,
the future middles that function actively warrant the understanding of middle verbs with
active function. The result is a partial deponent, although Moulton does not use that
term.166 See Table 20: Moulton's Future Middle Deponents.
Table 20: Moulton's Future Middle Deponents 167

dKOTjaofxai âyoum 7ti.ou.oa
KEKpocôuai &7to9avo'0um TtEaoijum
6\]/oum Kouiaoum teôiaai
-PTIOOM-CXI Kouxoijuou, <j>£ijôuai
Yvcoaoum A-rpyonoa
With regard to middle and passive aorists, Moulton's comments are brief:
"And it is unsafe to suppose that in later periods of the language the presence of an aorist
in -Gnv or -nv is proof of a passive meaning in a 'deponent' verb." 168 In other words,
'For a critique of this view, see 45 on p. 118.
'Moulton, Prolegomena, 153.
'Moulton, Prolegomena, 153-55.
'Moulton, Prolegomena, 154-55.

!
Moulton, Prolegomena, 161.
73
middle/passive forms of aorist verbs sometimes function legitimately as actives (when
deponent).
In summary, although Moulton was dissatisfied with the term 'deponent', he
did not clearly articulate the source of his dissatisfaction. It seems that his dissatisfaction
is with the term itself as opposed to the concept that the term conveys. He broadens
deponency's definition. For Moulton, deponency is not only a middle/passive form verb
that lacks an active form, it is also an active form verb that lacks a middle form. The
usage is the same in both scenarios—active/middle—which he sees as having little
distinction, if any. He does not understand this as surprising because the active and
middle are closely aligned voices.
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey provided generations of Greek students with
an intermediate Greek manual.169 Their discussion of deponency comes within their
treatment of the passive voice. While deponency is omitted from the discussion of the
middle voice, the middle voice is unmistakably included in their comments on
deponency. A clear definition is provided: "Deponent verbs are those with middle or
passive form, but active meaning.... The distinctive fact about the deponent verb is that
its voice form is different from its voice function."170 Deponency is a part of the larger
category of irregularities of voice. These are (1) verbs that lack a portion of their
l69
York: Macmillan, 1955).
170
Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 163.
morphology or (2) verbs whose function does not correspond with their morphology;
deponency represents both.171
Dana and Mantey provide a sober perspective on the origination of
deponency. They do not view deponency fundamentally as a 'laying aside' of its active
meaning. While ultimately acknowledging Robertson's and Moulton's uneasiness with
the term 'deponent', Dana and Mantey are satisfied to retain its use because it is generally
accepted in the grammatical field.172
Although Dana and Mantey do not list deponent verbs, they do provide a few
examples. Those examples are found in Table 21: Dana and Mantey's Deponents.
Table 21: Dana and Mantey's Deponents173

ep%o|j.ou &G7i&£oum Ge&oum
8e%o|ioa PouTioum
A. T. Robertson
A. T. Robertson's presentation of deponency can be characterized as
disgruntled. He definitely disliked the term 'deponent'. He wrote, "The truth is that it [the
term 'deponent'] should not be used at a l l . . . . As concerns voice these verbs were
defective rather than deponent."174 Elsewhere he wrote, "The name 'deponent' is very
unsatisfactory... . The term is usually applied to both middles and passives that have no
active (Clyde, Gk. Syntax, p. 6 1 ) . . . . But 'deponent' is a very poor definition. Nor is the
'Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 163-64.

2
Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 164.
3
Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 163-64.
4
Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 332-33.
75
word 'dynamic' much better."175 It would seem that he prefers the term 'dynamic middle'
based on the title to the section—"DYNAMIC (DEPONENT) MIDDLE." 176 However, as the
previous quotation demonstrates, he even dislikes this term.
Nevertheless, Robertson continues to validate the existence of deponency in
three ways. First, he corroborates deponency by continuing to use the term. Many times,
he refers to the phenomenon as "the so-called 'deponent'"177 verbs. However, he often
simply refers to them as deponent verbs. By utilizing the term 'deponent' often, he
confirms its existence.
Secondly, several descriptions of features of voice in the Greek verb signify
the same definition as deponency. Note the following quotations. "The result of this
struggle between the middle and passive in the aorist and future was an increasing
number of passive forms without the distinctive passive idea."178 "There is nothing
special to note about these passive endings in the N. T. save the increased use of them
when even the passive idea does not exist."179 "This [causative] occasional use of the
middle does not distinguish it from the active."180 These quotations demonstrate that
although Robertson was dissatisfied with the term 'deponent', he recognized the
correspondence of behavior of the verb with the fundamental definition of deponency.
'Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 811-12.
'Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 811.
'Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 332,334; see also p. 484.

The third way in which Robertson affirms deponency is via lists. He
catalogues in several lists deponent verbs of different types. His representative lists of
deponent verbs are provided.
Table 22: Robertson's Deponents 181

yivojioa 8iap,apxijpo|j,oa KaGeôum
akXo\iax ep%o|aca K&8T|U.OU
&(j)iKveoum epyaôuoa ovveno\iai
Table 23: Robertson's Future Deponents 182

(XKOWCO KXavaco £r|cou.oa
du,apxf|aco Kpd^co Goa>udao|4.oa
6c7iavxriaco 7rai^co A,f|u,\|/ou,oa
ap7tdaco pet)aco 6\|/oum
(3Xe\)/co aiamriGa) TieacGixai
yeTidaco a7iot)8daco mourn
Sicb^co cuvavxriaco xeôum
C,r\ca> d7io6avov(i.at ())dyou.ai
87UOpKr|aC0 eaojxai §ev£,oiiai
Table 24: Robertson's Passive Deponents 183

POTJÔUXXI Suvocuoa (ôpeouxxi
Table 25: Robertson's Aorist Passive Deponents 184

d7t£Kpi9r|v eS£f|0r|v eGau.pf)Griv
8ieKpi6r|v fiyepGnv evGuuriGeii;
o"uv"im£Kpi0r|v r|8\)vda0r|v u.£xeueXri6r|V
d7i£A,oyri9r|v r)8t)vri0riv eôpfiGnv
f|yaX,îd6r|v 8i8A.exGnv e\)X,aPr|Geic;
eyevriGriv e0at)|j.doGr|v
Table 26: Robertson's Future Passive Deponents 185

dvotKA.i6f|o-oum 0oa)|aaa8f|GOum u£xau.eXr|0f)o-o|j,oa
d7toKpiGf|Goum KouxnGfio-oum ())avf|0"0|j.ca
£7tava7iaf|0"exou £vxpa7trio"ovxoa (|)Opr|Gf|0"oum
18
l82
l83
184
185
77
Table 27: Robertson's Transitive Passive Deponents186

E(3oi)Xr|0r| ev0t)UT|0£VTO<; e<j>opf|9r|
eSefi9r| eTtejieXfiGri
Although spending much space critiquing the term 'deponency', he never
clearly defines it. He expresses how some use the term but does not give his own
definition of how he is using it. Nevertheless, it is clear that he perceives deponency as a
verb that is missing an active form, and the function of the verb is contrary to its expected
function. "But the point about all the 'dynamic' middles is that it is hard to see the
distinctive force of the voice."187
Blass, Debrunner, Funk
BDF, being an advanced grammar, does not define deponency; it assumes
deponency and explains trends that affect it. The cryptic discussion is found primarily in
two sections: voice and conjugation.
With regard to voice, BDF indicates that Koine Greek reflects three types of
deponency: (1) passive transitive-deponent, (2) passive intransitive-deponent, and
(3) middle deponent. First, passive transitive-deponents of the present tense (which have
identical morphology to middle deponents because the forms are identical in the present
tense) do not occur very often in Koine Greek. However, in contrast to the present tense,
aorist tense passive transitive-deponents are numerous. This is not surprising because
deponent verbs prefer the aorist passive. Second, aorist passive intransitive-deponent
verbs exist.Third, the middle voice is used to convey the active voice. "NT authors in

187
Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 812. Robertson uses 'deponent' and
'dynamic' synonymously. See also his comments on pp. 332-33.
78
general preserve well the distinction between middle and passive. The middle is
occasionally used, however, where an active is expected (cf. the reverse §§307 and
310)."188 This situation can be contrasted with the opposite in which the active voice is
used for the middle voice.189 The result of BDF's presentation is a picture of voice in
Koine Greek that is somewhat fluid. Of course, the voices were used to reflect true
subject-verb relationships (i.e., active, middle, and passive). However, there were
situations in which the middle reflected an active voice, the passive reflected an active
voice, and the active reflected a middle voice.190
Therefore, BDF affirms the existence of deponency in its discussion of three
variations: (1) passive transitive-deponent, (2) passive intransitive-deponent, and
(3) middle deponent.
G. Mussies
G. Mussies defines deponency morphologically as those verbs that lack an
active category. Therefore, he views 'deponency' as a synonym of 'media tantum'. These
verbs are distinct from oppositional middles because there is no contrast with another
voice. He explains the reason that deponent verbs are often described as having an active
function as is done with deponency in Latin—that is, because middle deponents
"resemble" active verbs in function.191
188
BDF, 165 (§316).
189
BDF, 42,163-65 (§§78,310-11,313,316).
190
Although rarely, the active was even used to reflect the passive voice (BDF, 165 [§315]).
191
G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A
Study in Bilingualism, NovTSup, vol. 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 234.
Hoffman-von Siebenthal
The grammar by Ernst G. Hoffman and Heinrich von Siebenthal, Griechische
Grammatik zum Neuen Testament,191 expresses how deponency has pervaded the
landscape of Greek instruction. Only a brief definition of the term is provided and no
defense of its validity is attempted, although a couple of characteristics are explained and
illustrated. Deponency is described morphologically as a term for verbs that lack an
active form. Those verbs that take an aorist middle are called middle deponents, and
those that take an aorist passive are called passive deponents.193
Hoffman-von Siebenthal expresses the way in which Koine Greek differs
from Classical Greek with reference to deponency. While deponent verbs in the Classical
period preferred future and aorist middle forms, those same verbs in the Koine period
favored the passive: aTtEKpivaxo/oOTOKpivEirai in Classical versus
&7t£Kpi0r|/&7i;oKpi8ric7£Tca in Koine.194 Also, while explaining transitivity and voice,
Hoffman-von Siebenthal state that an object (found in either the accusative, genitive, or
dative) can be observed with all three voices, principally because the (intransitive)
passive form verbs can be used with these objects when they are middle or aorist
deponents (e.g., (3o\)A,0|xai/£Pot)X,fi9riv, %pr|aTeiJ0um/£%priaT£t>aa|ar|v).195
192
Ernst G. Hoffmann and Heinrich von Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen
Testament, 2nd examined and expanded ed. (Riehen, Switzerland: Immanuel-Verlag, 1990).
193
Hoffmann and von Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament, 79 (§64b).
That an active 'form' is missing not actually stated, but it is certainly understood in the context. "Verben,
denen ein Aktiv fehlt, heissen 'Deponentia' . . . " (Hoffmann and von Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik
zum Neuen Testament, 79 [§64b]).
194
Hoffmann and von Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament, 293 (§188c).
195
Hoffmann and von Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament, 293-94
(§188d).
80
In summary, Hoffman-von Siebenthal define deponency morphologically, and
their comments about the term assume its existence while describing its perceived nature.
Stanley E. Porter
Stanley E. Porter defines deponency clearly: "Deponency is the phenomenon
whereby for a given verb one voice form (or more) is not found and the semantics
(meaning) of this voice are grammaticalized by substitution of another voice form of the
verb."196 The primary way in which deponency manifests itself is with a middle and/or
passive verb that takes an active meaning, although he does not restrict it to this
materialization.197
His presentation is detailed. He explains that the presence of an active form
disqualifies a verb from deponency, but such an absence does not demand a deponent
label. Furthermore, he recognizes semi-deponency.198 He identifies two difficulties with
reference to deponency. First, it is difficult to determine if some (middle) verbs are
deponent due to the fact that they retain their middle function. Porter suggests the
possibility that all middle deponents could be interpreted as true middles. Second, he
claims that determining the function of these verbs can be difficult because they can be
active, middle, or passive.199
196
Porter, Idioms, 70 (§1.4.1). Although he does not list passive alone (i.e., aorist or future
passive) in his definition, he seems to affirm such on the following page (Porter, Idioms, 71 [§1.4.2.a]).
197
Porter, Idioms, 70 (§1.4.1). For a critique of Porter's view of deponency, see n 45 on p. 118.
m
Porter, Idioms, 71 (§1.4.1).
'"Porter, Idioms, 71-72 (§1.4.2). This second difficulty does not seem to follow his own
presentation. He said that deponent verbs lack an active form, but in his illustration, he uses verbs that have
an active form (Porter, Idioms, 72 [§1.4.2.b]). His rationale is not made absolutely clear, but he may have
been viewing the compound verb (avioTnui) and the simple verb (ioxr||j.t) identically with regard to
deponency (see Porter, Idioms, 71nl.) It seems that if he applied his definition consistently, this difficulty
81
Although Porter provides a clear definition and a detailed discussion, his
treatment of the subject is still lacking. For example, he does not explain what body of
literature he uses to determine that no active form exists. His presentations of the voices
involved and the functions of deponent verbs also need further clarification.
K. L. McKay
McKay includes a short section on deponency in his brief NT grammar.200 He
defines them as "verbs which have middle or passive forms in Greek but are normally
translated as if they were active."201 He claims that the terminology, 'deponent', is helpful
in the sense that it describes a phenomenon that was normal to the ancient speakers and
writers. However, he views the term as unnecessary because these verbs tend to "have an
obviously middle or passive element in their meaning or in their history."202 A partially
invented/hypothetical history of nopevca and the middle meaning of uerarceuTioum are
used as validation for his position that the term is dispensable, although he does not cease
using the term himself.203 Furthermore, McKay recognizes that some verbs
(catoKpivouca) have shifted from middle deponent in Classical Greek to passive deponent
in Koine Greek (&7reKpi9r|v). Finally, he explains that an aorist passive verb that usually
would be eliminated. In other words, verbs that have an active form are not deponent; thus, there is no
difficulty in determining if the deponent verb functions actively.
200
McKay, A New Syntax, 25-26.
201
McKay, A New Syntax, 25.
202
McKay, A New Syntax, 26. This claim is somewhat odd considering it comes on the heels
(actually within the same sentence!) of stating that sometimes modern interpreters are unable to distinguish
between functions of the active and middle voices. If that is the case, then how is the middle element in the
verb's history obvious?
203
The difficulty with his reconstruction is that it is not based in fact. Dispensing with
deponency must be based upon more than an active imagination. Caragounis also criticizes imagination in
interpretation (Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 110-11).
82
functions deponently may function as a passive; the way to recognize the passive
function is context.204
Daniel B. Wallace
Daniel B. Wallace's grammar, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax, gives a sophisticated treatment of deponency. He provides a nuanced
definition of deponency, clarifications of the definition, and suggested guidelines for
deponency recognition. He defines deponency this way: "A deponent middle [and/or
passive205] verb is one that has no active form for a particular principal part in
Hellenistic Greek, and one whose force in that principal part is evidently active ."206 The
form's corresponding sense (middle or passive) must be demonstrably absent while the
active force is present. Accordingly, the verb's lexical stock must be taken into account.
Some verbs in the middle form may not have an active form but do have a middle
meaning; thus, they would not be considered deponents. Such an examination must be
carried out for each principal part to determine complete deponency from partial
deponency.207
In addition, he recognizes the etymological origin for 'deponency' and the
debate over whether or not anything was actually lost (active form or middle/passive
204
McKay, A New Syntax, 26; McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 136 (§22.5).
205
Wallace does not include these words in his definition; however, in his discussion of the
passive voice, he makes it clear that the definition equally applies to passive deponents (Wallace,
Exegetical Syntax, 441). He also states it more directly in another place: "the deponent middle and passive
have active meanings" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 38).
206
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 428.
'Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 428-29.

83
function). Furthermore, he demonstrates an awareness of the dissatisfaction with the term
'deponent'; nevertheless, Wallace accepts the term.208
He provides two different approaches for determining deponency. First, the
verb in question is deponent if BDAG209 lists its lexical form as middle or passive. This
first approach is basically the same method used by William D. Mounce.210 The second
test is to determine by consulting MM and LSJ that a verb is lacking the active form in
extant Greek literature.211 The first approach is practical but not thorough; the second
approach is more thorough but lacks practicality. Despite these two approaches to
determining deponency and his sophisticated treatment, he acknowledges that his work
on the issue is not final.212 He completes his discussion with two lists of deponent verbs,
each provided in tables below. Table 28: Wallace's Deponents consists of a
representative list of truly deponent verbs that he has identified. Table 29: Wallace's
Verbs That Look Deponent but Likely Are Not contains "some verbs that look deponent
but most likely are not."213
Table 28: Wallace's Deponents214

akXo\iai Suvocum nopevoîai
215
&7toKpivo|j,oa epy&tpum 7cpoa£,6%ou.oa
208
209
He actually says BAGD (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 429), but I have substituted BDAG
because Wallace's grammar was published prior to the publication of BDAG.
210
William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009), 152 (§18.11).
211
212
"The criteria for determining deponency still await a definitive treatment" (Wallace,
Exegetical Syntax, 430n65).
213
214
84
POTJÔUCU ep%ofjm216 xaPi-Coum

yivo(xai217 A,T|u.\|/ou.ai
Table 29: Wallace's Verbs That Look Deponent but Likely Are Not 218
&7T£Kpw&UT|v219 8£%oum |iiu,vf|GKoum
apveoum £K?i£YO|a,oa navaoytai
aonaC,o\ia\. Kai)%oco|j.oa rcpocncaXeoum
Po\)A,e-uo|j,ai Tioyiôum
In conclusion, Wallace affirms deponency and provides a nuanced
clarification of its understanding. Fundamentally, deponency is the situation in which the
verb lacks an active form, but its middle and/or passive form functions actively
nevertheless. He provides guidelines for identification and examples of both deponent
verbs and verbs that often may be misidentified as deponents.
Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf
Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf, like its cousin BDF, assumes the validity of
deponency as opposed to defining it. Several types of deponency are acknowledged:
passive transitive-deponents (where the middle and passive share the same form), future
middle deponents, and aorist passive deponents. Not surprisingly, Blass-Debrunner-
Rehkopf indicate that the future and passive deponents prefer the passive morphology as
215
"Deponent in sixth principal part, but not in third" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 430).
216
"But active in the third and fourth principal parts [fj^Gov, eXf|Vu0a]" (Wallace, Exegetical
Syntax, 430).
217
"But active in the fourth principal part [yeyova]" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 430).
218
2I9
"Only the third principal part is a true middle" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 430).
85
opposed to the middle.220 Whereas new data is not revealed about deponency here, Blass-
Debrunner-Rehkopf bear evidence of a continued presentation of deponency in Koine.
Disappointment with Deponency
Within the modern period, dissatisfaction with the concept of deponency has
arisen. This dissatisfaction has increased in intensity. It started as dissatisfaction with the
term 'deponent' and has culminated in the complete denial of deponency. We have
already observed several grammarians who were disgruntled with deponency: Donaldson
(subtly), Kuhner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth (subtly), Moulton, Robertson, Smyth (subtly),
Mussies (subtly), McKay, and Porter (subtly). These grammarians, nevertheless,
continued to use the term, thereby falling within the realm of those who view the term
traditionally.
In the works of a few scholars—Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J.
Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington—the denial of deponency has blossomed.221 Their
220
Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 18th
ed., ed. Friedrich Rehkopf (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2001), 255 (§307), 259 (§311), 61-62
(§§78-79). Blass first published in 1896 (Blass and Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen
Griechisch, foreword).
221
Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and Timothy Friberg (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 423-30;
Bernard A. Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography:
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),
167-76; Rutger J. Allan, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam Studies in
Classical Philology, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm Pinkster, vol. 11 (Amsterdam: J. C.
Gieben, 2003); Jonathan T. Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek: The Grammatical Question and the
Lexicographal Dilemma," TJ 24NS, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 55-76; Jonathan T. Pennington, "Setting Aside
'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New Testament Studies," in Linguist as
Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E.
Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, New Testament Monographs, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 11
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 181-203. The work of Carl W. Conrad should also be mentioned:
Carl W. Conrad, "Propositions Concerning Ancient Greek Voice," Web page, rev. October 13,2005,
http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ (accessed September 25,2007); Carl W. Conrad, "Observations on
Ancient Greek Voice (LONG!)," BGreek, Web page, May 27,1997, http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-
archives/html4/1997-05/19077.html (accessed April 26,2007); Carl W. Conrad, "New Observations on
86
claim is that verbs that are traditionally called 'deponent' are in fact normal, legitimate
uses of the verb's voice, usually middle in function. (Their views will be critiqued in the
fourth chapter.)
Neva F. Miller
Neva F. Miller builds a case against the traditional, stereotyped view of
deponency. For her, deponent verbs are those that are defective by laying aside their
active forms.222 Her case against deponency rests in three stages: (1) preliminaries,
(2) problem, and (3) solution.223
The preliminaries include a discussion of deponency's relationship to voice.
Miller explains the three voices. For all three, in addition to the relationship of the subject
to the action of the verb, the relationship of the verb's action to its object is discussed.
The verb-object relationship serves as a 'test' for identifying which voice is being used.
For example, for the active she says, "the subject of a (transitive) verb performs the
action expressed in it. The result of the action passes through to affect the expressed or
implied object of the verb."224 In this way, if the subject of a verb performs the action but
the action does not pass through to the (implied) object, then the verb is not functioning
actively. Similarly she says, "The middle voice shows that not only does the subject
Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb," PDF, November 19,2002, http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/

NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007); Carl W. Conrad, "Active, Middle, and Passive:
Understanding Ancient Greek Voice," PDF, December 16,2003, http://www.ioa.com/%7Ecwconrad/Docs/
UndAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007). He has been a vocal advocate for the denial of deponency.
However, due to the nature of his work, his work will not be presented nor critiqued in detail. First, Conrad
has only published online. Second, Conrad's purpose is pedagogical—as opposed to a more descriptive
approach (Conrad, "New Observations," 2). See n 45 on p. 13.
222
Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 423.
223
These stages are my own interpretation of her presentation.
'Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 423.

87
perform the action in the verb, but that the effect of the action comes back on him. The
subject does the action with reference to himself. He is involved in the action in such a
way that it reflects back on him. The action calls attention to him in some way."225
Therefore, if the subject performs the action of the verb and the action reflects back on
the subject, then the verb functions as a middle. As we will see, these definitions of the
voices become critical in her resolution to the deponency problem.
With regard to the problem, Miller identifies two assumptions that contribute
to the problem of deponency: "(1) in the earlier stages of development of the language,
every Greek verb had an active form; and (2) in later developments of the language some
verbs lost their active forms and thus became 'defective'."226 The result (or problem) was
deponency—that is, verbs which lack an active form but have active meaning. Miller too
recognizes the falseness in these assumptions; however, she argues that because the
assumptions are false, this feature of the language must likewise be untrue.227
With regard to the solution, Miller suggests that each verb should be evaluated
on its own merit. Those that look to be deponents are actually functioning true to their
form: middle. In that way, interpreters need to work to discover how the subject (agent) is
involved in the action.228 She suggests that we might ask several questions:
How is the agent involved? Is he benfiting himself (e.g., / eat)! Is he interacting

positively with someone else (/ welcome)! Or is he interacting negatively with
someone else (/ leap on)! Could it be that he is communicating with someone
else, so that if he did not stay involved as the speaker, the verb would become
225
226
227
Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 424—25. Our approach affirms the falseness of the assumptions
but sees no reason therein to deny deponency. See chapter 3.
228
88
meaningless? And how could a person feel ashamed unless there were
interactions with his own thoughts and feelings?229
In conclusion, Miller has identified a problem (identifying active-lacking
verbs as deponent) and a solution. The solution captures the essence of the essay, from
which the title derives. She writes, "If we accept the theory that so-called deponent verbs
express personal interest, self-involvement, or interaction of the subject with himself or
with others in some way, we will be better able to accept that the non-active form of the
verb is valid for communicating a meaning on its own, and we will be challenged to look
for that meaning."230 Her theory is not complete. She acknowledges that more work needs
to be done on deponency, including research into semi-deponency and passive
deponency.231
Bernard A. Taylor
Bernard A. Taylor offers a refutation of the concept of deponency in an essay
entitled "Deponency and Greek Lexicography."232 He plainly states in a play on the
etymology of deponency, "For Greek, then, what needs to be laid aside is the notion of
deponency."233 The difficulty in evaluating his work is determining the definition of
deponency in Greek that he dislikes because he never clearly defines the term from a
229
230
"'Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 430.

232
Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 167-76. Although published in 2004, a
prior version of this work existed. Taylor explains, "This is a revision of a paper presented to a joint session
of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Biblical Lexicography section
at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting held in Denver, Colorado, November 17-20,2001"
(Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 167; see also Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek,"
60n26).
'Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 175.

traditional Greek perspective. He clearly defines the phenomenon in Latin but does not
do the same for Greek. It seems that he conceives of deponency differently from the
established meaning. For example, contrary to modern grammarians, he states,
"traditional deponency for Greek verbs is tied most tightly to the aorist middle."234 Also,
he says, "core to the concept of deponency is the notion that something is laid aside, and
in the process has somehow become defective."235
He utilizes two primary arguments against deponency. First, Latin has
undesirably influenced our conception of deponency. Latin legitimately possesses
deponency in which the passive form functions actively. The Greeks developed the
model, and the Latins followed their lead. Such was the case with grammar too.
Nevertheless, by the Renaissance, Latin terminology held the day. Thus, it was not
unusual for all language study to have been influenced by Latin grammar and
terminology.236 Taylor argues that we should not apply Latin grammar and terminology to
our understanding of Greek voice: "In the interface between Greek and Latin, at least one
Latin notion was transferred to Greek that had not existed in that language before: the
notion of deponency."237
Second, Taylor argues that it is historically significant that the Greek initially
had only two voices: active and middle. Because of this fact, middle verbs have laid aside
neither the active form nor middle meaning because the middle form is as old as the
active. He appropriately utilizes the aorist tense to test this phenomenon. By using the
234
Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 173.
235
236
Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 169-71.
237
aorist, the middle deponent and passive deponents are visible. However, at the point in
his essay where it seems that he may have developed a case in favor of deponency, he
diverts. He writes, "In the light of the existence of these [aorist passive] deponents, the
temptation is to 'correct' the application of the term deponency since here the Greek
appears to align with the Latin and find a suitable application after all.. .. Such an
application is to be assiduously avoided . . . ."239 Why does he divert? He provides two
reasons: "because the Greeks themselves never found recourse to the concept despite
their close attention to the form and function of their language;240 and because it masks
the meaning of the voices."241
The conclusion reached by Taylor is that deponency should be laid aside. By
suggesting this, he has chosen to focus on morphology. By making this decision, he
admits to neglecting semantics. He asks, "what [are we] to do when morphology and
semantics are in conflict"?242 No solution is attempted here by Taylor, although he
acknowledges that the issue is important and needs to be treated in the future.
238
239
240
The veracity of this comment has been disproven above. See "The Ancient Witness (ca. 500
B.C.-A.D. 500)," which begins on p. 21.
241'
242
Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 175. His conclusion is specifically focused
on which headword to list in lexicons.
91
Rutger J. Allan
Rutger J. Allan has provided a thorough treatment of middle voice in Homeric
and Classical Greek in a work entitled The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek.243 He resists
the idea that media tantum, his term for deponency, are often defined and treated strictly
morphologically: "the media tantum are distinguished by . . . the non-existence of an
active form."244 In arguing against treating media tantum as a separate class of verbs, his
ultimate concern is consistent methodology. He desires to categorize the verbs that lack
an active morphology {media tantum) in the same way as oppositional middles245—
according to "purely semantic criteria." Although his work is not primarily a work on
deponency, his treatment is valuable because he addresses several situations that would
seem to support the traditional view: the definition of the middle voice including several
classifications of media tantum, the passive voice in the aorist stem, the passive voice in
the future stem, and synonymous active and middle verbs.
In sum, the reason he does not support deponency, he says, is that "for a great
number of media tantum it is possible to classify them under the already established
middle uses in a straightforward way."246 The way in which he is ultimately able to
accomplish this is by his definition of the middle voice, which is broad. Middle
encompasses all of the verbal uses that are not prototypically transitive.247 "Now the
243
Although Allan is not addressing Koine Greek, it seems sensible to include his treatment on
media tantum because arguments parallel to his could be incorporated into a denial of deponency.
244
Allan, The Middle Voice, 50.
245
Allan, The Middle Voice, 50. Oppositional middles are those that possess an active form;
thus, their active form is placed in opposition to its middle form (Allan, The Middle Voice, 50n62).
246
'Allan, The Middle Voice, 14-19.

middle voice can be defined as a marked coding of a departure from the prototypical
transitive."248
The result of Allan's system is that media tantum, those verbs traditionally
called deponent, can usually be classified into established categories for the middle voice:
(1) beneficiary/recipient-subject, (2) body motion, (3) emotion and cognition,
(4) volitional mental activities, (5) reciprocal, (6) perception, and (7) speech act.249 Thus,
he does not view these verbs as a distinct class but in continuity with oppositional
middles.
Jonathan T. Pennington
Jonathan Pennington first challenged the validity of deponency in his 2003
article for Trinity Journal™ His thesis was clear: "most if not all verbs that are
considered 'deponent' are in fact truly middle in meaning. Therefore our use of
'deponent' and our assumption about the widespread occurrence of 'deponent' verbs
needs to be reevaluated.'"251 In 2009, he published again on this subject, but his thesis is
more forceful in this subsequent work:
The thesis of this article is that the grammatical category of deponency, despite its
widespread use in Greek grammars, is erroneous. It has been misapplied to Greek
because of the influence of Latin grammar as well as our general unfamiliarity
with the meaning of the Greek middle voice. As a result, we have failed to grasp
the significance of the Greek middle. Indeed, most if not all verbs that are
traditionally considered 'deponent' are truly middle in meaning.... The
8
"Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 55-76.
'Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 61.

93
consequence of my thesis is that the category of deponency should be eliminated

from our reconstruction of Greek grammar.252
Prior to providing his arguments against deponency, Pennington orients the
reader by discussing the history and meaning of the middle voice in Greek253 and the
definition of deponency.254 First, he correctly notes that Greek originally possessed two
voices: active and middle. Thus, the history of the middle voice is misunderstood if it is
perceived to have been added to the language after the passive voice. However, in the
Koine period, the use of voice was in a transitional state, resulting in the situation where
the passive form and meaning were encroaching on the middle.255
The meaning of the middle voice is presented with deftness. He says that the
middle voice functions with meanings of reflexivity (direct middle), self-interest (indirect
middle), and with "the subject as the gravitational center of the action" (affectedness).256
Furthermore, he correctly points out that the direct middle use is rare in Koine Greek. He
writes, "In Greek, like English, the reflexive is typically communicated by the active
voice plus a reflexive pronoun."257 Finally, he indicates that most of the time, verbs that
use the middle can be located within a set of lexical meanings: "grooming or body care,
252
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 182.
253
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 182-85. See also Pennington, "Deponency in
Koine Greek," 56-59.
254
255
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 182-83.
256
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 185. Although his presentation of the function of
the middle voice is acceptable, I might quibble over some of the details. It seems that he has defined the
indirect middle too narrowly and thus has to supplement its meaning with affectedness. I would rather use a
slightly broader definition of indirect middle, which would include the idea of affectedness; therefore, there
would be no reason to supplement its meaning. Affectedness seems to be the same concept that Allan
describes as beneficiary/recipient-subject (Allan, The Middle Voice, 51-52).

naturally reciprocal events such as embracing or wrestling, acts of cognition, emotions,
changes in body posture, and many more."258
Pennington's presentation of deponency's definition is of great import
because the way in which he crafts its meaning facilitates his rebuttal of it. He writes,
"Nearly all grammars use the term 'deponent' to refer to the class of verbs which appear
in the middle form but apparently have instead an active meaning."259 This is a subtle but
significant shift in meaning from the definition of deponency that he provided in 2003. In
the former work, he included passive form in deponency's definition, but passive is
excluded from the latter definition. In fact, in the 2003 article, he cites John William
Wenham, J. Gresham Machen, Smyth, and Wallace, all of whom include passive form in
the definition of deponency, and in the present work he cites Smyth (in the next
sentence!).260 Therefore, in a definition that he claims is consistent with "nearly all
grammars," he deviates from the definitions of four grammars that he himself cited in his
prior publication! It seems that Pennington has crafted a definition of deponency that
facilities his denial of it.
Furthermore, the wording in this definition is curious. He expresses that
"nearly all grammars use the term ..."; however, in the footnote to that same sentence,
he writes, "Note also that there is some inconsistency of usage in the term 'deponent'.
Most often it is used to refer to verbs that appear only in the middle form, yet at times it is
258
259
260
Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 59; Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency',"
186. The text that Pennington cites from Wallace does not explicitly include the passive, but Pennington
acknowledges that such is Wallace's understanding by stating that Wallace began with the definition of
deponency from Wenham, Machen, and Smyth and supplemented it (Pennington, "Deponency in Koine
Greek," 59).
applied to the middle form of a verb which appears active in meaning even if that verb
also appears with active and/or passive forms (e.g., aixeco, odTeoum)."261 His statement—
"most often it is used to refer to verbs that appear only in the middle form"—does not
accurately reflect the facts. The admission of "inconsistency of usage" indicates that his
presentation of deponency's definition may be too simplistic for the purposes of
completely denying its existence.
He advances two reasons—his primary arguments—that these verbs have
been misunderstood as deponents.262 The first explanation that Pennington provides is the
influence of Latin grammar.263 He writes, "There is no doubt that the grammatical
concept of deponency comes from analogy to Latin."264 As western Europeans, who
previously knew Latin, studied Greek (a time frame was not specified), they imported
Latin's terminology into the Greek grammatical system. Bernard A. Taylor's "linguistic
journey" is cited as a modern illustration of the way one's prior understanding of Latin
affected the acquisition of Greek grammar.265 Pennington, following Taylor's lead,
suggests that deponency was a foreign concept to ancient Greek grammarians.266 He
261
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 186n24. He also includes passive in the
introduction (Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 181).
262
The balance of this presentation of Pennington's view will focus upon his latter publication
because it includes much if not all from his earlier work and is more thorough. Pennington describes his
own 2009 publication this way: "[In] this article,... I deal with many more issues much more fully than
my original TrinJ article.... It is, I think, a more mature and grounded argument" (Jonathan T. Pennington,
e-mail message to author, October 19,2009; used by permission).
263
264
265
Taylor tells his story and its implications for the study of deponency in Deponency and
Greek Lexicography (Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 169-70).

pointedly concludes, "Deponency is a clear case where we have taken a Latin
grammatical category and applied it to Greek with little reflection on the fundamental
differences between the two languages."267
Second, Pennington suggests that Greek verbs have been misunderstood as
deponent due to unfamiliarity with the middle voice based on our English perception.268
He writes, "The problem has been compounded by a general unfamiliarity with the
meaning of the Greek middle voice."269 Mounce's first-year grammar is cited as an
illustration of the way in which the meaning of the middle is underappreciated and even
viewed as insignificant.270 Next, he provides an explanation of the apparent discrepancy
between voice form and function in 'middle-only' verbs. These verbs are not defective,
having laid aside their active form. They are true to their middle function. 8e%o|o.ou is
used as an example because of its indirect middle meaning. He explains that calling
267
268
Koine Greek," 61-62, where he emphasizes that we have come to understand Greek through an English
lens. This English lens has caused us to misunderstand the middle voice in Greek because we have no
parallel in English. A curious shift has occurred in Pennington's writings on deponency. In his 2003 article,
Pennington argues that English speakers are to blame for deponency in Greek (in support of
misunderstanding the middle voice), whereas in his 2009 essay, the fault rests with western Europeans (in
support of the negative influence of Latin). (The 2009 essay also acknowledges the deficiencies due to
English, but it is not emphasized as it was in the 2003 article.)
269
270
Pennington cites Mounce's first edition, but the relevant quotation remains in the second
and third editions:
The meaning of a verb in the middle voice can be difficult to define, partly because it is often an
issue of nuance. But let's make it easy for you now. In the next several chapters, the only middle
verbs you will see are deponent, so they will always have an active meaning. Actually, the vast
majority of middle forms in the New Testament, approximately 75%, are deponent. We will learn
the true use of middles in a later chapter. (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek:
Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 151-52 [§18.17]; emphasis added; Mounce,
Basics of Biblical Greek, 153 [§18.17]; emphasis added)
The '75% estimate' is important because Pennington refers back to it later in his essay (see Pennington,
"Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 197).
97
5£%oum a deponent verb does injustice to the significance of the middle voice. Thus, the
observation of Greek voice from an English perspective has caused grammarians to call
the apparent discrepancy (middle form-active function) deponency when no
inconsistency of voice actually exists.271 As a result, Pennington concludes: "The Greek
verbal system has a rich and nuanced middle voice capable of communicating any
number of actions, attitudes and conditions involving a subject-focused lexical idea."272
Two potential objections to Pennington's perspective on deponency are
addressed: future middles (partial deponency or semi-deponency)273 and aorist passives.274
He treats neither very extensively. In the case of partially deponent verbs, especially
those that have an active form in the present but a middle-only form in the future,
Pennington provides two explanations. "First, it is important to observe that across every
language which uses the middle voice, there is variance in which verbs do occur in this
form."275 Although he tries to insulate this reason by claiming a descriptive method, it
seems to fall short in the explanation of the data.276 Second, some verbs have an active
271
272
273
274
Koine Greek," 68.
275
276
This first statement is very perplexing. It does not seem to address the explanation of the
shift from active in the present to middle-only in the future. He simply describes that there is variation, and
a description is not an explanation. For example, he writes, "We can identify a variety of event-types which
tend to use the middle voice, but in the on-the-ground, everyday functioning of a language some verbs in
those categories are middle-only and some are not. At times we can discern a difference in nuance between
two nearly synonymous verbs, one of which occurs in the middle only (media tantum) and the other in the
active only (activa tantum)" (Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 193). Such a description does not
explain the phenomenon. In fact, it seems to describe irregularity or defectiveness—the very situation he is
trying to avoid by denying the validity of deponency.
98
present and a middle-only future "because the future tense can only present an event as a
mental disposition or intention, [and] the middle voice serves well in many instances to
communicate that sense."277 In sum, he expresses that partial deponents should be
interpreted according to their voice. In other words, there must be a reason the middle
form was used (i.e., to bring out a middle function in the future). It would seem that his
explanation of the data would require that all future tense verbs would be found in
middle-only form, but he denies such a conclusion.278 Pennington's conclusion about
future middle verbs develops from his 2003 article. In it, he concludes, "Maybe this is
one place where the term 'deponent' could be salvaged, but there are enough intriguing
links to cause hesitancy even here."279 In the 2009 essay, he sees no room for deponency,
even with future middle-only verbs.
The second potential difficulty to his view is aorist passive deponents. To this
point, Pennington has spent the entire essay discussing middle deponents and has largely
ignored passive deponency. In fact, his definition of deponency has only included middle
forms/function, which facilitates his rebuttal of aorist passive deponents. His definition of
passive deponency is convoluted, but still draws attention to the middle voice: "Typically
'passive deponent' verbs are those which are 'deponent'—i.e., they occur in the middle
with an apparent active meaning—yet whose aorist forms are passive rather than
middle."280 The offered explanation is that these are verbs in the aorist passive form but
'Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 194.

!
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 194n53.
'Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 67.

81
have an aorist middle function due to "the erosion of the middle forms, all fitting into
one of Miller's categories for the middle.282 Thus, even aorist passive verbs are not a
place where Pennington would acknowledge deponency.
Finally, the essay addresses implications of the denial of deponency for
teaching Greek and exegesis of the NT. He emphasizes that the middle voice in Greek
should be taught clearly while eliminating the category of deponency.283 Several passages
are briefly surveyed which illustrate the way in which the true middle meaning is lost by
calling a verb deponent. He then explores the middle's meaning for verbs which also
have an active counterpart—a situation that is actually outside of the parameters of a
discussion on deponency.284
In summary, Pennington has become a vocal advocate of the denial of
deponency, whose conclusions are more strongly asserted in his latter publication.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a history of deponency has been set forth with five emphases:
the ancient witness, the Gothic witness, the medieval witness, the modern witness, and
the disappointment with deponency. (The last-mentioned is really a subset of the modern
witness.) The most fruitful of the historical emphases has been the ancient and the
modern witnesses, although the Gothic and medieval emphases also aid in providing the
background and impetus for the investigation of deponency. The history of deponency
281
282
283
Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 196-97.
284
Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 197-203.
100
has proven significant in four ways. First, the survey of deponency has documented its
treatment diachronically. Second, our study has revealed the inconsistency of the usage of
the term 'deponent'. Third, the origins of deponency were demonstrated to be archaic by
our investigation into the ancient witness. Finally, we have learned the arguments used by
those who deny deponency. The common thread that has been observed throughout this
chapter is the wrestling with the situation in which there is a disjunction between the
form and function of the verb's voice.
Within the ancient period of Greek grammatical studies, we surveyed three
grammarians: Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius. Dionysius Thrax,
whose work was defended as authentic, laid a foundation for grammar study that has
supported the next eighteen hundred years. He articulated the existence of three voices:
active, middle, and passive. Furthermore, he described an incongruity between the form
and function of the verb's voice. By doing so, it seems that the way for deponency was
paved. Next, Apollonius Dyscolus, although not using the term 'deponent', seemed to
describe deponency. He observed the situation in which there was a mismatch between
the verb's form and function. In particular, the verb's form was middle/passive with an
active function, while the active form was seized by the middle form. Thirdly, Macrobius
was a grammarian important to the investigation of deponency not only because of his
work on Greek grammar but also because of his knowledge of Latin. His treatment of
voice was broad and informed. It was Macrobius who first put a term to the verbal
phenomenon observed by Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus: deponentia.
The understanding of deponency did not develop greatly during the Gothic or
the medieval periods. The Gothic period was especially void of development;
grammatical investigation was on the rebound in the medieval period. Latin's structure
formed the framework for Greek grammatical understanding in this time. In this
particular case, because we are studying Greek, the effect is not too negative because
Latin grammatical study was itself based upon Greek grammar. Thus, the lessons learned
could legitimately be applied to Greek because (1) Greek was the original source and
(2) the structures of Greek and Latin are so similar. Maximus Planudes and Gennadius
Scholarius continued to wrestle with the incongruity between voice form and function in
Greek verbs.
In the modern period, we observe grammarians handling deponency in two
different ways. Some grammarians view deponency in its traditional sense, while others
express dissatisfaction with the term. Nevertheless, grammarians continued to teach
deponency, even among those who were dissatisfied with the term 'deponent'. The result
of this dissatisfaction, however, was to plant the seed of doubt, which has blossomed into
a complete denial of deponency. Miller, Taylor, Allan, and Pennington have become the
strongest advocates of the view that denies deponency in Koine Greek.
In conclusion, the survey of the history of deponency has seen a progression
in the formulation of thought. Robins captures the nature of the development nicely.
In the pioneering stage of any subject one cannot expect systematic developments
or consistent tidiness of method; systemization comes later, at the hands of those
who revise and set out, sometimes with scant acknowledgment, the daring
original work of their predecessors. Therefore criticism of shortcomings from a
modern point of view, and of mistakes in method, as, for example, the failure to
distinguish between the descriptive and the normative approaches to grammar (a
common feature of ancient grammatical work) can rightly be made against early
grammarians, but must not be taken as censure or disparagement of them in the
way that one would take it in the case of a modern writer on grammar who failed
to make such a fundamental distinction (and there are still those who do), or who
showed similar lack of organization or method in his grammatical and linguistic
work. In passing comments on ancient scholars we must remember our privileged
102
position in having an already developed and formulated subject of study, which

we owe not least to the profit derived from considering the mistakes of our
academic fore-runners, in Greece and elsewhere.285
Robins's words are applicable to the history of deponency. Whereas the first attempts at
formulating the relationship of the subject to the verb were somewhat crude, there was a
real attempt to wrestle with the situation in which the form of the verb did not correspond
to its function. In the progression of time, grammarians refined their understanding and
description of deponency. However, it seems that modern grammarians who are
questioning—even denying—deponency have gone too far in their evaluation of this
phenomenon, which forms a basis for chapter three, "Deponency's Validation and
Redefinition."
'Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory, 4.

Chapter 3
DEPONENCY'S VALIDATION AND REDEFINITION
Introduction
The term 'deponent' has become an amorphous term that has been used with
great inconsistency. Each grammarian tends to approach the term as it seems right in his
own eyes. Such a history has been documented in the previous chapter. The goal here is
to find some clarity and consistency. The suggested hypothesis is this: the Greek middle
and passive voices in the Koine period include deponency as a legitimate expression of
voice. Deponency will be validated by extracting the salient points from Latin's
definition of deponency and applying them to Koine Greek. If the essential characteristic
of deponency is found to exist, then the evidence will have been found to suggest that
deponency is a legitimate expression of voice function in Koine Greek. By observing the
Greek Koine literature, then we will be able to suggest a refined definition and suggest
boundaries for the consistent use of the concept.
The Established Definition of Deponency
Deponency in Greek has been traditionally acknowledged. The term
'deponent' comes from the Latin infinitive deponere, which means "to lay aside," or "to
put down."1 In Latin grammar, it came to reflect the idea that the verb had either (1) 'laid
aside' its active form or (2) 'laid aside' its passive function. It is disputed which of these
[
The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed., 455 (s.v. "deponent").
103
two features of the verb was "laid aside.' Matthew Baerman explains its expansion to
other languages: "Traditionally, the term applies only to a set of verbs in Latin; any
further use of the term involves some kind of metaphorical extension of its salient
features."3 This definition has been applied to a particular set of Greek verbs across the
centuries beginning with Macrobius.
Method
Following the lead of Baerman, we will identify the salient features of
deponency in Latin and their corresponding features in Greek. Then, a refined definition
of deponency will be offered for Koine Greek. Next, the criteria for determining
deponency in Latin will be applied to Koine Greek. Koine literature will be surveyed
because categories are determined by usage. During the survey, we will observe data
which will confirm and illustrate the refined definition, ultimately corroborating our
claim that deponency exists in Koine Greek. The survey will also inform us about the
voices and the characteristics of deponency.
Jonathan T. Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek: The Grammatical Question and the
Lexicographal Dilemma," TJ 24NS, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 60; Jonathan T. Pennington, "Setting Aside
'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New Testament Studies," in Linguist as
Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E.
Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, New Testament Monographs, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 11
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 181nl; Bernard A. Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," in
Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A.
Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 170; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics:
An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 428n61.
3
Matthew Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," in Deponency and
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1.
The overarching approach will be to be descriptive of the way in which Koine
Greek utilizes morphology to express the function of voice.4 Robins captures the
sentiment nicely:
In working out a system of categories for the grammatical analysis of any

language it is proper to work from 'texts', actual pieces of discourse, recorded or
transcribed, uttered in genuine contexts of situation. From these can be discovered
classes of words exhibiting the same or similar 'formal scatters', and classes of
words performing similar syntactic functions in sentences of certain basic types.
We have then classes corresponding roughly to the classes of the traditional
morphology and syntax; but the two parts of grammar cannot be considered
separately, for morphological classes are only relevant to grammar as having
particular syntactic functions.5
Voices
An understanding of voice and the distinction between its constituents is
critical if the uses in the literature are to be observed. Thus, definitions for voice, active
voice, middle voice, and passive voice are provided.
Voice is that feature of grammar that expresses the relationship between the
subject of the sentence and the action (or state) of the verb. This places voice in contrast
to transitivity, which expresses the relationship of the action of the verb to an object. The
object can be expressed or unexpressed.6
Active
Both active-functioning and stative-functioning verbs utilize the active voice.
In the case of active verbs, the voice represents the subject's production of the action of
4
See "Linguistics" on p. 16.
5
6
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 797-99; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 408-09.
the verb; the subject performs the action. In the case of stative verbs, the subject exists in
the state portrayed by the verb; the subject experiences the state expressed by the verb.
Active-functioning verbs can be either transitive or intransitive.7 It seems that deponent
verbs can be active-functioning or stative-functioning verbs, and they can be either
transitive or intransitive. For example, eiui in the second principal part and Yvvouai in the
first, second, and third principal parts are deponent.
Middle
The middle voice expresses special emphasis on the subject. In this way, the
subject performs the action of the verb with reference to himself. Syntactically, the
middle voice can express itself in several ways, but the two most significant syntactical
uses are direct middle and indirect middle. Direct middles function reflexively. It might
be said that direct middles possess an embedded direct object whose referent is the
subject. In indirect middles, the action is done by the subject to, for, or by himself. These
middles may be viewed as possessing an embedded indirect object whose referent is the
subject or as having an embedded intensive onjxot;.8 The embedded intensive amoq is not
a likely interpretation for deponent verbs because these verbs lack an active counterpart.
7
York: Macmillan, 1955), 155-56 (§153); Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), 389 (§§1703-1704); Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 410.
8
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 420. Moule writes, "It may sometimes be analysed . . . into an
Active voice with a Dative: 7tpocKocA,o'U|J.ca, / call to myself (= 7rpooKaXro euauxa)) though the rcpoa- by
itself practically secures this" (C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed.
[Cambridge: University Press, 1959], 24).
107
There cannot be emphasis without contrast.9 Indirect middle is true to the definition of the
middle voice, and it is the most common use (apart from deponency).10
The Difficulty of Distinguishing

the Active from the (Indirect) Middle
One question is at the heart of the discussion of the active and middle voices:
what distinguishes the active from the indirect middle?11 In the active, the subject
performs the action of the verb, and in the middle, the subject participates in the action of
the verb. Yet, a subject of an active verb must participate in the action too. So, what is the
distinction really?
Grammarians generally provide three resolutions to this conundrum:
(1) emphasis, (2) transitivity, and (3) lexeme. First, James Hope Moulton indicates that in
the active, the action was stressed; in the middle, the agent was stressed.12 Similarly, A.
T. Robertson writes, "The only difference between the active and middle voices is that
the middle calls especial attention to the subject."13 Second, the actives tend to be
9
See "The Logical Argument" on p. 135.
10
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 390 (§§1713-19); Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 414-17,419-20.
"The direct middle is not as prominent in this discussion for two reasons. First, the direct
middle is a more transparent (obvious) use of the middle that is readily recognized. Second, the verbs that
lack an active form (those that are the most relevant to the current study) do not normally function as direct
middles. Basil Gildersleeve, in his Classical Greek grammar, also affirms the difficulty of distinguishing
the active from the indirect middle: "Much more frequent is the indirect middle, in which the subject is
more or less remotely involved, sometimes with sharp distinction from the active, sometimes without any
perceptible, or at any rate translatable, difference" (Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and with the co-operation
of Charles Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek: From Homer to Desmosthenes [Groningen: Bouma's
Boekhuis B.V., 1980], 65 [§147]). The same can be said of Koine Greek.
12
James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, [1908]), 152.
''Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 804. See also Dana and Mantey, A Manual
Grammar, 157; Smyth, Greek Grammar, 392-93 (§§1728,1731-32); Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 415.
transitive, while the middles tend to be intransitive. 1 Third, some grammarians indicate
that the difference in usage between the active and middle is a lexical one. The meaning
of some verbs lends itself to a middle usage as opposed to an active. For other verbs, the
lexeme distinguishes the meaning in the active and the middle. Herbert Smyth,
Robertson, and Daniel B. Wallace suggest verbs with such a phenomenon.
Table 30: Actives and Middles with Distinct Meanings

Active Middle
odpeco I take I choose
I ward off I defend myself
duuvcfl something from against
someone something
6c7to8i8coui I give back I sell
OC7ITG0 I attach I touch
&PXCD I rule I begin
I marry (of the I marry (of the
Yotueco
man) woman)
I draw up an
ypd(|)C0 I propose a law
indictment
8av(e)i£co I lend I borrow
SlK&^CO I give judgment I conduct a case
I hold on to, be
e%co I hold
close to
01JCO I sacrifice I take auspices
I let
uacGo oo (something) for I hire
hire
I make to cease, I cease
7taiJco
stop (transitive) (intransitive)
7iei9co I persuade I trust
I avenge I avenge myself
tuacopeco
someone on someone
xivco I pay a penalty I exact a penalty
'"Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 804; Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393 (§1734);
15
Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393-94 (§1734). See also Robertson, A Grammar of the New
Testament, 804; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 416 for similar lists.
109
Active Middle
I am on my
I watch
(j)iAaaaco guard against
someone
someone
KlxpTyu I lend I use
Nevertheless, the difficulty of distinguishing between active and middle
continues due to the way in which authors chose to utilize the voices.16 Authors were free
to choose either the active or middle to convey the intended meaning. Matters are
complicated by inconsistent usage. Sometimes the active was used for the middle, and
vice versa. Winer states, "Occasionally the Middle and Active are used interchangeably,
as Luke xv. 6."17 Robertson writes that the causative middle cannot be distinguished from
the active.18 C. F. D. Moule writes, "But the fact remains that the distinction [between
active and middle] has become blurred by the N.T. period, and, as a rule, it is far from
easy to come down from the fence with much decisiveness on either side in an exegetical
problem if it depends on the voice."19 Similarly, Nigel Turner states, "But in our period
there is not always any significance in the writer's choice of middle or active . . . ."20 This
is not to say that there is no distinction between them, but due to inconsistent usage or
interchangeability, determining the distinction is difficult. The distinction is made
16
What we have to say about authors also applies to speakers, but our comments are related to
authors because they relate more directly to our target, the NT.
17
Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid
Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, 7th ed., rev. Gottlieb Lunemann (Andover: Warren F.
Draper, 1869), 256.
18
19
Moule, An Idiom Book, 24.
20
Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope
Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 54.
110
clearest when the active and middle are used for the same word in the same context.21 The
interpreter is rarely so lucky as to have this situation present itself. Therefore, the
distinction between active and middle remains elusive. Many grammarians agree that it is
not always possible to capture in English translation the meaning of the middle voice.
The result is that there is nothing in English translation that can assist in the distinction
between the active and middle verbs.22
In conclusion, the distinction between the active and middle is often left to
subjectivity. The author had control over which voice he chose to utilize; however,
sometimes the active was used for the middle or vice versa. There are clues (e.g., lexeme
and surrounding context) that assist the interpreter, but they are not absolute. The only
objective clue to the interpreter is the morphology. Because the morphology is not always
determinative, the interpreter finds himself in a precarious position. Thus, Dana and
Mantey's words seem appropriate.
Any analysis of the uses of the middle is of necessity more or less arbitrary. No
rigid lines of distinction can in reality be drawn. Distinctions there are,
however . . . . But the student should seek to master the fundamental significance
of the middle voice, then interpret each use in the light of its own context and the
meaning of the verb.23
21
BDF, 163-66 (§§310,316); Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 804-05; Winer,
Grammar, 255-58; G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure
Basis for New Testament Exegesis, 3rd ed., trans. W. F. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), 320-
22; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, English ed., adapted from the fourth
Latin ed. by Joseph Smith, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114 (n.p., 1963; repr., Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1994), 76 (§234).
"Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 804. Gildersleeve affirms as much in

Classical Greek too (see n 11 on p. 107). In contrast, Moulton, Moule and Wallace affirm that the emphasis
contained in the middle voice can be conveyed in English translation by italicizing the subject (Moulton,
Prolegomena, 152; Moule, An Idiom Book, 24; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 415).
'Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 158 (§156).

Ill
Although in context these words relate more specifically to the interpretation of
syntactical categories of the middle voice, they can be applied to the present discussion.
The quotation draws attention to the tension that sparks the debate over the legitimacy of
deponency. Some argue that middle/passive form verbs are functioning actively; thus,
they are deponent. Others argue that the same middle/passive form verbs are functioning
as (indirect) middles; thus, they are not deponent.24
Passive
In the passive voice, the subject receives the action of the verb. The agent
doing the action is often—but not always—indicated by a prepositional phrase (i.e.,
w o + substantive). In theory, the passive voice would always require a transitive verb,
but Greek usually uses an intransitive verb in the passive.25
The Evidence for Deponency
The Anatomy of Deponency
If deponency existed in Koine Greek, what did it look like? The salient points
of deponency will be extracted from Latin's definition of deponency. This procedure will
provide the 'anatomy' of deponency, against which Koine Greek will be examined. If
deponency is able to withstand the examination, then it will have been found to
legitimately utilize deponency as a function of the language. The point of departure will
24
For the resolution of this conundrum, see "The Distinction between Active and Middle" on
p. 127.
"Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 815-16; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 431-32.
112
be Matthew Baerman's essay in the recent monograph on deponency: "Morphological
Typology of Deponency."26
Deponency as a term was first applied to Latin verbs. In its purest sense,
deponency would only apply to Latin; however, there are various legitimate linguistic
parallels with other languages. The result is that deponency can legitimately be applied to
other languages by extension. First and foremost, deponency in Latin is a discrepancy
(mismatch) between form and function.27 Baerman defines deponency with its relevant
features:
Deponency is a mismatch between form and function (§2). Given that there is a
formal morphological opposition (§3) between active and passive (§4) that is
the normal realization of the corresponding functional opposition (§5),
deponents are a lexically-specified set (§6) of verbs whose passive forms
function as actives. The normal function is no longer available (§7).28
Each set of bold words is a constituent feature of deponency. "Mismatch
between form and function" captures its essence, but the additional features are required
in order to give shape to the definition. These six features of deponency will now be
related to Koine Greek.
Mismatch between Form and Function
The mismatch between form and function describes deponency in its simplest
terms. This mismatch can be analyzed syntagmatically or paradigmatically.
Syntagmatically, the morphological form of the verb is analyzed against the syntactical
26
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 1-19.
27
28
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 2. The section numbers are found in
the quoted text and correspond to the divisions in Baerman's essay.
113
function the verb possesses in the context. Deponency is the situation in which
morphologically the verb is passive, but syntactically the verb is active.29 We have begun
by stating that deponency occurs with a passive form because we have started with
Latin's definition. As we progress, the limits of deponency will also be extended to
include middle forms.30
Paradigmatically, deponency is observed by analyzing the inflected forms for
a verb in all its tense stems. In this analysis, there is opposition between the forms of the
verb but not opposition between the functions. In other words, there is an opposition
between the active and passive morphology and between the corresponding voice
function in normal verbs.31 Deponent verbs do not demonstrate the opposition in voice
that is expected. Therefore, paradigmatically across the entire paradigm, the form of the
verb may exhibit the expected opposition of forms, but voice function does not
demonstrate the appropriate voice opposition.32
Does Koine Greek meet the first criterion—mismatch between form and
function—for deponency? Let us first analyze Greek syntagmatically.33 Are there
instances where the verb is morphologically passive, but syntactically the verb is active?
The words of Chrys C. Caragounis seem appropriate here. "If by deponency we mean
that a [Greek] verb has middle/passive form but active meaning, the phenomenon, of
29
Seen45onp. 118.
30
See "Active and Middle/Passive" on p. 117.
31
See "Normal Realization" on p. 120 for a discussion of the term 'normal'.
32
"Paradigmatic deponency is discussed and defended below under to discussion of "Normal

Realization" beginning on p. 120.
114
course, exists, and cannot be denied."34 These words do not prove the existence of a
form-function mismatch in Greek verbal voice, but they capture the essence of the
situation well. A few illustrations will serve to demonstrate the phenomenon.35 In each of
the following examples, the verb is in the aorist passive but is functioning actively. Thus,
the mismatch between form and function is demonstrated.
Luke 9:40 Kod e8er)9riv36 xcov uaG-nxoov GOV 'iva eKp&taooiv ouxo, icai OTJK
fl8t>vTi9Ti<7av.
And I begged your disciples in order that they might cast it out, and they
were unable.
fl5t>vfi0r|aocv is stative active.
Luke 10:35b ETTIHEX-TIBTITI amov, Kod 6 xi dv 7tpoa8cOT(xvfi(ync; eyoo sv XW

£7rocv£p%Ea9cxt ue &7to5coaco aoi.
"Take care of him, and whatever you spend in addition, I will repay to
you when I return."
The action of e7r.iu£A,£ouai is active and directed toward the victim in the parable.
Rom 1:25 . . . KCCI EffEpdcOnffav Kod eA.axpe'oaav rp Kxiaeircocpdxov

Kiiaavxa...
.. . and they worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator . . .
The context helps to affirm the active function; eAmpeuaocv is also active.
Syntagmatically, redundant participles seem to validate an active meaning in
verbs that are found in passive form. Redundant participles, which look a lot like
attendant circumstance participles structurally, repeat the same verbal idea except with a
34
Chrys C. Caragounis, e-mail message to author, May 9,2008; used by permission.
35
A more thorough validation will come later, including a treatment of the voices involved
(see "Active and Middle/Passive" on p. 117). For now, passive illustrations are used for a couple of
reasons. First, passive deponents will at this point be in keeping with Latin's definition. Second, the method
for distinguishing the active from the middle—which is more difficult than distinguishing the active from
the passive—has not yet been established (see "Normal Function No Longer Available" on p. 126).
36
e8eri9r|v seems to function actively, but it is not deponent because active forms are found in
both the second and third principal parts. It is syncretistic in the sixth principal part.
115
synonym.37 Their close association indicates that both the participle and the main verb
possess the same semantic force. I suggest that this same semantic force includes voice
function. &7toKpivo|o.oa is frequently found with this use. A few examples will illustrate
the argument.
Matt 3:15a arcoKpiBeiq 8e 6 Tnao'Di; eutev npbq amov-

But Jesus answered and said to him:
Mark 11:14a KOU arcoKpi8£i<; elnev auTfv

And he answered and said to it:
Mark 11:33a KOU areoKpiGevxEq xro 'Inaoi) Xeyovow-

And they answered and said to Jesus:
Acts 4:19a 6 8E Ilexpoq Kod 'Icoavvnq cwtOKpiBevxEq eraov 7ipo<; amoijq-

But Peter and John answered and said to them:
Acts 19:15a 6OTOKPI0EV 8e TO 7rveuuo:TOTtovripov eraev OCUTOII;-

But the evil spirit answered and said to them:
In each of these examples, an aorist passive participle is used to express the same action,
including voice function, as êyco. Each use of Xeyco, being in the active, demonstrates
the voice of the participle too. Both verbal forms (aorist passive of OOTOKpivouai + a form
of 'keya) represent an active verb function.
In summary, redundant participles indicate that the voice function of passive
verbs is active. Form-function incongruity has been demonstrated syntagmatically (and
will be demonstrated paradigmatically below). In this section, the mismatch between a
passive form and an active function has been explored. In addition to the mismatch
between the passive form and the active function, an additional mismatch is found in
37
A redundant participle is a Semitism, although "the manner of expression" is wholly Greek
(Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 127 [§364]). The Hebrew expression for arcoKpiGeic; ekev would be "ips'i ]jn,
and an Aramaic expression for the words would be "inKi nja (Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 127-28 [§366]). A
redundant participle can be considered a verbal hendiadys.
116
Koine Greek: the mismatch between the middle form and the active function. However,
discussion and examples of the middle-active mismatch will be reserved until the
validation of the phenomenon is complete.38
Formal Morphological Opposition
Formal morphological opposition is a linguistic criterion. Opposition in verbal
forms is a component of normal voice function.39 This is typical and expected. In Latin,
there is normally morphological opposition between the active and passive forms. This
criterion is necessary because without such a morphological opposition, it would be
impossible to state that there is a 'mismatch' between form and anticipated function.
There would simply be different functions, but without the morphology pointing to a
particular voice function, no mismatch would exist. As a result, morphological opposition
separates those languages that possess a formal method of distinguishing voice from
those that do not.
It is a fact that Greek normally utilizes different verbal forms to express the
active, middle, and passive voices or active and middle/passive, depending upon the tense
stem.40 Thus, Greek meets the linguistic criterion of deponency. Two examples from two
different principal parts illustrate Greek's morphological opposition.
38
See "Active and Middle/Passive" on p. 117.
39
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 4.
40
William D. Mounce defines stem: "The stem of a verb is the basic form of that verb in a
particular tense" (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009], 168 [§20.3]). I use 'tense stem' synonymously with 'principal part'.
117
Table 31: Morphological Opposition Illustrated
Present
Active Middle/Passive
Xvo) Mourn
Xveiq Xvr\
Xvei Xvezai
Xvo\xev A/u6u£0a
Xvexe A/U£O0£
Xvovoiv Movrai
Aorist
Active Middle Passive
eXvoa eXvGa\ir\v £A,t>0r|v
EXVGOLC, eXvao) eM0r|<;
eA/uaev eXvaaxo eA,ij0r|
eXvoaîev eXvGa\ieQa e?iij0ri|j.ev
eXijaaxe eXvaaaQe e?nj0riT;e
eXvaav eXvoavzo eîj0riaav
The paradigms of these two tense stems demonstrate that the voice functions
are normally distinguished morphologically in Koine Greek. The imperfect, perfect and
pluperfect tenses distinguish voices as the present: with (1) an active form and (2) a
middle/passive form. The future distinguishes voices as the aorist: with (1) an active
form, (2) a middle form, and (3) a passive form.
Active and Middle/Passive
Deponency has typically been applied to voice opposition between active and
passive (i.e., passive form with an active function). However, there is nothing inherent
within this voice opposition that limits the application of deponency to that situation
alone. Consequently, deponency can be extended to any number of grammatical features
as long as they meet the requirements established in the definition. In the clearest
118
examples, the verb will possess "overt [morphological] indicators"41 that point out the
mismatch between form and function (e.g., Latin's passive-marking morphology).
However, this is not to say that grammatical features without overt indicators cannot be
considered deponent. Even when the difference is only semantic, deponency may be
observed. For example, the difference between the middle and passive voices in a Greek
present tense verb is a semantic difference; the formal attributes are the same.42 The
difference between deponency with or without overt indicators is the degree of
certainty.43 However, if historical investigation is introduced into the decision, then the
degree of certainty is increased substantially.44 Therefore, in Greek, the term deponency
can be applied to grammatical features beyond the active/passive found in Latin.
In terms of Koine Greek, the application to other grammatical features besides
voice is beyond the scope of this study. We are applying the characteristics of the
definition of deponency to Greek voice. In particular, the voice opposition involved is a
contrast between the form of the middle or passive (or middle/passive) and the function
of the active.45 This formal opposition is established with overt indicators for the second
41
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 4.
42
The difference between the middle and passive voices in the first principal part may also be
distinguished syntactically but not for deponent verbs. If a verb shares a middle/passive form and is
functioning actively, then a direct object would not necessarily demonstrate a middle form (because it is
actually functioning actively). In a deponent verb, the form-function mismatch would cover up the
transitivity of a middle verb (as opposed to a passive one). Thus, we are left with semantics for determining
the form.
43
^The method proposed is to rely upon morphology, semantics, syntax, and lexemic history to
determine deponency.
45
Moulton and Stanley E. Porter suggest that deponency includes (1) middle and/or passive
forms with an active function and (2) active forms with a middle and/or passive function, and (3) passive-
only form verbs with an active or middle function. Moulton treats deponency strictly morphologically
(Moulton, Prolegomena, 153; see also "James Hope Moulton" on p. 71), while Porter's definition engages
119
and third (and sixth) principal parts; however, the indicators for the middle/passive forms
for the fist and fifth principal parts are not distinctly expressed. This is not to say there is
not a formal indicator for the middle/passive forms of these stems, for there is. The
middle/passive form is shared. The scenario created is one in which the observer's goal is
to identify a mismatch between the form and function of the voice indicator, but two
voices are involved in the form: middle and passive. This creates an ambiguity. Because
the distinction between the middle and passive of the first and fifth principal parts is not
morphological, it is determined on semantic and historical grounds. Thus, labeling one of
these as deponent cannot be done with the same certainty as with the future or aorist tense
morphology and semantics (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical
Languages: Greek [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 70-72; see also "Stanley E. Porter" on
p. 80).
There are problems with this view of deponency on a couple of levels. On a definitional level,
deponency is a one-way phenomenon. Such is the case because the definition is drawn by analogy to the
same phenomenon in Latin in which it refers to one-way deponency (see Baerman, "Morphological
Typology of Deponency," 1). Zheng Xu, Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen define deponency in Latin
clearly and succinctly: "A [Latin] deponent verb has morphologically passive form [small caps removed]
but active meaning" (Zheng Xu, Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen, "Deponency in Latin," in Deponency
and Morphological Mismatches, ed. Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 145
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 127). When applied to Greek, deponency refers exclusively to a
middle and/or passive form with an active function. Also, deponency is an exceptional but sizable class of
verbs (see "Normal Realization" on p. 120). Verbs simply are not found that correspond to situations (2)
and (3) above with regularity, like is observed with situation (1).
On a practical level, there is no reason to suspect a mismatch in form and function in verbs
that lack a middle and/or passive form. In other words, it is simply a quirk of the usage of the lexeme that a
verb with an active form is used neither as a middle nor passively. Moulton lists 5i5coni and peco as
examples of verbs that lack a middle form (Moulton, Prolegomena, 153). It is easy to understand that the
action conveyed by 8i8coui is other-directed, resulting in its not being found in the middle form. To my
knowledge, no one else has ever suggested that 8i8coux is a deponent verb because of its lack of a middle
form. Porter discusses three examples briefly (i.e., brief discussions but more treatment is provided than
simply a list of verbs, which he also has), one of which could be construed as the type of deponency
currently under review. He states that the aorist passive ouyxccpTixe in Luke 15:6 should be understood as
an active or middle because no active or middles are extant for this verb (Porter, Idioms, 72). (An active
function is within the traditional understanding of deponency. The middle function is the center of the
discussion here.) However, he fails to mention that the aorist passive is only found twenty-five times in the
Koine period. Meanwhile, the aorist active of the simple form xaipco is found ninety-seven, and its aorist
middle is found thirteen times. Thus, following Porter's definition, this use of a-uyx&pnTs would not qualify
as deponent because its simple form, a form used more commonly that the compound, possesses active and
middle forms. In actuality, the situation that Porter is describing is more likely syncretism. See p. 138.
As a result, two-way deponency is not within the boundaries of deponency. Deponency
exclusively refers to the phenomenon in which a middle and/or passive verbal form functions actively.
(Other criteria are also necessary, but the focus at this point is the voices used and the one-way direction.)
stems. This is not an unusual situation because polysemy is frequently involved in
language. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between semantic categories when
they share a single form.46
Luke 13:24a ayaviê^Qs eioeXBeiv 8ia xfjc; oxevf\q 0ijpa<;,

Strive to enter through the narrow door,
2 Pet 1:4a 8i' GW t a duxa Kod ueyioxa TpTv enayyeX[iaxa 5£5<6pT|Tai,

Through which he has given to us the precious and extraordinary
promises,
Rev 21:8 xoiq 8e SeiAou; Kai aniaxoiq Kai epSeX/oynevoK;47 Kai <j)ove,0oiv Kai
nopvoiq Kai âpuctKoic; Kai ei8coA,oA,axpai<; Kai 7taorv xoiq yeuSeaiv TO \iepoq
amwv ev xfj Muvn xfj Kaiou£vn48 nvpi Kai Geico, 6 eaxw 6 0dvaxo<; 6 Seijxepoq.
But to the cowardly and unbelieving and those who are detestable and
murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and to all liars, their part
will be in the lake which keeps burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second
death.
In summary, in Koine Geek, deponency involves a mismatch between the
form and function of voices. The forms involved are the middle and passive or the
middle/passive; the function of these forms is active.
Normal Realization
Baerman assists us by explaining normal realization: "Deponent verbs in
Latin, though a sizable class .. ., are nevertheless exceptional: the association of passive
morphology with passive voice otherwise obtains for the vast majority of verbs.
46
Suzanne Kemmer, The Middle Voice, Typological Studies in Language, ed. T. Givon, vol.
23 (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993), 5. See "The Conclusion Extended" on p. 154 for further
discussion.
47
BDAG suggests that the perfect passive participle of pSeVuaoouat is equivalent to the
adjective pSeVuKToq (detestable) (BDAG, 172 [s.v. pSeVucooum]). This understanding suggests that
eP5e^.t)yiJ.evoi(; in Rev 21:8 is stative active.
48
Sometimes the passive of Kaico is used in an active sense (BDAG, 499 [s.v. Kaioo l.a]).
Although a mismatch between form and function exists, deponency is not found here because the active
form exists in the first principal part. See the discussion in n 103 on p. 140.
121
Therefore there is some justification for distinguishing between normal and exceptional
behavior, with deponents being exceptional."49 John William Donaldson calls this
situation an "anomaly of signification" because the form of the verb does not correspond
to its function.50 Robertson suggested a similar idea when he said, "As concerns voice
these verbs were defective rather than deponent,"51 although his dislike for the term
'deponent' prevents him from identifying these defective verbs with deponents.
Deponent verbs in Greek are an exceptional class of verbs because they do not
follow the 'normal' pattern. Greville G. Corbett has provided a method for determining
the normal (Corbett's term is 'canonical') pattern in a given language. His goal is to
distinguish deponency from syncretism,52 but the result separates the normal from the
exceptional pattern.
First, the features and their "values should 'multiply out', so that all possible
cells in a paradigm exist."53 If the paradigm is to be considered normal (canonical), this
'multiplying out' should occur consistently according to the following schema in Table
32: Corbett's Canonical Inflection: The Criteria.54 'Compositional/structure' relates to the
word's core characteristics. For a Greek verb, this includes the tense, voice, mood,
49
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 5-6. See also Matthew Baerman, "The
Location of Deponency," Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 47 (2006): 1.
50
(Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1859), 265 (§336).
51
52
Greville G. Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," in Deponency and
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 21. For a fuller discussion of syncretism, see the discussion
beginning on p. 138.
"Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," 23.
'Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," 23.

122
person, and number. The 'lexical material' relates to the particular lexeme used. The
'inflectional material' relates to the affix used. In Greek verbs, this would be the augment
or the personal ending. The 'outcome' is the word in toto.55
Table 32: Corbett's Canonical Inflection: The Criteria56

comparison across cells comparison across
of a lexeme (level one) lexemes (level two)
compositional/structure same same

(of the inflected word)
lexical material same different
(~shape of stem)
inflectional material different same
(=shape of affix)
outcome (-shape of different different
inflected word)
For our purposes, the third row, inflectional material, is the most significant. If
in the first column, level one, the inflectional material is 'same', then the verb is
syncretistic. However, if in the second column, level two, the inflectional material is
'different', then the verb is deponent. Both syncretistic and deponent verbs are considered
defective57 and thus exceptional.58
Let us illustrate with Greek verbs. When applying Corbett's schema to Greek
present, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect indicative verb forms, we see that there are
three persons and two numbers, which is then repeated for two different voice forms
(active and middle/passive). When applying this schema to Greek aorist and future
55
Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," 24.
56
57
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, defective is a "([l]exical unit)
whose paradigm is incomplete in comparison with others of the major class that it belongs to" (P. H.
Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed., Oxford Paperback Reference [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007],95).
58
Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," 26-31.
123
indicative verb forms, we see that there are three persons and two numbers, which is then
repeated for three different voice forms (active, middle, and passive). Thus, the full
paradigm for these tenses in the indicative should possess eighteen cells. The normal
(canonical) paradigm for the indicative is given first; then, the defective or exceptional
(deponency) is given next. The forms are listed according to function.
Table 33: Normal Indicative Inflection59

Pres Act PresM/P Perf Act PerfM/P Fut Act Fut Mid Fut Pass
Xva Moum leûKoc XeXviica Xvam A/uoouoa A.u0rioonai
Xijevq Xw\ XeXvKaq XeA/UGCtt Xvaeiq Xvar\ XU0T|OT1
Xvei Mexoa XeXvKev XeXuToa Xvaei Xvaexai XvQr\GExm
W)0|1£V Xv6[ieQa XEXVKOL\JL£.V XeX\)\ieQa Xvaoiiev Xva6[i£Qa ^.•u0Tia6(ie0a
Xvexe XveaBe XeWtKaxe XeXvcQe Xvaexe XvaeaQe XvQr]aeaQe
XeXvKaciv/
Xvovaiv Movxai XeXvvxai Xvaovaiv Xvaovxai XvQr\aovxai
2nd Aor 2nd Aor

1st Aor Act 1st Aor Mid 1st Aor Pass 2nd Aor Act
Mid Pass
eXvaa eXvoa[ir\v eW)0r|v EXVKOV £.Xuz6\i,r\v eXuzr\v
eXvaaq eXvaco eXvQr\q eXmeq eXinov eXinr\q
eXvaev eXvcaxo EX/U0T| eXinev eXinexo eXinr\
eXvaa[iev eXvaaiiBQa eW)0r|U£v eXinoîev eXin6[ieQa eXiitT|(xev
eXvaaxe eXvoacQe eXvQr\xe eXinexe eXineade ekimyxe
eXvoav eXvaavxo eXvQr\cav eXuzov eXinovxo eXinr\aav
Table 34: Deponent Indicative Inflection of Siivaum

Pres Act PresM/P Perf Act PerfM/P Fut Act Fut Mid Fut Pass
Suvrpouat,
Swauoa 8t)votum 8e8iJVT||jm ScSuvrium 8'uvriaon.av 5\)VT|9T|go|iai
8wT|9rioo(iai
8wn.or|>
8'uvaooa Swotooa SeSwrioav 8c8\)VT|aai 8l)VT|(Tr| SUVHOTIOTI
8WT)0T|OT|
S'uvfioexai,
Sijvaxca Swaxoa 8e8v)vr|xai 8c8iJVT|xai 8uvr|acxoa 8wT|9f|Gcxoa
8tivr|0f|oexai
8\)VTio6|a.£0a,
8\)vr|8r|a6
8t>vau£0a 8uvauc0a SeSwfiixeOa 8cSi)VTpc0a 8\JVTI0TIO6- 8i)vr|c6uc9oc
UEGOC
8\)vriaeo0e,
8wn,0T)gc
8waa0e bvvaoQc 8E8t)VT|a0e 8c8\JVT|a0c SwriGfioe- Swn,aca0c
006
o0e
'Imperfect and pluperfect are omitted in the table.

124
SuvriaovToa,
8wr|9fiaov
8-uvccvTca Swavxca 8e8ijvT|VToa 8c8t)vr|VToa 8t)VT|0TlOOV- SwflOOVTOCl
1st Aor 2nd Aor 2nd Aor

1st Aor Act 1st Aor Pass 2nd Aor Act
Mid60 Mid Pass
T|8t>v&|rr|v,
TiSiJV&irnv f)8wT|0r|v N/A N/A N/A
f|8wfi9r|v
f|8wfiaco, ,5. , 61
fi8\)vf|0Tiq N/A N/A N/A
f|8wr|&n<;
f)8i)vaTO,
T)St)VaTO Tl8\)VT|0T| N/A N/A N/A
f|8uvf|0r|
f]8wd|j.e0a,
T)8uvauc0a f|8\)vf|0rmcv N/A N/A N/A
fiS-uvriGrinev
fi8ijvaa0e,
T)8t)vac9c fl8\)VT|0T|TC N/A N/A N/A
fiS-uvfiOriTe
flSwavto,
fiSiJvavTO f|8\)vf|0r|aav N/A N/A N/A
fi8t)vri0T|oav
Corbett summarizes the significance: "It is worth noting that deponency can
be identified only by comparison with the majority of lexemes... . The point is that we
have forms whose function is apparently clear from the majority of lexemes but whose
function is different for a minority of lexemes."62 When Table 34 is compared to Table
33, it is clear that the pattern found is that of deponency. Table 33 represents the majority
of lexemes; these are the normal verbs. The corresponding cells from Table 34 clearly
indicate a deviation from the norm; thus, they form an exceptional usage. In terms of
Table 32, in the second column, level two, the inflectional material is 'different';
therefore, 5\)vau.ai is deponent. " . . . [F]or deponency, the more cells that are involved
^The forms in the "1st Aor Mid" column for Swauoa are ambiguous because the forms can
be either aorist or imperfect. BDAG suggests that the imperfect of STJVCCUCU is T)8UV&UTIV and eSwocuriv
(BDAG, 261). However, TLG suggests that the form that is augmented with an epsilon is imperfect and the
form augmented with an eta could be either imperfect or aorist. Accordance has inconsistently tagged these
forms. In the NT and LXX, the forms are parsed as imperfect. In the AF, the forms are parsed in some
places as aorist and in other places as imperfect.
61
The form fiSuvfiaco is not extant in Koine literature; however, Suvricxo is found twice.
62
(up to and including all) the clearer the failure to meet the identity requirement and the
more canonical the instance of deponency."63
This example illustrates the contrast between the way in which the normal
verbs in Greek (Table 33) function and the way in which deponent/exceptional verbs
(Table 34) function. There is a distinct opposition in the usage of the middle and/or
passive form for the deponent verbs. The same demonstration could be repeated for each
deponent verb. The result is the recognition of deponency as an exceptional use of verbal
voice.
Lexically-Specified Set: Semi-deponency
The result of 'normal realization' is that deponency applies to a lexically-
specified set of verbs. These verbs, as was demonstrated in the previous section, function
atypically in their voice valence. In Koine Greek, these verbs use their middle and/or
passive morphology to function actively. The majority of verbs (the normal verbs) are set
in contrast to this minority of verbs (a lexically-specified set).64
Often deponent verbs demonstrate this mismatch between form and function
throughout their full inflection in each tense stem. However, sometimes these verbs
demonstrate a form-function mismatch only in some of their tense stems. Because these
deponents function exceptionally only in some of their tense stem inflections, they are
called 'semi-deponent' or 'partial deponent'. Semi-deponency sometimes occurs when
there are multiple roots for a verb that surface in various principal parts.65 For example,
63
^Baerman, "The Location of Deponency," 7.

65
Baerman, "The Location of Deponency," 10.
opaoo is a semi-deponent verb, opotco is deponent in the second principal part with 07t- as
its root and regular in the first, third, fourth, and sixth principal parts with roots of opa-,
pi5-, opa-, and on- respectively. Roots, however, are not the sole factor with semi-
deponency because verbs with only one root also may be semi-deponent (e.g.,
&7TOKpivo(ica, yvvouai, ywcoaKco, Geaoum, and many others).66
Therefore, occasionally deponent verbs, which are a lexically-specified set of
verbs, are not fully dysfunctional. These semi-deponent verbs function regularly in some
principal parts, while they exhibit a mismatch between form and function in other tense
stems. Some of these semi-deponents, such as opdco, are semi-deponent due to having
multiple roots. However, not all semi-deponency is due to multiple roots. This feature is
more fully defined in the next section, "Normal Function No Longer Available." For
semi-deponent verbs in the NT, see "Semi-Deponent Verbs" on p. 297 and "New
Testament Deponency by Principal Part" on p. 297. For further clarification on
deponency as a lexically specified set, see "Summary" on p. 144 and "A Composite View
of Deponency's Anatomy" on p. 144.
Normal Function No Longer Available
The final criterion of deponency is that the normal middle/passive function of
the verbal form is no longer available and the active form is not used.67 Typically in order
for a verb to be considered deponent, it must be demonstrated that the function is active
while simultaneously establishing that the middle and/or passive function is abandoned.
66
See "Appendix E" on p. 295 for lists of deponent and semi-deponent verbs.
67
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 14. See also Wallace, Exegetical
Syntax, 428-29.
127
For those tense stems whose middle/passive forms are identical, they must demonstrate
the abandonment of both voice functions.68 The statement of the principle is rather
simple, but the execution is complex, especially with regard to the middle function. Why?
There are two issues to tackle: (1) the distinction between active and middle and (2) the
lack of an active form.
The Distinction between Active and Middle
Whereas the distinction between the active and passive is rather transparent,
the distinction between the active and (indirect) middle is much more cloudy. The subject
used with an active voice verb "performs, produces, or experiences the action ."69 In
contrast, the subject used with a passive voice verb "is acted upon or receives the action
expressed by the verb"10 Therefore, the demonstration of (1) the lack of a passive
function and (2) the possession of the active function is a transparent procedure because
the distinction between the active and passive is self-evident and the presence of a direct
object flags an active function.
On the other hand, the distinction between the active and middle is much more
difficult for verbs that lack an active counterpart.71 For verbs that have both an active and
a middle form, the distinction is clearer because the form accurately reflects its function.
Some of these verbs actually have different meanings in middle from the meaning in the
68
Wallace suggests the same method (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 428-29).
69
70
7
'See "The Difficulty of Distinguishing the Active from the (Indirect) Middle" on p. 107 for
the statement of the problem.
active, but more frequently, the distinction between the two voices is one of emphasis,
especially in the case of the indirect middle.
For verbs that lack an active counterpart, the distinction between the active
and middle functions is muddled. If the distinction between the active and middle
functions is often simply an issue of emphasis, and if there is no formal clue to
distinguish the active and middle forms, then there is not an objective way in which to
distinguish between the two functions. What is the resolution to the problem that is
created by this situation? To not distinguish between the active and middle voices in
active-lacking verbs in Koine Greek is the resolution of the problem—except when the
indirect middle is used to indicate that the subject is the recipient or beneficiary of the
action of a middle-form verb. In other words, except when lexical intrusion is present,
middle deponent verbs (which do not have an active form) are said to function actively
(not as middles) because there is not a semantic distinction between the two voices in
Koine Greek and the form is no longer determinative of the function in these verbs.
Wallace determines deponency by using similar criteria. He explains that an active-
lacking verb in Hellenistic Greek (its historical value) is not to be deemed deponent
automatically. If it possesses "true middle force"72 (its lexemic value [i.e., lexical
intrusion]), then the verb is disqualified from deponency. He continues, "It is not enough,
then, to note merely that a verb lacks an active form throughout its history; it must also be
demonstrated that the middle force is absent."73
'Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 429.

A clarification needs to be made about the exception, followed by the
validation of the assertion. First, let us address the exception (i.e., lexical intrusion).
Rutger J. Allan has provided categories for verbs that are often called deponent in his
study entitled The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek™ Although the approach here does not
follow Allan in the details,75 it seems that the categories he has provided are very useful
to the present study. He has provided classifications into which deponents can be placed:
(1) beneficiary/recipient-subject—8e%oum, epy&ôiaoa, Kxdo|iai; (2) body motion—
aAA-oum, e7io|a.ai, ep%ou.ca, neroum; (3) emotion and cognition—ayocum, a%0oum,
|3OIJA,OU.OU, epaum, rjSoum, oiojxai, 7tuv9avo|4.ou; (4) volitional mental activities—
A.OYi£o|a.oa, u.r|%avaop,oa; (5) reciprocal76—ayooviôum, u.&%ou.oa; (6) perception—
ccKpoaouoa, 5epKO|j,ai, Geaoum, 6a(|)paivou.ai, aKe7iT0|xai; and (7) speech act—
74
Rutger J. Allan, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam
Studies in Classical Philology, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm Pinkster, vol. 11
(Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2003), 49-52.
75
For example, Allan sees no need for the category of deponency. Instead he calls these verbs
media tantum, which are verbs that lack an active form and include both "verbs with aorist middle aorist
forms" and "verbs with passive aorist forms" (Allan, The Middle Voice, 2n4). The reason Allan does not
use the category of deponent is due to the way he defines middle and the way he handles its uses. He
defines middle voice morphologically: "With the term middle voice I refer to the inflectional category in
Greek, i.e. in the present stem the middle voice includes middle-inflected verbs with passive meaning"
(Allan, The Middle Voice, lnl). Based on this morphological definition, he categorizes the uses of the
middle, which are so encompassing that they include all middle/passive forms, all middle forms, and some
active forms (Allan, The Middle Voice, 14-19,57-124). Even some aorist passive forms have middle
functions (Allan, The Middle Voice, 175-76). Thus, it does not matter if the form is middle and/or passive;
because his classifications of middle are so broad, both forms function as middles. We disagree with his
classifications of middle voice and his understanding of deponency/wjed/a tantum. Nevertheless, the
categories he provides into which he places media tantum are useful.
76
The category of reciprocal includes verbs where there are two participants and each actively
strives against the other, usually in a contentious manner (Allan, The Middle Voice, 84-88). We disagree
with Allan about the basic nature of this category. Whereas he claims that an elemental nuance of middle is
involved, we view it as active. If, for example, a subject is engaged in a fight with another (uaxonou), the
subject's action is not self directed but directed at the opposition. The opponent may retaliate, but that is
actually a separate action controlled by another subject. In a fight, the subject's action is a show of force
directed at another.
amocoum, apaoum, 6A,o<tvupoum, uxxpTUpou.oa, u/u0£ou.ou. It is only the first of these
categories, beneficiary/recipient-subject, which we would classify as truly middle (not
deponent) because it functions actually as an indirect middle. Indirect middles meet two
criteria: (1) the agent (subject) is human and (2) the agent and beneficiary/recipient are
co-referential.78 As a result, the 'beneficiary/recipient-subject' category, which exhibits
lexical intrusion, is the one exception noted above. The other categories, we argue,
actually do function actively; thus, they are categories into which deponent verbs may be
placed. In other words, deponent verbs tend to (but not always) fall into one of six
categories: (1) body motion, (2) emotion and cognition, (3) volitional mental activities,
(4) reciprocal, (5) perception, and (6) speech act. In each of these categories for verbs that
77
Allan, The Middle Voice, 51. Allan is not the first to identify these types of categories with
deponent verbs. Antonius Jannaris notes that the aorist passive deponents typically fall into one of three
categories: motion, emotion, or thinking. He then proceeds to give a list of these verbs (Antonius N.
Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical
Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present
Popular Greek [London: Macmillan, 1897], 285 [§1004]). Similarly, Smyth states that middle deponent
verbs often may be classified as body motion or mental action (i.e., feeling and thinking). He likewise gives
examples (Smyth, Greek Grammar, 393 [§1729]). See his list in Table 15: Middle Deponents Denoting
Bodily or Mental Action on p. 65. In addition, Robertson speaks of deponents of "mental action"
(Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 813). Lindsay Whaley refers to a class of deponent verbs as
'psych verbs'. These psych verbs are verbs in which the subject expresses a psychological activity, often
taking a genitive object: odoGcevoum, &pveo|ioci, itpoaraocoum, pêXuaooum, yeijouai, (t>£i5oum,
euA.aPeouai., oueipoum, eTuueXeouai, and eicXocvGavouca (Lindsay Whaley, "A Unified Explanation of
Deponent Verbs in Ancient Greek," in ESCOL '90: 7th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics: Selected
Papers, Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, vol. 7 [Columbus: Ohio State
University, 1991], 316). Finally, Suzanne Kemmer indicates that most deponents are derived from
adjectives or fall into semantically specific categories: grooming or body care, nontranslational motion,
change in body posture, indirect middle, naturally reciprocal events, translational motion, emotion, emotive
speech actions, other speech actions, cognition, and spontaneous middles (Kemmer, The Middle Voice, 16-
20,22-23,239). Although the categories that Kemmer utilizes are similar to Allan's, it is acknowledged
that her conclusion differs from the one suggested here. This is due to the fact that she defines deponency
differently; she defines deponent as a verb with a middle marker (a middle form) that lacks an unmarked
counterpart (an active form) (Kemmer, The Middle Voice, 22). So, although she claims that most deponents
come from one of these semantically specific categories, she is not suggesting that they are not middle in
function as is argued here.
78
Kemmer, The Middle Voice, 50,78-81. Although Kemmer uses the term "human entity" to
refer to the agent, it is conceivable that other volitional beings could also be called agents.
131
lack an active morphology, no distinction can be made between the active and middle
when an active form is absent.
There are three arguments for asserting that there is no functional distinction
between the active and (indirect) middle in deponent verbs in Koine Greek (with the lone
exception of lexical intrusion with a beneficiary/recipient-subject [LIb/rs] that has already
been noted): the lexical argument, the logical argument, and the historical argument.
The Lexical Argument. The lexical argument is based upon semi-deponency
and synonymous active and middle voice verbs. Semi-deponents argue against the idea
that deponent verbs are simply verbs functioning as middles. There are two lines of
evidence.
First, semi-deponency of the sixth principal part (aorist passive and future
passive verbs) clearly demonstrates a scenario in which active-lacking verbs should not
be understood as middles. There is no middle form, so a middle understanding is foreign
to the interpretation of the form. The function in these verbs is clearly active—not to be
confused with the middle function because there is no reason for a middle function to be
construed. The form is passive; the function is active. This is a common occurrence in the
NT. For example, John 4:13 says, cmeKpiGri Tnao'Gc; iced emev auTfj. &7teKpi6r| is an
aorist passive verb. It is functioning actively, which is also affirmed by the other parallel
verb in the same compound clause: emev, Clearly both verbs are functioning identically
as actives. Likewise, future passive deponent verbs function as actives. For example,
&7tOKpi0r)aovTai, a future passive, functions actively in the Matt 25:37. &7tOKpi9r|GOVToa
is followed by an active, adverbial participle of means: toxe catoKpiGriaovTOu awa> oi

132
5iKcuoi Xeyovxeq.19 The context is clear that &7i;oKpi9Tiaovrai functions actively. The
aorist passive and future passive partial deponents demonstrate lexically that deponents
are not functioning as middles but are functioning as actives.
Next, verbs that are semi-deponents (e.g., ep%oum, yivouai80) are themselves
validation that deponent verbs should not be viewed as middle-meaning verbs. It has been
argued that the lexical tone of some verbs lends to them a middle meaning.81 Thus, these
verbs are wrongly understood as deponents but are better understood as middle or
middle/passive form verbs with a middle meaning. If the lexical tone of these verbs truly
lends to them an indirect middle understanding, then the lexeme would demand such a
formulation for all stems. The fact that there are semi-deponents in which some tense
stems possess an active form while other tense stems possess no active form but a middle
one (or middle/passive) suggests that the lexeme of these words does not demand an
indirect middle interpretation. In fact, an active interpretation of the irregular morphology
would better account for partial deponents.
The table below lists semi-deponent verbs. Those with multiple roots have the
root for each of the first four principal part listed.
79
X,eYovre<; could also be understood as an adverbial, redundant participle. The argument is
unaffected by the usage of the participle. In either case, the participle is active.
80
It is accurate that some of these verbs have two roots, but the fact that some of these verbs
have two roots is not a sufficient explanation for those that do not, such as yivouttt. These are evidence that
the middle function was not demanded by the corresponding lexical meaning.
81
For example, Neva Miller argues, "If we accept the theory that so-called deponent verbs
express personal interest, self-involvement, or interaction of the subject with himself or with others in some
way, we will be better able to accept that the non-active form of the verb is valid for communicating a
meaning on its own, and we will be challenged to look for that meaning" (Neva F. Miller, "Appendix 2: A
Theory of Deponent Verbs," in Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, by Barbara Friberg,
Timothy Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Baker's Greek New Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and
Timothy Friberg [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], 426). Pennington praises Miller's treatment (Pennington,
"Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 190-91). Furthermore, he attempts to explain present active/future middle-
only verbs linguistically (Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 192-95).
133
Table 35: A Sample of NT Semi-deponent Verbs82

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Lexical Form Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal
Part Part Part Part Part Part
Yivoum ® © © N N N
eiui N © — — — —
epxo|xoa © N N
— —
© *ep% *eXevQ *e'kevQ
opdco N *opa © *OK N*pi5 N *opoc — N*07t
%api£oum ® © © — © N
In addition, synonymous active and middle voice verbs contribute to the
lexical argument that there is no distinction between the active and middle in verbs that
do not possess an active form. These verbs indicate that certain actions in active-lacking
verbs were not considered middle activities, thus relegating those actions to the domain
of the middle. If these actions were considered middle activities, then the active forms in
their synonymous counterparts would not exist.
Allan has argued against this view in his treatment of synonymous active and
middle voice verbs. This is understandable due to his approach to the middle voice that is
different from the one adopted here. Nevertheless, he provides a helpful overview of the
problem. Preliminarily, there are very few true synonyms in a language. It is true that
there is semantic overlap between terms, but they are not usually exact synonyms. This is
due to "the principle of economy."83
Allan summarizes three ways in which to interpret this phenomenon.
82
The symbol " © " stands for deponent, "N" represents normal function, and "—" indicates
the principal part does not occur in the NT. See Appendix E for a more exhaustive treatment. The roots of
the verbs are taken from Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 372-80 and William D. Mounce, The
Morphology of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

Neither verb of the pair involves subject-affectedness, i.e. the middle ending of
the middle member is lexicalized and meaningless, possibly a relic of an older
meaning of the verb.85
Both 'synonymous' verbs inherently involve subject-affectedness. However, the

aspect of the subject-affectedness is emphasized by means of the middle
inflection.86
Both verbs of the pair involve subject-affectedness. The affectedness of the

subject of the active verb is inherent in the lexical meaning of the verb. There is
no demonstrable semantic difference between the active and the middle verb.87
I am arguing, contrary to Allan, that the first explanation is the better way in
which to interpret the phenomenon of synonymous active and middle verbs. I would
supplement this description with the last sentence from the third option. In other words,
both verbs of the pair function actively; there is no demonstrable semantic difference
between these active and the middle verbs.88
Several examples illustrate the synonymous lexical meaning of terms that
occur both in the active and in the passive. This very situation demonstrates that deponent
verbs are not inflected with middle morphology due to a middle function because their
counterparts have the same function without the middle inflection (with active inflection).
Table 36: Synonymous Active and Middle Voice Verbs

Active Middle
(7tpo)ayco rcopeTJOum
PA,871C0 Ge&oum
evepyeco £PY&£ou.ou
84
'Subject-affectedness' is Allan's term that reflects the meaning of the middle voice.
85
Allan, The Middle Voice, 204; bold formatting removed.
86
87
88
The basis for Allan's position is his understanding of media tantum and the categories into
which these verbs can be placed. We have already argued against his position on media tantum above, and
we continue to validate that middle verbs function actively in the balance of this section.
Kot8i^co K&9r|}iai
KaxaPaivco KotTepxouxxi
The Logical Argument. The second argument for asserting that there is no
semantic distinction between the active and middle in deponent verbs in Koine Greek
with the lone exception of lexical intrusion is logical. As was stated above, the distinction
between the active and middle is one of emphasis. Grammarians, who both resist and
condone deponency, describe the distinction between the active and middle similarly.
John William Donaldson states that the difference between active and middle is one of
intensity.89 Wallace suggests, "The difference between the active and middle is one of
emphasis."90 Caragounis indicates that "the sense of the proper use of the middle is lost
and it is used for an intensified active."91 Therefore, the premise that sets up the logical
argument is that the difference between the active and middle voices in Koine Greek is
one of emphasis.
Now the logical conclusion is based upon the established premise. Since the
distinction between active and indirect middle is one of emphasis, if a verb lacks one of
the voice forms, then emphasis by its nature cannot exist. This is what I am proposing:
verbs that lack an active morphology but possess a middle or middle/passive form cannot
be identified as middle-functioning verbs because the distinguishing criterion by which
the middle function exists (i.e., emphasis) is bypassed. There cannot be emphasis without
contrast. If a verb lacks active morphology and exists in middle form, it is not
89
Donaldson, Complete Greek Grammar, 445-46.
90
"Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology,
repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 108.
emphasizing the subject over against the verbal action. It simply indicates the subject is
producing or experiencing the action, which is functionally active voice by definition. As
a result, logic leads to the conclusion that deponent verbs are functioning actively, not as
middles.
The Historical Argument. The third argument supporting the assertion that
there is no distinction between the active and middle in deponent verbs in Koine Greek
(with the exception of lexical intrusion) is historical. Two lines of evidence support the
historical argument. The first was well documented in the second chapter. Ancient
grammarians demonstrate familiarity with discrepancy between form and function. In
particular, Apollonius Dyscolus said that the active function was seized by the middle,
resulting in the active morphology ceasing to be available. Therefore, this idea of there
not being a distinction between the active and middle in deponent verbs is not a new
concept. Apollonius Dyscolus observed it in the second century A.D.
The second historical argument is the very fact that deponency itself varied in
particular verbs between different periods of Greek. Antonius Jannaris, followed by
Chrys C. Caragounis and Nikiolaos Lavidas/Dimitra Papangeli, has documented for us
that the face of deponency shifted from one period to the next.92 He explains that some
verbs that were deponent in Classical Antiquity (500-300 B.C.) used an active form in the
Post-Classical to the Neohellenic periods (300 B.C.-present). In contrast, the opposite
also occurs. Some verbs that used an active form in Classical Antiquity became deponent
92
Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament, 103; Nikolaos Lavidas and
Dimitra Papangeli, "Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek," in Deponency and Morphological
Mismatches, ed. Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 145 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), 108. BDAG documents the same phenomenon (BDAG, xvi-xvii).
in the Post-Classical to the Neohellenic periods. He uses the term deponency in his
descriptions of these periods, but if we think of the forms that his words represent, he
may be paraphrased to say this: some verbs that lacked an active form but functioned
actively in Classical Antiquity gained an active form in the Post-Classical to the
Neohellenic periods; some verbs that had an active form in Classical Antiquity lost it but
continued to function actively in the Post-Classical to the Neohellenic periods. Although
shifts in language are expected, this particular shift demonstrates two things: (1) the
fluidity between the active and the middle voices and (2) verbs that lack an active form
do not represent in a special way the middle meaning. If active-lacking verbs represented
the middle meaning, then we would not expect to see the shifts that we observe in the
history of Greek.
Lacking an Active Form
The nonexistence of an active form for each principal part becomes a
verifiable test for deponency.94 Although the lack of an active form may be viewed as a
crucial element of deponency, Baerman has identified three scenarios in which the
middle and/or passive form may actually retain its previous function: (1) polarity,
(2) heteroclisis, and (3) syncretism.95 Each must be examined to determine if it has a
bearing on the discussion of deponency and the lack of an active form.
93
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 284 (§1000). For a discussion of this and Jannaris's
lists, see "Antonius N. Jannaris" on p. 59.
94
Wallace and Porter affirm the absence of an active form as a criterion of deponency (Porter,
Idioms, 70 [§1.4.1]; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 428), although Porter does not limit this criterion to the
active voice alone and is not clear by which body of literature this determination is made.
95
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 14-18. Of course, Baerman actually
discusses these scenarios with relation to the passive only because he is relating it to Latin. I have included
middle into the discussion because middle and/or passive correspond to deponency in Greek.
138
Polarity is the situation where the opposite poles are interchanged, expressing
a mismatch in function. When applied to Greek voice, this would be the situation where
the active form has a middle and/or passive meaning, and the middle and/or passive form
has an active meaning. Polarity does not seem to exist in Koine Greek.96
Heteroclisis is usually more properly applied to nouns; nevertheless, it is
found in Greek verbs too. This is the situation where a declinable word follows a
legitimate inflection pattern, but the pattern is something other than the regular pattern.
Different inflectional patterns may be mixed in heteroclisis.97 BDAG documents
heteroclisis:
Further, the imperfect with endings of the first aorist: ei%au£v, ei%av (s. e%co);
eîeyav (s. Xsyco). Perf. with aorist endings (inscr. and pap. since II BC): eyvcoicocv
(s. YWCOGKGO); texripriKav (J 17:6); yeyovav (s. yivoum); eipriicav (s. eutov);
7te7tTCOKocv (s. 7U7ITCO). The ending -aav expands its territory and is especially
noticeable in the imperfect and second aorist: e'{%oaotv (s. e%oo); napeXafiooav (s.
7tapaX,a(j.pdvco); el,r\kQocav (Mk 8:11 D). Or the types of inflection in -dv and -
etv become confused (cp. eôyeoo).98
Although heteroclisis exists in Greek, this is not the type of irregularity that has a bearing
upon our discussion of deponency.
Syncretism is "the relation between two or more words in a paradigm that
have different morphosyntactic features but are identical in form."99 In other words, when
applied to verbal voice, it describes a situation in which a verb's form is both normal and
defective. As Baerman explains, "a particular exponent retains its normal function . ..
96
Baerman claims that polarity exists in Hebrew (Baerman, "Morphological Typology of
Deponency," 14), although he provides no examples.
97
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 16; Matthews, Concise Dictionary of
Linguistics, 174.
98
BDAG, xvi.
"Matthews, Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 396.

alongside the irregular function." Syncretism can be illustrated with the following
tables.101 Table 37: Syncretism with Active Morphology shows how a syncretistic verb
uses a defective verbal form for the middle/passive; however, the same form functions
regularly for the active. Table 38: Syncretism with Middle/Passive Morphology is more
like NT deponency because the middle/passive form functions for the active, but it is
disqualified from deponency because its passive form retains a passive function. Active
forms may or may not exist. It demonstrates syncretism because the same form functions
for its regular middle/passive use. The difference between syncretism and deponency is
observed in Table 39: Deponency. Table 39 shows the middle/passive form functioning
for the active but no longer retaining its normal use, and active forms do not exist.
Corbett has supplied a helpful analogy for understanding syncretism and deponency by
comparing them to the computer world: "For those who think in terms of processes,
syncretism may be thought of as 'copy and paste' while deponency is 'cut and paste'."102
Table 37: Syncretism with Active Morphology

syncretic
normal paradigm with
paradigm active
morphology
active exponent A exponent A
middle/passive exponent B exponent A
A/uei
active Xv(o
(Luke 13:15)
100
Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 17. The ellipsis was substituted for the
words "under deponency." They were removed from the quotation because Baerman views syncretism as a
subcategory of deponency, whereas we the two as separate phenomena.
""Each of these tables is based upon a single table in Baerman, "Morphological Typology of
Deponency," 14, but they have been altered to reflect the current discussion.
!
Corbett, "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between," 32n8.
Met103
middle/passive Mourn
(hypothetical)
Table 38: Syncretism with Middle/Passive Morphology

syncretic
normal paradigm with
paradigm middle/passive
morphology
active exponent A exponent B
middle/passive exponent B exponent B
ryyepGri
active A/uco
(Acts 9:8a)
fiyepSri
middle/passive A/uouou
(Rom 6:4b)
Table 39: Deponency

normal deponent
paradigm paradigm
active exponent A exponent B
middle/passive exponent B exponent B
5m>auoa
active Xxxo
(John 5:30)
middle/passive A/uouoti Swauoci
Does syncretism occur in Koine Greek? It does occur in Koine Greek as is
illustrated in Table 38. For example, the passive of eyeipco is syncretistic. The passive
form is used both intransitively for the active "of those who have awakened"104 and for
the passive for those who have been resurrected.105 A fact not demonstrated in Table 38 is
that eyeipco continues to use its active form in the aorist. Therefore, with syncretism, a
m
Xvei does not function as a middle or passive; it is included in this slot in the table as a
hypothetical illustration of what this kind of syncretism would look like. Qopeco seems to be inherently
passive. If so, the active form, which is found as an imperfect active in Wis 17:9 LXX, illustrates this type
of usage well. E(|)6pei is used for the passive in this verse (see BDAG, 1061-62), but the active form exists
for the first principal part in Koine literature; thus, it is not deponent but is the inverse of deponency. There
is a mismatch between form and function, but because the active form is extant, deponency is not
permitted.
104
BDAG, 271 (s.v. eYeipco 4).
5
BDAG, 272 (s.v. EYeipco 7).
verb can have a copy and paste function along with retention of the original form (e.g.,
the aorist active of Eyeipco).
Active Form with Active Function

1 Thess 1:10b 6v TyyEipev BK [TCOV] veicpcbv
whom he raised from the dead
Passive Form with Active Function

Acts 9:8a i\yepQr\ 5e ECCOAXX; and xf\q yr\q
But Saul got up from the ground
Passive Form with Passive Function

Rom 6:4b woe coarcep i\yepQr\ Xpioxbq EK vetcpcov Sioc xr\q So^ni; xot> naipoq
in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of
the Father
Syncretism is sometimes viewed as a subcategory of deponency, in which case the verb
lacks an exponent (i.e., an active form).106 However, we separate deponency and
syncretism as separate phenomena based on the data above.
How does the discussion of lacking an active form relate to syncretism and
deponency? If lacking an active form is a defining characteristic of deponency, then the
only way to determine if a verb falls into this category is to verify that it does not have an
active form in extant Koine literature. Such a goal can be accomplished by searching
TLG in the Koine period. Syncretism can create a situation in which having an active
form would nullify deponency (e.g., eyeipco in the sixth principal part). If a voice form-
function mismatch (i.e., middle and/or passive form with active function) appears to exist
but active forms are extant for the particular principal part, the verb is likely syncretistic,
'Baerman, "Morphological Typology of Deponency," 14,17.

142
not deponent.107 The best method for searching TLG is to search for active forms for each
lexeme in each of the first four principal parts.
How should a verb with a rare active form be handled? Each verb will have to
be handled individually. Nevertheless, two primary factors could contribute to the
interpretation of the existence of a rare active form: diachronic history of the lexeme and
frequency of usage. Because language is living, the usage of some verbs shifts over time.
While deponent in one period, they may function normally in another period. Jannaris,
Caragounis, and Lavidas/Papangeli have documented this phenomenon.108 Possibly in a
prior or subsequent period, an active exists, and we see the occasional active in the Koine
by way of transition. In addition, the frequency of usage for a lexeme could contribute to
an occasional active form. In other words, if a word is a very common word, then the
author is more likely to know its conventional form because it is ingrained in the culture.
On the other hand, a rarer word is more likely to be used in an irregular way because the
word is outside the author's usable vocabulary.
Bianco illustrates well how a verb with rare active forms can be handled. The
number of actives found in Koine literature and the number of middle and/or passive
forms found must be accounted for and sometimes the trajectory of active usage
diachronically is considered. For Piocôo in the Koine period, thirty-one actives are found
in the first principal part; one active is found in the second principal part; fourteen actives
are found in the third principal part; and no actives are found in the fourth principal part.
""Similarly, if a voice form-function mismatch (i.e., middle and/or passive form with active
function) appears to exist but the passive form occasionally retains its passive function, the verb is likely
syncretistic, not deponent.
108
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 284 (§1000); Caragounis, Development of Greek and
the New Testament, 103; Lavidas and Papangeli, "Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek," 108. See also
"Antonius N. Jannaris" on p. 59.
Let us focus on the first principal part because this discussion has ramifications for the
NT (Matt 11:12 and Luke 16:16). The thirty-one actives in the first principal part can be
considered rare actives because the middle/passive form occurs 1,139 times. Only 2.7%
of the occurrences of the first principal part are active in form. In contrast, 4.6% of the
occurrences of the first principal part were active before the Koine period, and 8% were
active after the Koine period.109 In addition, the lexical meaning of pid^co corresponds
with categories into which many deponent verbs fall (reciprocal, volitional mental
activity, or emotion and cognition). Thirty-one actives will often be too many to qualify
as a rare active, but because the lexeme is so common in the Koine period, thirty-one
actives is actually a low number, a rare active. As a result, historically, active forms are
rare in the Koine period for the first principal part of fh&^co, making it a candidate for
deponency.
Deponency of the First Principal Part

Matt 11:12 anb 8e TCGV fiuepwv 'Icodvvo'o TCU $COITIOTOV ecoq dpxi r\ fiaoikeia
TCOV o-opocvcov Pia^xai Koci piaaxou 6cp7t(x£o'uaiv awfiv.
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven
makes its way with triumphant force,110 and violent people claim it for
themselves.111
Luke 16:16 'O vouoq Kod oi Ttpoîycoa uexpi 'Icodwou- drab TOTE r\ PacnA-eia xov
9£0t> evayye'kiêxai Kod nac, eiq awfiv pidêxai.
The law and the prophets were until John; from then, the kingdom of God
is being proclaimed, and everyone tries to take it by force.112
109
Seen64onp.263.
110
See BDAG, 175 (s.v. Pid^co 2). The translation of this verb is notoriously difficult. Spicq
writes, "These verses [Matt 11:12 and Luke 16:16] are among the most enigmatic of the NT, and any
proposed interpretation can be only a hypothesis" (Ceslas Spicq, aya-eXn, vol. 1 of Theological Lexicon of
the New Testament, ed. and trans. James D. Ernest [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 287). If deponency
is relevant to the discussion, it seems to suggest that the verb is neither middle nor passive in force but
active.
'"See BDAG, 134 (s.v. apnaX^ 2b).

Summary
In summary, the final feature of deponency, which was discussed under the
umbrella of "normal function no longer available," pulls together many of the other
features. In particular, "lexically-specified set" was further defined by this last quality.
Deponency is a lexically-specified set in the sense that (1) these verbs do not have an
active form and (2) they no longer have a middle and/or passive function available.
Although the essence of deponency is the mismatch between form and function, the final
feature adds the necessary clarification to the essential element. By tightening up the
definition, it now possesses parameters which can be used as controls to determine if a
verb is deponent.
A Composite View of Deponency's Anatomy
A detailed analysis of the anatomy of deponency has been presented. Based
upon Baerman's definition, deponency was broken down into its constituent parts and
applied to Koine Greek. While this exercise was helpful for determining the elements of
this phenomenon, the result is like the pieces of an unfinished puzzle. The pieces all fit
together and each forms an important part of the whole, but the observer cannot see the
whole. After completing his challenge, the puzzler can see and appreciate both the
composite portrait and the individual pieces which each serve an essential role in
producing the image. The pieces that constitute deponency have been displayed. At this
point, the goal is to recreate the composite understanding of deponency.
112
See BDAG, 175 (s.v. Pid^co 2). The translation "tries" translates Piaêxoci by using the
conative option provided in BDAG (see Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 534-35). See also n 110 on p. 143.
At its essence, deponency is the mismatch between form and function.
Although true, this description is too broad and includes many grammatical structures
that are not included in our investigation. Deponency in Koine Greek is limited a one-
way incongruity of voice valence. The mismatch was verified both syntagmatically and
paradigmatically. The result is that morphological opposition can be observed between
voice form and function: (1) middle form with an active function, (2) passive form with
an active function, or (3) middle/passive with an active function. The clearest examples
of deponency have overt morphological indicators, but deponency can still be determined
without them with semantics, syntax, and lexemic history.113 Deponent verbs can be
observed as a lexically-specified set of verbs that are set in contrast to verbs following the
normal paradigm. They are lexically-specified in three ways: (1) in the morphological
forms used to express the active voice, (2) in that they tend to fall into a set of six
categories of verbal meaning, and (3) in that they lack an active form for one or more
principal parts. The second way deponent verbs are lexically-specified can be worded
negatively too: deponent verbs do not take a beneficiary/recipient-subject. Some verbs
are fully deponent, and others are semi-deponent. The final feature discussed—"normal
function no longer available"—becomes the testing ground for determining deponency.
Thus, deponency is a syntactical classification.
Deponency is a syntactical designation for the phenomenon in Koine Greek in

which a lexically-specified set of verbs demonstrates incongruity between voice
form and function by using middle and/or passive morphology to represent active
113
Syntax is used to determine deponency by observing transitivity. Passive verbs that take a
direct object are usually functioning actively (deponent). On occasion, passive verbs take an accusative of
retained object (see Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 197,438-39). Lexemic history includes noting that the
active for a particular principal part is not found in the Koine period, and when those results are not
conclusive, it includes diachronic investigation.
146
voice function while simultaneously lacking active morphology for a particular

principal part in Koine literature and lacking a beneficiary/recipient-subject.
Deponency in Koine Greek
We observed in chapter two that ancient Greek grammarians wrestled with the
incongruity between voice form and function. Thus far in this chapter, the theoretical
foundation has been poured for deponency. It is now appropriate to systematically test
Koine Greek against the definition of deponency. If deponency existed in this period,
then the literature would be expected to reflect such a phenomenon. The testable elements
of the definition are (1) mismatch between form and function [middle and/or passive
form with an active function], (2) the absence of an active form for a particular principal
part in Koine Greek, and (3) the absence of lexical intrusion [the verb does not possess a
beneficiary/recipient-subject].
A Form-Function Mismatch
Two separate but parallel investigations were conducted with the primary
objective of observing the mismatch between form and function. The verbs searched in
both investigations were those that BDAG listed as deponent, one in the aorist passive
and one in the aorist middle. A search of BDAG using Accordance114 revealed 102 verbs
that were listed as deponent.115 These were the verbs used for the investigation. Not all of
the verbs found here are deponent in the first principal part, as can be observed by the -co
114
Accordance, ver. 8.2.3, programmed by Roy Brown (Altamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree
Software, May 2009).
115
The search could be expanded by including another set of verbs from BDAG (see Appendix
C on p. 251). BDAG describes some verbs as 'only middle' or 'only passive' in their literature. Inasmuch
as these words seem to describe deponency (as opposed to labeling the verb as deponent directly), such a
group of verbs could provide an area of fruitful study. Although these verbs are not included in the present
survey, they are included in Appendix D, which includes a broader investigation using TLG.
ending of the lexical form of some (e.g., dyccMadco, Pid^co, evxeMico, Qav\xaC,(o, etc.).
These verbs were those observed to determine if the characteristics of deponency
presented themselves.
Table 40: Deponent Verbs in BDAG

dyocAlidco 7TpOO"7TOp£t>Op,Otl
Pid^co |j.i)a.£0|a.ai 7ipox£ipiC«>
8eo|j,ai |j.co(a,do|xai 7ruv9dvo|jm
5i(xPe(3ai6o|a.ai p.co(j.oaK07i£0(j.ai p\)0|j.ai
8iata>yi£o|a.oa vfixo|j.ai o£pdô|ica
Sioc7rpay|j,ocx£'6o|j.oa 68ijpo|j,ai o7rA,ayxviô|j.ai
8t)va(j.ai 6p%£0(iai axpaxEiJco
eyKpaxeTJop-ai napa$iaC,o\ica auyKaxa\j/ri(|)iô|a.ai
ev8t)(xeo(i.ai 7iapaix£oâi <xuyKoi|j,do|aoa
EVXEAAXO 7iapaKa9£ô(xai ai)YXpdo(ioa
Evwvid£o|j,oa 7iapaK£?i£iJ(a at))j.7tapaYivonai
Eârcopeco napakoyiC,o[iai auixTtopEiJopai
e^riyEO|a.ai 7iapa|j.x)6£0|j,ai o"uvaycovi£o|ioa
E7ii|j.eêofa,ai 7iapa7iop£iJO(a.ai GX>vaXiC,G>
£7UO"KE7IXO|J,OU 7iap£ia£p%0(j.ai at>vavdK£i|jm
£7uaxa|j.ai 7tocp£p%o|j,ca auvEiaEpxofiai
EijXaPEOfjm 7iapoixo(j,ai at)V£7i£pxo(j,ai
0a\)(j.d^co 7iappricn.dô(xai cvvenoîai
idojj-ai 7i£pi£pydô(j,ai Gvvevatxeoiiai
iX,daKopai 7l£plK£l|Xai awn8o|j.oa
Kaxaycovi£o|j.(xi 7IOVE00 avvxpEXco
Kaxa8£%o|j,oa 7iovrip£iJO|a.ai awimoicpivopai
KaxocKpodoum 7ipocy|j.ax£'uo|ioa \)7r£paydA.ta>|ioa
Kaxapdop,ai 7ipoaixido(xai miaxvEop-ai
Kaxaco(|)iô|j.ai 7lpO£pXO(i.ai \)7to8£xo|a.ai
Kaxa\j/ri(|)iô|a,ai 7tpOT|y£O|J.0U moKEiiaai
KaxEpydôp-ai TtpOKEUXCU \)7lOK£l|J.ai
Kau%do(xai 7rpoâpxiJpo|a.ai (|)9£yyo|j.ai
Kp£pdvvt)|î 7tpoa(3idô|j.ai <j)iAoxua.£O|j,0tt
Xoyi£o|aca Ttpoa8£0|j.ai Xocpiôjiai
Xt)(j.aivco 7ipoa8£%o|jm Xpdoîai
laaGrixEiJCO 7ipoCT£pxo(iai XpnaxETJOiiai
|aavx£TJO(j,ai 7rpoa£iJXO|j,ai G)V£O|0.ai
ja,dxo|j.ai 7rpoaK£i)j,ai d)pt)0(j.ai
Aorist Passive Investigation
The first investigation consists of a search for aorist passive verbs of NT, AF,
and LXX from BDAG's deponent list.117 In particular, these verbs were observed in
context to determine if they demonstrated a voice disjunction between their form and
function: aorist passive functioning as an aorist active. This category is crucial to the
investigation of deponency because the aorist has a distinct form for the passive and
because the passive function is more easily distinguished from the active than the middle.
In cases where there were more than five hits of a particular verb, the first five
occurrences were surveyed in the following order: (1) GNT-T, (2) AF, (3) LXX-1, and
(4) LXX-2 (see n 117 for an description of LXX-1 and LXX-2). This sampling provides
ample places in which a verb can display a form-function mismatch.
What were the results of the aorist passive investigation? Of the 102 possible
verbs, ten were observed to have voice form-function incongruity and to be deponent (see
Table 41: Aorist Passive). That is, these ten verbs possessed a passive morphology but
demonstrated an active function (while also lacking active forms for the third principal
part and while lacking lexical intrusion).
For the complete data, see Appendix A on p. 218.
"'Accordance's GNT-T (ver. 3.6), AF (ver. 2.4), LXX-1 (ver. 3.1), and LXX-2 (ver. 3.1)
modules were used for the search (Accordance, programmed by Brown). GNT-T is Accordance's tagged
module containing NA27. AF is a tagged module containing Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, updated ed., rev. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999). The LXX is a tagged module containing Rahlfs's text (Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart,
eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2nd revised ed., 2 vols, in 1, 'H
nakava. 8ia0r|Kr| Kaxcc xovq ep8onf|Kovta (O'), ed. Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart [Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2006]). According to Accordance's "Read-Me Modules," Joshua, Judges, Tobit, and
Daniel (including Susanna and Bel) have multiple versions. The second version was included in
Accordance as a separate text, LXX-2. Thus, LXX-1 includes the Septuagint along with one version of
those books, and LXX-2 includes the second version.
149
Table 41: Aorist Passive Verbs with a Form-Function Mismatch

Suvocum eijâpeoum aepdôum
evGup-eouai iXdaicoum c7tâY%vi£o|j,oa
evimvidôuai Ttapartopeijoum au|j.7iop8iJO|xai
87iija.£Xeo)j,ai
The form-function incongruity will be illustrated with an example from each
verb.
Matt 17:16b KCU OTJK nSwriGTitrav ccuxov 9epa7iEi3aai.

And they were not able to heal him.
fl8wr|9r|aav functions intransitively as a helping verb.
Matt 1:20a xocuxoc 8e amov EV0I)HTI9EVTO<; iSou dyyeXot; leupiot) KOCX' ovocp
£(j>dvr| ocuxco leycov-
But after he considered these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream saying:
ev0t>ur|0svTO<; clearly functions actively, taking an accusative direct object.
Gen 37:5 'EvuTtvicwrSeii; 8e Icocyncj) evtmviov anr\Yyeike\ ocuxo xoiq dBetajiou;

awou
But after Joseph dreamed a dream, he reported it to his brothers.
£vimviaa0£i<; clearly functions actively, taking an accusative direct object.
Luke 10:34 KOU 7tpoa£A,0d>v Kax£8r|G£v xd xpocuuaxa awcO emÊcov £A,aiov Kai
olvov, £7iiPipdaaq 8E OCUXOV ETII XO iSiov Kxfjvo*; fiyayev avxov eiq 7tav8o%£iov
Kai erceneX,T|8Ti cruxou
And when he approached, he bound his wounds, by pouring olive oil and
wine on them, then after putting him on his own pack-animal, he led him into the
inn and cared for him.
£7te|ie?if|0r| functions actively with a genitive direct object. The object benefits
from the action, not the subject.
Heb 11:7a JTiaxei %pr|umia0ei<; Ncoercepixcov ixnSeTtco pX£7tou£vcov,

E-uXaPtiOEig KaxEaKexxxaev KIPCOXOV eiq acoxnpiocv xo-G OIKOU a u x o i j . . . .
By faith, Noah, after being warned concerning things not yet seen, took
118
care and built an ark for the salvation of his family . . . .
ei)?iaPr|9ei<; is functioning actively as an attendant circumstance participle.
Luke 18:13 6 8e xetaovrn;... eximxev xo oxfj0o<; amou ?i£ycov- 6 0e6q, iXd<70Tixi

uoi xco duapxcoA-cp.
But the tax-collector . . . was beating his chest, saying: "God, be gracious
to me, a sinner."
'For this translation, see BDAG, 407 (s.v. e\>Xaêo\iai 1).

iTidaGnxi is functioning as a stative active. BDAG says that the aorist passive
imperative of iXdaKojiai functions with a middle meaning.119 Such an
understanding illustrates a mismatch between form and function, but it does not
represent deponency because the function would have to be active. Instead, it is
better to view the function as active since no active form is available.120
Deut 2:14 Kod cd fpepai, aq napenopevQiyiev drco KaSnq Bocpvn eco<; ov

rcapT|?i0ou£v xfrv (|>dpayya Zapex, xpidKovxa Kai 6KXG> e x n , . . .
And the days, when we passed by from Kadesh Barnea until we passed by
the ravine Zered, were thirty-eight years,...
7tape7topeiJ0r|(X8v reflects the activity of body motion.
Rom 1:25 dixiveq [iexr\Xkaâv xf|v dXriGsiav TOTJ Geoij ev xw v|/£"65ei Kai
EcepdcSticav Kai e^dxpevaav xfi Kxiaei rcapd xov Kxiaavxa, 6c, eaxiv
evXoyryibc, eiq xovc, aicovaq, a\ir\v.
They, who exchanged God's truth for a lie, both worshiped and served the
creature rather than the one who creates, who is blessed for ever, amen.
eaepdaGnaav is clearly active. Not only is the action clearly directed away from
the subject, it is also parallel to another active verb in the context, eAmpeuaav.
Matt 9:36a 'I5d>v 8E XOVC, 6%?ioi)c; EtTrcX-ayjcvitfBTi rcepi arnwv . . . .

But when he saw the crowds, he felt sympathy for them . . . .
eo"7tA,aYXvio"9r| is used intransitively but actively nonetheless.
Gen 14:24 7iA,f|V wv eâyov oi veaviaKoi Kai xfj<; uepiSoc; xcov dv8pcov xav
<7Dî7rop£t)8EVT{Ov (XEX' euoi), Eo%(ok, Avvav, MaiaPpn, cuxot A,ri|iA|/ovxai
(j,epi8a.
Êxcept the things which the young men ate and the portion of men who
went along with me, Eshcol, Aner, and Mamre, these will receive a portion.
XGJV a\)(j.7iope\)9evxcov reflects the activity of body motion.
Considering that we began with 102 verbs from BDAG, is this group of
eleven deponent verbs a statistically low number? No. Seventy of the 102 returned zero
hits. In other words, there were no occurrences of an aorist passive form for seventy of
these 102 verbs in the surveyed literature, which means that of the thirty-two verbs that
possessed an aorist passive form, ten were found to actually be deponent (31.25%).
1
"BDAG, 473.
120
For further validation, see "The Distinction between Active and Middle" beginning on
p. 127.
151
Disqualification of the twenty-two surveyed verbs was based on one of several reasons:
(1) some were found to function normally as aorist passives [which itself is not odd
because they may be found to be middle deponent] (2) others may be deponent in a
different principal part, (3) others were found to be lexically influenced, (4) others
possessed an active form, or (5) others were found to be syncretistic [indicating a form-
function mismatch but retaining either active forms or a passive function or both].
In summary, the very presence of any verbs with a distinct aorist passive form
and an incongruent function is very significant because the mismatch is the most clearly
observable. A form-function mismatch is at the essence of deponency. In this section
(along with the research in Appendix A), evidence has been presented that clearly
demonstrates the existence of verbs in Koine Greek that possess such a disjunction. These
verbs are aorist passive in form but function as aorist actives. Thus, the first, testable
feature of deponency's definition is valid.
Aorist Middle Investigation121
The second investigation consisted of a search for aorist middle verbs of the
NT, AF, and LXX from BDAG's deponent list.122 The aorist passive's procedure was
used for the aorist middle.
Thirty-six verbs from BDAG's list of deponents were found to demonstrate a
middle form with an active function. See Table 42: Aorist Middle Deponents.
Table 42: Aorist Middle Deponents

8iaA,oyi£oum ?w)uaivco 7tpoavu&o|j.oa
121
For the complete data, see Appendix B on p. 232.
122
Accordance's GNT-T (ver. 3.6), AF (ver. 2.4), LXX-1 (ver. 3.1), and LXX-2 (ver. 3.1)
modules were used for the search (Accordance, programmed by Brown).
5ia7tpay|aaxeiJ0|j.ai uavxeuoum Jtpoaeu%o|j.ai
8t>vau,ai jj.dxop.ai pijo|a.oa
evxeXkd) |a.a)|xdo|j.ai <n>|j.7tapayivo|j.ai
evt)7ivid^0(j.ai opxeouou auvaycovi£o|j.ai
efy\Y£0\iai 7iapapidô|a.ai TJ7iia%veo|j.ai
e7uaK87tTO|j.oa 7rapaixeoum (j)ei8o(j.ai
idoum TtapaXoyiôum ^Geyyoum
Kaxaycoviôuai 7rapau.u6£ouai %api£o|i.ai
Kaxapdoum rtappriaidôum %pdou.ai
Kaxepyd£ou.ai 7tovr|pe"uofj.ai xpr\ax£voâi
Xoyi£ou.ai npay[iaievo[iai cbveoum
Fifty-three of BDAG's deponents were not found in our searched literature in the aorist
middle form. Thus, thirty-six of the remaining forty-nine verbs are middle deponents
(73.5%). The form-function disjunction will be illustrated from select examples.
Mart. Pol. 7:1c KaKeiGev 5s riSuvaxo eiq exepov %copiov a7ieA.0eiv, aXX OVK
ri|3ox)X.f|9r|, ei7ccov- xo GeTirpa xcu Geou yeveaGco.
And from there he was able to depart into another place, but he was not
willing, saying: "Let the will of God be done."
f|8iJvaxo is stative active.
Matt 17:9 Kod KocxaPocwovxcov auxcov EK XCU opoix; evExeiâxo auxoiq 6

'Iriacuq ^.eycov- u.r|8evi eutrixe xo opauxx eac, ov 6 vibe, xot> dv0pa)7iot) CK veKprov
eyep6f\.
And after descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them saying:
"Tell the vision to no one until the son of man is risen from the dead."
evexeiA,axo functions actively as a verb of saying.
Gen 37:9 elSev 8e evu7tviov exepov Kcd 8vn.yf|aocxo ocuxo xcprcaxpiamou Kai
xoic; d8eX,<))oi<; aibxcu Kai eutev 'I8ot> EVUTrvicwrdnTiv evrnviov exepov, coarcep 6
r|A,io<; Kai r\ aeA,f|vr| Kai evSeKa daxepeq 7rpoaeK"6voi)v u.e.
But he saw a different dream, and he explained it to his father and his
brothers. And he said, "Behold I dreamed a different dream, just as the sun and
the moon and eleven stars were worshipping me."
evimviaaduTiv functions transitively with a direct object stated.
Luke 9:42b e7texiur|aev 8e 6 'Iriaoiji; xw 7ivet))j.axi xcp aKaGdpxto Kai id<raxo xov
7iai8a Kai drceScoKev auxov xcprcaxpiamou.
But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the child, and he gave him
back to his father.
idaaxo functions transitively with a direct object stated. The object is the
beneficiary, not the subject.
Rom 4:8 iiaKapwq dvfjp ov ovfj.rj Xoyi<n\xai Kvpiog a/uapriav.
Blessed is the man for whom the Lord does not count sin.
Xoyi<rr|xai functions transitively with a direct object stated.
Isa 65:8b Kod epo-Oaiv Mfi ^DUTIVTI OUTOV OXI Eiôyia Kupiou eoxiv EV amco
And they will say, "Do not destroy it because the blessing of the LORD is
in it."
Xuurivri functions actively with a direct object stated.
1 Sam 28:8b KOU EITIEV ocuxfj Mayxevaai Sr\ [iox EV xcp EyyaaxpiinjGcp Kai
avayayE urn 6v EOCV EUTCD ooi.
And he said to her, "Prophesy now for me in the spirit of divination and
bring up to me him whom I tell you."
Clearly uavT£t>aou is active in this context. The second person singular subject is
distinct from the one to whom the action is directed (urn).
Gen 31:36a cbpyia9r| SE IOCKCOP Kai euttxetraxo xcp AaPav-

But Jacob was angry, and he fought Laban;
xcp AaPav can function either as a dative direct object, as in the translation above,
or as a dative of interest: disadvantage. With either use of the dative, the
mismatch between voice and function persists because en,a%eaaxo is active.
2 Cor 8:20 OXEMIOUEVOI xomo, UT| xiq r\\iaq jico|iT|o,,nTai EV xfl aSpoxnxi xoa>xr| xfj
SiaKovouuEvri vfy' r\\i(bv-
Avoiding this, lest someone criticize us in this lavish gift which is being
transmitted by us.
urouricrnxou functions actively with a direct object stated.
Luke 19:13b Kai EUCEV 7rpd<; amoix;- TtpayuaxewcwrOE EV cp ep%o\iai.

And he said to them: "Manage profitably123 [the capital] until I come."
The slaves are to administrate the capital on behalf of their master. Clearly the
action is active, and the beneficiary of the action is someone other than the
subject.
2 Tim 3:11 xoi<; Sicoyuolq, xoiq 7ra0f||iaoiv, old uoi Eysvexo EV Avxio%£ia, EV
'IKOVICO, EV Aijaxpon;,o'iovq 8uoyuo\><; \)7rriv£yKa Kai EK TCCCVXCOV UE epp'orraxo 6
Kijpioi;.
persecutions, sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, in Ikonium,
in Lystra, of what persecutions I endured, and from all, the Lord delivered me.
Eppijoaxo functions actively with a direct object stated. The object is the
123
Ceslas Spicq, Kai-yrev, vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans.
James D. Ernest (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 150-51.
154
Rom 11:21 ei yap 6 6eo<; xwv KOCXOCtyvaivKX&SCOV OTJK £<j)Ei<raTO, [ur| Ttcoq] oi)5e
GOV êiaexoa.
For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare
you, either.124
eêiaocxo functions actively with a direct object stated. The object is the
Luke 7:42a ur| e%6vxcov amoov 6c7io8oi3vai ap,<j)ox£poic; Exapi<Taxo.

When they were not able to repay, he pardoned both men.
£%apiaaxo functions actively with a direct object stated. The plural object is the
2 Cor 1:17a xomo ovv PouXouevoq ixrru apa %f\ e?ux(|)pia e/pTiffapriv;
Therefore, when intending this, I did not act with vacillation, did I?
eXpr\Gaiir\v functions actively and intransitively with a dative of manner.
1 Clem. 14:3 xptitrcEixTcopEGa ocuxoTi; Kaxa xf|v e-ucTtâyxviocv KOCI yA-'UK-UTrixa

xoi3 7coifiaavxoi; f|(xat;.
Let us be kind to them according to the benevolence sweetness of the one
who made us.
The beneficiary of the kindness conveyed by xpnaxet»aco|j,89a is ocuxoit;, not its
first person plural subject.
These select uses of the aorist middle illustrate the first testable element to
deponency's definition: a mismatch between voice form and function. The occurrences
shown also lack active forms and lexical influence, which means they are deponent in
these contexts. More examples can be found in Appendix B.
The Conclusion Extended
Thus far, the aorist passive and the aorist middle have been utilized to
demonstrate that the primary characteristic of deponency (i.e., a form-function mismatch)
is present in Koine Greek. These conclusions can likewise be extended to the other tenses
of Greek. Our contention is that the present, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect also
demonstrate the essential characteristic of deponency. One of the difficulties in
l
On the translation of the apodosis, see BDAG, 901 (s.v. nwq 2.b).
addressing the issue of voice form-function incongruity in these additional tenses is the
fact that their middle and passive voices share the same form. This would seem to create
the need to demonstrate both the lack of the middle and the lack of the passive for these
verb tenses to be considered deponent.
Gregory T. Christopher has addressed this very issue in his 1985 thesis
entitled "Determining the Voice of New Testament Verbs whose Middle and Passive
Forms Are Identical."125 Christopher restricted his study to the perfect tense, but his
conclusions can also be applied to the pluperfect because the pluperfect is built upon the
perfect tense stem.126 Furthermore, it seems that Christopher's results apply likewise to
the present tense. And if applicable to the present tense, then the results also apply to the
imperfect because the imperfect is built upon the present tense stem.127
What functions of perfect middle/passive verbs did Christopher find in the
NT? He used four criteria in his method to distinguish the middle from the passive in the
perfect middle/passive. The factors were (1) context, (2) sentence structure, (3) verbal
lexeme including lexical meaning and historical development, and (4) author's style.128
Christopher found that of the perfect middle/passive verbs, (1) zero functioned as direct
middles, (2) twenty-six functioned as deponents with an active use, and (3) 672
125
Gregory T. Christopher, "Determining the Voice of New Testament Verbs whose Middle
and Passive Forms Are Identical: A Consideration of the Perfect Middle/Passive Forms" (Th.M. thesis,
Grace Theological Seminary, 1985).
126
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 234 (§25.24).
127
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 184-86; see especially §21.11.
'Christopher, "Voice of NT Verbs," 15-16.

functioned passively. These results overwhelmingly demonstrate that in the perfect
tense, the middle/passive form is usually passive. Such a conclusion affirms Eugene Van
Ness Goetchius's instruction on the subject. It is a logical conclusion that such findings
would be similar in the present tense, which Goetchius points out. "The forms of the
present and imperfect middle are the same as the forms of the present and imperfect
passive. In the interpretation of such forms we must be guided by the context; if
contextual evidence is not decisive, we are usually safe in understanding the forms as
passive, since the middle voice is comparatively rare."130
Two conclusions can be drawn from the present discussion. First, in verbs that
share a middle/passive form, our first choice of the use of the form should be passive.
The second conclusion coincides with the first. Because those that are middle tend to be
deponent middle, then their function is actually active. Plus, we have noted that active-
lacking verbs are to be understood as having an active function when in the middle form.
Therefore, we see that when presented with a middle/passive form, the predominant
usage is passive, which is easier to distinguish from the active for the purposes of
determining deponency. The conclusions drawn about the aorist passive and aorist middle
deponent can likewise be applied to the present, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect,
although they share a middle/passive form. A few examples will validate the claim for
both the first and fifth principal parts.
129
Christopher, "Voice of NT Verbs," 41-43. Christopher excluded Rom 9:22 from his
investigation because he would eventually apply his research to that verse. Therefore, the actual number
that he listed for passive uses on p. 42 was 671. However, his third chapter was dedicated to the
determination of whether Rom 9:22 was passive, which he answered in the affirmative. Therefore, his
statistic on p. 42 has been updated to reflect his findings in his third chapter.
l30
Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1965), 104 (§133).
157
John 3:8aTOrcvE'uiJ.aonov 9eA.ei nvel Kai XTJV ^covfiv awoij aKot>£i<;, alX OVK
oldac, 7i66ev ep/Exai Kai nov vnayei-
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but you do not
know from where it comes or where it is going;
epxetoa is present middle/passive but functions actively. Its function is reinforced
in the context by the presences of the parallel verb, imayei, which is active.
Act 16:16 'Eyevexo 8ercopEVOfiEvcovfi(j,cov eiq xfiv Ttpoaeuxfiv TrcaSicncnv xwa

e%ot>oav Twetiua TruBcova urcavxfiGai f||xiv, rjxi<; epyaaiav noXkr\v 7tap£i%£v xoi<;
Ki>pioi,<; auxfic; uavTEDOHEvn.
And it happened when we were going into the place of prayer, a certain
slave girl who had a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing much profit to
her masters by giving oracles.
Two verbs of the first principal part are found here: 7cope\)0|ievcov and
ji.avxE\)0(j,evr|. 7top£i)ou£vcov is functioning as an active of body motion in a
genitive absolute construction. (j,avx£t>ou£vr| is functioning as an adverbial
participle of means, indicating how the young slave girl was bringing much profit
to her masters. The context makes it absolutely clear that the subject performing
the action (the slave girl) was not the one benefiting from the action. Thus, the
verb is functioning actively.
Rom 4:5 xra 8e (a.fi EpyaônEVCp TTIOXETJOVXI SE eni xov SiKouoxivxoc xov aaEpfj
ôyiêxai r\ nioziq ocuxo-u eiq SiKcaoatrvriv-
But to the one who does not work but believes on the one who justifies
the ungodly person, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Two present middle/passive verbs occur in this verse. The first, xcp epyaô|j,8V(p,
functions intransitively as an active. However, A-oyiêxoci functions passively.
Although this word lacks an active form and lexical influence, it occasionally
retains a passive function in the first principal part, making it syncretistic.
2 Pet 1:3 cogrc&vxafpiv if\q Geiaq 8i)v&u£co<; OCUXOIJ xarcpoc;£cofiv KCU eiJaePeiav
SESCOPTIHEVTH; 5ia xfj<; ETtiyvcoaecoc; xov KakeGavxoq ri(xa<; I8ia So^n Kai dpexfi,
because his divine power has bestowed on us all things for life and
godliness through the knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and
excellence of character,
8£5copr||j.£vri<; is a part of a genitive absolute construction with a causal cog.131 The
context is clear that the beneficiary of the action of 8copeoum is the indirect
object, not the subject.
Phil 3:7 ['AXka] axiva f|v uoi K8p8r|, xama fiynnai 8id xov Xpiaxov ^nuiav.
But whatever was gain to me, I have considered these things to be loss
because of Christ.
fiyri(j.ai functions actively in this verse with a double direct object (xa-uxa and
£nuiav).
13I
BDAG, 1105(s.v.rix;3.a.p).
Exod 5:23 KOCI &<])' OIJ neKOpev\iai npbc, Oocpocco ?iaA,fiaai £7ti TW ora ovouaxi,
eKocKcoaev xbv A,aov xomov, Kai OTJK epptiaco132 xov A.aov oov.
And [the time] from which I have gone to Pharaoh to speak in your name,
he mistreated this people, and you did not deliver your people.
7t£7i6peu|xai functions actively and intransitively.
2 Clem. 19:2 . . . Kai e<7KOTic|iE0a TTIV 8idvoiav vizb TCOV e?ci0\)|j,ia)v tcov
laaxatcov.
. .. and we have darkened our understanding by fruitless desires.
eo-KoxiaueQoc functions actively with a direct object stated.
Absence of an Active Form
According to the definition, the second "testable" criterion for deponency is
the absence of an active form. Are there verbs in the Koine period that lack an active
form in one or more principal parts? Yes. There are many. Appendix D (which begins on
p. 253) records the result of searching TLG for active forms in the Koine period by
principal part. Observing that table will indicate at a glance if a verb is potentially
deponent in a particular principal part.133 Verbs that lack an active form in all four
principal parts are potentially complete deponent verbs. However, verbs without active
forms in one to three principal parts are potentially semi-deponent verbs.
The absence of active forms for a principal part is a clue that the verb is not
functioning normally (except for lexical intrusion). Also, the possession of an active form
or the lack thereof can at times become an indicator of the previous criterion, a form-
function mismatch, especially for the middle voice. We have argued that there is no
distinction in function between active and middle voices in active-lacking verbs (except
p-uouca is also deponent in the third principal part.

133
The table indicates potential deponency because the other two criteria must also be
considered: form-function incongruity and absence of lexical intrusion.
when the verb is lexically influenced with a beneficiary/ recipient-subject). Therefore,
if a middle form verb lacks active forms and it is not lexically influenced (which must
include LIb/rs and passive function for the first and fifth principal parts), then it is active
functioning—a form function mismatch. On the other hand, if a middle form verb lacks
lexical intrusion but has active forms, then its function is middle. The active form works
as a signal to the reader that the middle form verb's function is not active. There is no
mismatch between form and function.
In summary, the second testable criterion of deponency is the investigation
into active forms by principal part. Those verbs that lack an active form are deponent (if
they meet the other two criteria). This criterion is also a clue into the verb's function.
Absence of Lexical Intrusion
The final testable criterion of deponency is the absence of lexical intrusion.
Some verbs, by the very nature of their meaning, are susceptible to being used in the
middle and/or passive form, thereby eliminating their active form. These are verbs that
Allan classified as having beneficiary/recipient-subjects;135 we label them 'LI b/rs '. The
lexical meaning of a LIb/rs verb precludes it from being deponent. Therefore, verbs that
demonstrate a middle and/or passive form with an active function and lack an active form
must also be evaluated for the presence of LIb/rs.
Are there verbs in Koine Greek for which lexical intrusion prevents a
deponent classification? Yes, many verbs' middle and/or passive forms are explained by
lexical intrusion rather than by deponency. Lexical intrusion could include a
134
See p. 128.
l35
Seep. 129.
beneficiary/recipient-subject for middle-only or middle/passive forms, or it could include
a passive function for middle/passive or passive-only forms. An example will illustrate
the phenomenon.136
Matt 18:5 KOU 6<; eav S E ^ T O I I EV 7ica8iov TOIO-UTO eni xa> ovoumi uo-u, EUE
5sx£Tai.
And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
Two forms of 5e%oum are found in this verse; both are good illustrations from
different principal parts (third and first, respectively). Both principal parts are
disqualified from deponency due to LIb/rs, although actives are lacking for both.
As a result, some potentially deponent verbs are disqualified from deponency
because of lexical intrusion. Although these verbs lack active forms, they do not usually
exhibit form-function incongruity. Their function corresponds with their form, as can be
seen in the Matt 18:5 example.137 Both verb forms are middle, and their function is
middle; yet, they lack active counterparts.
The Behavior of Deponency
Finally, how do deponent verbs act? It has been argued that deponents are
simply intransitive verbs (e.g., ep%o|iai).138 However, deponency is more than simply the
manifestation of an intransitive verb. First, many deponent verbs are transitive, which is
clearly recognized by the presence of a direct object. Thus, these verbs that take a direct
object are evidence against this fallacious claim. Some take their direct objects in the
customary accusative case, but others take their objects in the genitive or dative. (See
136
For a fuller list, see Appendix D.
137
It is conceivable that a form-function mismatch could exist simultaneously with lexical
intrusion for aorist passive and future passive verbs. For example, the aorist passive of Seoum is used in
Luke 10:2 with a genitive direct object. It is functioning actively (not as a middle), although its form is
passive. However, Seouat is not deponent in the sixth principal part because active forms exist in the third
principal part, in which case it would be syncretistic.
138
Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 423-30. See also Neva F. Miller, beginning on p. 86.
161
Appendix A and Appendix B.) Second, synonymous deponent verbs disprove such a
notion. For example, ep%oum is deponent in the present; however, its synonym,
cbteun,139 uses the active voice to express the same notion. The compound forms of
-ep%ou.oa and -Podvco can also be used to illustrate this point. Therefore, deponent verbs
are found to have a wide range of behaviors: transitive, intransitive, with a genitive direct
object, with a dative direct object, stative active, causative active, completely deponent,
partial deponent. Many fall into Allan's categories for deponent verbs, but others do not.
In the end, deponent verbs are a very diverse group whose behavior cannot be easily
categorized.
Because aorist and future tense verbs have three distinct forms for each voice,
the terminology for them can be more precise. Whereas a present tense verb might be
called a 'middle/passive deponent' or simply 'deponent', the terminology for the aorist
and future verbs can be more exact. Those built upon the passive tense stem are called
'passive deponent', and those built upon the middle tense stem are called 'middle
deponent'. Some verbs are aorist middle and aorist passive deponent (e.g.,
eu^piuotoum).140 As a result, deponent verbs are an exceptional class that can manifest in
several ways.
139
See the second entry for cfoteijn (BDAG, 100).
140
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 231 (§25.18).
162
Conclusion: A Refined Definition of Deponency
Deponency is a category that is broad in scope, touching many languages
other than Latin and Greek.141 Nevertheless, in Koine Greek, deponency is a much
narrower situation, as its definition reveals.

principal part in Koine literature and lacking a beneficiary/recipient-subject.
Although many have become distracted by the question of what was lost in a
deponent verb's history when defining deponency (active form or middle/passive
function) this question is not actually pertinent. The term is phenomenological and
describes the appearance of loss, which may or may not correspond to historical
development. What was lost is not important in a given period of Greek.
In practice, deponency may be viewed as a syntactical category that is
determined morphologically, semantically, syntactically, and historically. When parsing a
verb, my suggestion is to parse the verb according to form and to mark the voice for
deponency. A superscript 'd' in a circle (®) can concisely capture the identification as
deponent and can function to redirect the interpretation of voice to the active. Then, when
one moves to syntactical classification, the active voice's uses should be used. For
example, when parsing &7toKpi9r|aovTca in Matt 25:37, it should be parsed as future,
passive®, indicative, 3rd, plural, from arcoKpivoum, meaning 'I answer'. When coming
to exegesis, the '®' tells the interpreter not to identify a usage of the passive voice but of
141
See Matthew Baerman et al., eds., Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Proceedings
of the British Academy, vol. 145 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Kemmer, The Middle Voice.
163
the active. Here, the use of the voice is likely the equivalent of a simple active.142 Thus,
'®' has a parallel in the computer world. Just as an alias for a Mac and a shortcut on a PC
redirects the double click of an icon to a file or application actually located in a another
place on the computer, in the same way, the '®' redirects the interpreter so that he does
not classify the middle or passive voice, but classifies the active voice.
The recognition of deponency in Koine Greek is the acknowledgment of the
tension in diathesis that existed between the morphology and semantics in Greek verbal
system. This is not the modern creation of a situation that was imperceptible to ancient
Greek speakers. Nor is this the invalid application of grammar through a Latin lens.
Deponency is a legitimate expression of voice in Koine Greek that was recognized by
ancient grammarians and has been observed in contemporary literature. A critique of the
view that denies deponency in Greek will follow in the next chapter.
!
See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 411 for the simple active use of voice.
Chapter 4
A CRITIQUE OF THE DISSENTING VOICE
Introduction
Chapter two was a survey of the history of deponency. A portion of that
history included the presentations of those disappointed with deponency. Then in chapter
three, a positive presentation of the evidence for the existence of deponency was set forth.
In contrast, a defense of deponency in response to those who reject it—the dissenting
voice—is made in chapter four. After a brief orientation to those individuals who were
disgruntled with the concept (those whose work launched the suspicion toward
deponency), the arguments against deponency from four individuals are brought into
focus: Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington.1
Their specific defenses for their position will be critiqued.
The Dissenting Voice Speaks
Disgruntled without Rejection
The dissention towards deponency began innocuously. In the nineteenth
century, John William Donaldson began questioning the legitimacy of deponency. His
questioning was subtle. In his grammar, the second edition of which was published in
1859, Donaldson explains, "The proper classification of deponent verbs is according to
'The positive presentation of the views of the four dissenters is found in chapter two. See
"Disappointment with Deponency" on p. 85.
164
165
the usage of the middle in which they respectively originated."2 The meaning of this
statement is somewhat obscure. However, it seems as if Donaldson is articulating the
view that deponent verbs are actually functioning as middles as opposed to actives. In
fact, Georg Benedikt Winer construes such an interpretation from Donaldson.3 If that
were the case, then deponents are not an unusual use of the voice but simply a typical
function of the middle voice. As was already argued, it seems that these words written by
Donaldson should at least be limited to middle-form deponent verbs (as opposed to all
deponents).4 It is clear that he does not completely deny deponency because he provides a
lucid definition and very extensive discussion of deponent verbs. Nevertheless, the
questioning of the legitimacy of deponency was set in motion with Donaldson. Others
have followed with a similar, subtle questioning of deponency: Kiihner-Blass/Kuhner-
Gerth, Herbert Weir Smyth, G. Mussies, and Stanley E. Porter.
Similarly, James Hope Moulton, A. T. Robertson, and K. L. McKay expressed
dissatisfaction with the term 'deponent'.5 Moulton's and McKay's dissatisfaction with the
term may be called mild. While Moulton suggested that deponency should refer to both
"active only or middle only"6 verbs and McKay thought the term was "not entirely
2
(Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1859), 440. Donaldson alludes to the same idea in
the first edition of his grammar. See n 96 on p. 50.
3
G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis
for New Testament Exegesis, 3rd ed., trans. W. F. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), 325n4.
4
See "John William Donaldson" on p. 49.
5
See "James Hope Moulton" on p. 71 and "A. T. Robertson" on p. 74 respectively.
6
James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, [1908]), 153.
necessary," they continued to use the term. Robertson, however, deplored the term
'deponent'. He preferred to call these verbs defective as opposed to deponent. He wrote,
"The truth is that it [the term 'deponent'] should not be used at all. . . . As concerns voice
these verbs were defective rather than deponent."8 He also wrote, "The name 'deponent'
is very unsatisfactory."9 Robertson agrees with Moulton on how the term should properly
be utilized but concedes its typical usage.10 Inasmuch as Robertson was disgruntled with
the term deponent, he did not go so far as to reject it completely. He continued to use the
term on many occasions and even provided multiple lists of deponent verbs.11
To these grammarians—Donaldson, Kuhner-Blass/Kuhner-Gerth, Smyth,
Mussies, Porter, Moulton, McKay, and Robertson—credit can be given for initiating an
impetus for the dissatisfaction with deponency in Greek. They disliked the term, and their
textbooks (particularly in the cases of Moulton and Robertson) have been very influential
in the grooming of young grammarians. With these men's work, the stage had been set
for the ultimate expression of dissatisfaction with deponency—complete dissention and
denial.
7
Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 25.
8
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 332-33.

10
"Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, 332-34,484, 812-13.

Complete Dissension
Four scholars have indicated complete dissension with deponency. Neva F.
Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington have each
published alternate ways of explaining the phenomenon. The positive presentation of
their arguments was offered in chapter two. A rebuttal of their arguments follows.
Neva F. Miller
Miller states her conclusion on deponency succinctly: "the term deponent is a
misnomer and should not be used at all as a category of verbs."12 Her view of deponency
can be critiqued on several fronts.13 Many of her assumptions simply are not validated,
which causes her theory on deponency to crumble. First, her definition of deponency is
stereotypical. While she acknowledges that some describe deponency as an incongruity
between voice form and function, she overcomes the apparent discrepancy by arguing
that these verbs never had an active form. Such a statement simply is not true, as
Antonius N. Jannaris documented over one hundred years ago.14 Over the diachronic
history, some verbs gained an active form where they had none in a prior period, and
others lost an active form where they had one previously. Nikiolaos Lavidas and Dimitra
Papangeli likewise observe the same shifts in Greek verbs.15 Therefore, to attempt to
12
Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and Timothy Friberg (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 426.
13
For the presentation of her view, see "Neva F. Miller" on p. 86.
14
See "Antonius N. Jannaris" on p. 59.
l5
"Not all deponents display stable behaviour through the different stages of Greek. In many
cases, the deponent verbs have changed to actives, and, in other cases, they have attracted other verbs from
the class of actives" (Nikolaos Lavidas and Dimitra Papangeli, "Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek," in
168
reduce deponency to a history of lexemes simply does not correspond to the facts and
amounts to little more than a scarecrow argument. The faults she finds with this
definition are not legitimately transferred to a refined definition of deponency. Because
the deponency she combats is limited, her proposal for deponency is also limited.
Ultimately her claim—"As a class, so-called deponent verbs probably never had an active
form at all and so never laid it aside"16—is not a denial of deponency. Phenomenological
language is being used.
Secondly, Miller makes some nice but limited observations about voice. Her
definition of the active voice is inaccurate because it confuses voice with transitivity. She
writes, "In the active voice, the subject of a (transitive) verb performs the action
expressed in it. The result of the action passes through to affect the expressed or implied
object of the verb."17 This is the function of transitivity. By limiting the active voice to
only transitive verbs, she seems to indicate that neither intransitive verbs nor stative verbs
can utilize the active voice. Such a stance can hardly be substantiated. Thus, she argues
that when the situation that looks like deponency presents itself, it is actually the middle
voice expressing itself. However, her understanding of the middle voice itself is limited
because only the direct middle is in view,18 which is a rare use of the middle in the NT,
Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, ed. Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. 145 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 108).
"Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 425.

17
l8
Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 424. Pennington likewise notes Miller emphasis on the direct
middle. He writes, "she overly relies on the reflexive idea to understand the middle voice" (Jonathan T.
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New Testament
Studies," in Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New
Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, New Testament Monographs, ed. Stanley
E. Porter, vol. 11 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009], 190n38).
169
and intransitivity is emphasized.19 Consequently, her method of discounting deponency is
of limited value because of the inadequacy of her argument.
Third, Miller's assumption about the development of Greek is not valid. In her
criticism of the traditional interpretation of deponency, she suggests that such a refined
language as Greek could not have developed to have such a defective feature. She writes,
"And so it is unreasonable to suppose that such a fine and useful language should have
developed in a clumsy way, with its ability to communicate precise meaning hindered by
defective verbs. It is more reasonable to accept the challenge of explaining so-called
deponent verbs on the basis of what the voice forms of those verbs communicate."20 She
is stating that deponency, if accepted, is a clunky feature of Greek. Such an approach to
language study is not descriptive, but prescriptive. Her view is biased from the outset. It
is much better to allow the language to speak for itself, based on its own merits. The
grammatical milieu should be described in neutral terms. Although her preunderstanding
may represent many who have studied Greek, we have demonstrated that even the earliest
Greek grammarians wrestled with the disjunction between form and function of verbal
voice.
Finally, her suggested approach does not encompass all factors. It focuses on
the middle but minimizes the passive. To Miller, all verbs that appear deponent are
functioning as middles. No explanation of why future or aorist passives should be
19
Miller does not state explicitly that middle voice verbs are only intransitive, but she comes
close. When explaining how middle verbs (i.e., those typically called deponent) are actually functioning,
she clarifies that "an emphasis is put on reflexive action, and the subject, when he is the agent of the action,
becomes the center of gravity. The agent does something that benefits himself. The action is not transferred
away from him, since the action in the verb does not pass through to affect an object that is only outside of
him" (Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 426; emphasis added).
'Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 425-26.

understood as middles is offered, and partial deponents are not accounted for. She said
her conclusions applied also to Latin;21 however, deponency in Latin is not questioned
like it is in Greek, which demonstrates that her handling of the issue is not as strong as
she would like it to be.
In summary, Miller's presentation of the problem with deponency is
unconvincing. Thus, her proposed solution is unnecessary. Having said this, her
suggestion was presented in the right mindset. First, she readily admits that her
suggestion is tentative and needs to be tested (confirmed or falsified).22 Further, there is
some truth in the abuse of deponency. In other words, there are some instances where
middle proper verbs are called deponent illegitimately. Lexically influenced verbs should
not be considered deponent. However, our approach is to clarify and refine as opposed to
overthrowing deponency.
Bernard A. Taylor
Taylor's essay on deponency includes several good details.23 He provides a
nice treatment of the origination of the term 'deponent' from the Latin. His historical
treatment, in which he presents the initial stages of Greek as having only the active and
middle voices, is accurate. The observation of A. T. Robinson's omission of a Greek term
for deponency is solid.24 Furthermore, Taylor explains that although the middle voice
2
"Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 423.
"Bernard A. Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," in Biblical Greek Language and
Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004), 167-76. See "Bernard A. Taylor," which begins on p. 88, for a positive presentation of
his view of deponency.

171
may not be best understood as being between the active and passive, ancient grammarians
utilized the term phenomenologically, and the term has a Greek origin (ueaoTnc;).
'Middle' is a term that has come to represent the voice as if all three voices existed,
although we know that initially that was not the case.25 Finally, it was a sober choice to
use the aorist for his test case.26
Despite these positive contributions in his essay, Taylor has left his work open
to criticism on many fronts. The assumptions he makes about the definition of deponency
in Greek (which one must search for because it is not stated plainly) are false. Because
the assumptions are false, he is striving to condemn a skewed view of deponency. If he
had begun with a better definition of deponency, he may not have found the same reasons
to condemn the concept. Assumption one—that deponency in Greek is tied to the aorist
middle—is contrary to the conception of aorist deponents in modern treatments.27
Assumption two—that something must have been laid aside in deponency—is likewise a
misunderstanding. Although he is correct if taking the etymological root of the word in a
super-literal way, it is better to explain this assumption phenomenologically. In fact, it is
surprising that Taylor does not recognize this because he uses the same principle when
critiquing Robinson's view of 'middle'. Taylor's words in that context while referring to
'middle' ("terminology in general—as is always the case with grammar and grammatical
terms—follows the phenomenon it describes"28) could likewise be applied in this context
25
26
"See "The Modern Witness (A.D. 1453-Present)," which begins on p. 49.

28
to 'deponent'. Therefore, the 'deponent' that Taylor is rejecting is neither representative
of the established definition of deponency nor the refined definition of chapter 3.
Next, Taylor's emphasis on Latin negatively impacting Greek grammatical
terminology (deponency) is misplaced. Here it seems that Taylor actually has the correct
data but has missed the main point. He quotes R. H. Robins who states that the Latins
followed the Romans in their models, including linguistic models.29 However, Taylor
does not recognize, as we have chronicled in chapter 2, that although 'deponent' is a
Latin term, its conceptualization is Greek. He is correct about the terminology but the
underlying conceptualization is still Greek. Greek is not as negatively influenced by Latin
grammar as other Indo-European languages. We also learned this fact in chapter 2.30
The third criticism is aimed at Taylor's response to the 'aorist test'. He
claimed that the aorist passives that appear to function actively are not evidence for
deponency. If they were, they would align themselves with R. L. Trask's definition of
deponency in Latin:31 " 1 . In the grammar of Latin, a verb which exhibits exclusively
passive morphology but which functions as an active verb . . . . 2. A label occasionally
used to denote any class of verbs in some language whose morphology is at odds with
their syntactic behaviour . .. ."32 He gives two reasons, both of which are invalid, for
rejecting Greek deponency as corresponding to this definition. First, he claims that the
29
Taylor, "Deponency and Greek Lexicography," 170. Robbins's middle initial is incorrectly
listed as "K." (170nl4).
30
For further discussion, see "The Medieval Witness (A.D. 1100-1453)," which begins on
p. 43.
3l
32
R. L. Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics (New York: Routledge,
1993), 78.
173
Greeks never envisioned deponency, although they were careful with morphology and
semantics. He is correct that ancient Greek grammarians were careful with morphology
and semantics. However, as we have seen in chapter two, his reason is not in line with the
facts of history. Ancient grammarians did in fact wrestle with trying to explain the
tension between the form and function of verbal voice. Although the term for deponency
was not used initially, the concept was present in their works. Dionysius Thrax related a
phenomenon which possessed tension between the form and function of the verbal voice;
Apollonius Dyscolus related a phenomenon in which the passive form was used as an
active, and the active forms were no longer used. 'Deponency' was even used by
Macrobius in the fifth century A.D. Therefore, history aligns itself nicely with Greek
deponency, including aorist passives, which in turn fits nicely with Trask's definition of
deponency.
Secondly, Taylor rejects aorist passive deponency because deponency masks
the function of the voice. His resolution is to go to a time historically when Greek
grammarians did not deem deponency necessary and interpret voice as they would have.33
However, this is precisely the point; the voice is not functioning as it does in the majority
of verbs. Likewise, ancient Greek grammarians from the beginning—including Dionysius
Thrax in the first century B.C.—wrestled with the relationship of voice's morphology to
its function. It is our job as grammarians to describe how the language is functioning.
Thus, our approach is to avoid Taylor's prescriptive treatment of voice and accept the
clear way in which some aorist passives function actively while lacking an aorist active
morphology—deponency. Taylor is correct that there are some middle verbs whose

middle meaning is lexically influenced and improperly called deponent. We should not
overlook the obvious because of abuse of the category.
Along these lines, his proposal is to view deponent verbs as being logically
true to their voice function. He claims that when voice functions are understood
(historically), we will readily understand why certain verbs are found in the middle form
and not active: Xoyiôum, odaG&voum, and 7ruv0&vouou. For these verbs, "the individual
[subject] is directly and personally involved in the process."34 This is true, but it does not
distinguish middle function from the active. Subject of an active voice verb is likewise
directly and personally involved in the process (e.g., naxaoooS). As a result, Taylor's
validation does not completely support his claim.
Finally, Taylor's conclusion is unsatisfactory. The primary concern for this
essay was how headwords are listed in lexicons. Taylor's conclusion to focus exclusively
on morphology for this task to the exclusion of the semantics may resolve the headword
dilemma, but it does nothing for identifying how voice is actually functioning in real
contexts. In the end, Taylor has not really 'resolved' the perceived problem of
deponency. He did away with it and chose to call all verbs that appear to be deponent
'middle'. However, as he acknowledges, there are still times in which there is a conflict
between the morphology and its semantics. This is where our conception of deponency is
useful. By denying deponency, Taylor has created an interpretive problem that he has not
rectified.
34
Rutger J. Allan
Allan's book, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek}5 provides direct and
indirect argumentation against deponency. He provides two succinct arguments against
deponency, but because he is researching the middle voice, a byproduct of his work is
that he provides indirect argumentation against would-be deponent verbs. Although he is
actually addressing the middle voice in Homeric and Classical Greek, it seems prudent to
include his work in our critique because some arguments that he uses for ancient Greek
could also be raised in opposition to deponency in Koine Greek.
Two reasons are given for not accepting deponency: (1) semantic diversity of
the class and (2) inconsistency of criteria for semantic categories.36 It is unclear how
semantic diversity negates deponency. The middle voice itself is highly diverse in his
scheme, and this diversity does not negate the existence of that voice. His classifications
of media tantum have been found to be helpful, but we would relegate them to the active
voice with the exception of LIb/rs.37
By inconsistency of criteria, Allan argues that one set of criteria—semantic
criteria—is used for oppositional middles (middles that possess an active form), and
another criterion—a morphological one (the absence of an active form)—is used for
would-be deponent verbs. He prefers consistency of criteria, categorizing all
semantically.38 There are two problems with this reasoning. First, a complex class
35
Rutger J. Allan, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam
Studies in Classical Philology, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm Pinkster, vol. 11
(Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2003).
36
Allan, The Middle Voice, 49-50.
37
See the discussion beginning on p. 129.
38
necessarily requires a more complex method of classification. Deponency, being
exceptional,39 would be such a class. Further, Allan himself is not shy of using complex
criteria, because his view of future middle/passive reaches a complex conclusion.40
He provides three significant discussions that indirectly impact deponency:
(1) the definition/uses of middle voice and media tantum, (2) aorist passive functions,41
and (3) synonymous active and middle verbs. Each of these has been addressed in prior
chapters; therefore, a summary discussion will follow with cross-references to relevant
discussions.
First, Allan has constructed a definition of the middle voice and media tantum
in such a way that it precludes the existence of deponency. He defines middle voice this
way: "With the term middle voice I refer to the inflectional category in Greek."42 In
another place, he writes, "the abstract meaning of the Greek middle voice can be defined
as affectedness of the subject.,"43 These two characterizations of middle provide the
boundaries for how he handles the form and function of would-be deponent verbs. From
the outset, he has determined to found his perception of the middle voice on morphology
and relinquish semantics to uses of the middle. The result of his definition is that the
middle voice encompasses all middle uses along with all of what is typically understood
39
See "Normal Realization" on p. 120.
40
See n 41 on p. 176.
41
Allan also includes a chapter on the future passive, but his conclusions seem odd and not as
relevant to our discussion of deponency. For example, he offers a different explanation for the active-
middle-passive trichotomy in the future than he does for the aorist (Allan, The Middle Voice, 178-85).
Also, he concludes that the difference between the future middle form and the future passive form of each
individual verb must be treated separately in the future because some express a contrast in voice, while
others express a contrast in aspect (Allan, The Middle Voice, 200-02).
42
Allan, The Middle Voice, lnl.
'Allan, The Middle Voice, 39.

as passive and causative active. This is due to the fact that he defines the middle
morphologically. Thus, for example, the passive function of the first principal part is a
particular use of the middle voice.45 Secondly, we have argued that deponency is a
syntactical category, but it functions as a redirection.46 Therefore, semantic criteria (and
syntactic) can be used to classify deponent verbs, but criteria from the active voice are
used as opposed to the middle. As a result, neither of Allan's direct reasons for opposing
deponency are valid.
In addition, several problems exist with the way in which Allan has
constructed his definitions. First, a narrower definition of middle voice is warranted.47
Second, some of Allan's categories of middle usage are more properly classified under
other voices than the middle. For example, the passive use of a middle/passive form is
more properly understood having a passive function (i.e., with a passive voice
classification), and the causative active use of a middle/passive form is more properly
understood as having an active function (i.e., with an active voice classification).
Therefore, a narrower definition of middle voice creates an environment for the
legitimacy of deponency.
'"In an introductory discussion, he explains that pseudo-reflexive/pseudo-passive verbs are

causative active. Later, he renames pseudo-reflexive as "body motion middle." Also, some mental process
middles could be viewed as causative active (Allan, The Middle Voice, 2,40n47,70-71). Interestingly, he
calls (|)oPeo(j.ai a pseudo-passive in one place and a mental process middle (many of which could also be
middle passives) in another (Allan, The Middle Voice, 2,64-65,67,70-71). Causative active verbs that are
classified as middles are those verbs that are middle in form with a causative active function (e.g.,
<|)oPEO|ica). Due to his definition of terms, these verbs must be middle because of their forms; therefore, he
classifies the causative active function as a use of the middle. These verbs are deponent in our system.
(That is, verbs like these. ôpeoum is syncretistic in our interpretation when it has a form-function
mismatch, except in the fifth principal part where it is deponent.)
45
46
See "Conclusion: A Refined Definition of Deponency" on p. 162.
See "Voices" on p. 105 for definitions for each of the three voices.
Likewise, Allan defines deponency (media tantum) morphologically: "the
media tantum are distinguished by . . . the non-existence of an active form."48
Additionally, he explains, "Media tantum (or middle-only verbs) are middle verbs that do
not have active counterparts. They are sometimes called deponentia, a term borrowed
from Latin grammar."49 So Allan's perception of deponency has one criterion:
morphology. Yet, in chapter three, the importance of treating deponency
morphologically, semantically, syntactically, and historically was established. If a verb
lacks an active form in Koine Greek, it becomes a candidate for deponency. If its
semantic function is incongruent with form, it is a candidate for deponency, although it
must be verified that LIb/rs is has not affected the form. Further, syntax can point to an
active function (e.g., when a direct object is used with an aorist passive or future passive
verb).50 As a result, Allan's characterization of deponency does not treat it with the
sophistication that it deserves.
Second, Allan's interpretation of aorist passive forms is integrally related to
the discussion of deponency. Allan's treatment of the function of aorist passive verbs is
based upon two theorized principles:
(I) A form will always cover a connected region of variant middle uses in the
semantic network.
(II) A form will only spread from one variant use to another if these uses are
directly semantically related.51
48
49
Allan, The Middle Voice, 2n4.
50
The exception to this syntactical example is an accusative of retained object, but this is a
rare use of the accusative in the NT (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical
Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 197).
51
He finds that due to the historical transition from sigmatic middle forms to aorist passive
forms, an overlap exists between their functions. Aorist passive verbs can have five
functions: (1) passive, (2) spontaneous process, (3) mental process, (4) body motion, and
(5) collective motion.52 The first two are strictly within the aorist passive usage, and the
last three are within the realm of middle usage; however, the aorist passive form can
extend to the last three uses because they are semantically related. Mental process and
body motion are also middle categories into which he places media tantumP So, it seems
that Allan would suggest that aorist passive forms do not evidence deponency because
they are simply legitimate functions of the middle that are expressed acceptably by the
passive form because of the two principles above. Such an understanding can only be
achieved with a broad definition of the middle voice. Our narrower definition does not
allow for such an extension. Further, it is odd that he suggests the expanded realm of the
passive because he later expresses the normativeness of the passive use for the aorist
passive. In a discussion of the future passive, he says, "With many verbs, the middle
future does, indeed, have a middle meaning, whereas the passive future has a passive
meaning. The opposition is therefore comparable to the opposition between the sigmatic
middle aorist and the passive aorist form."54 If this is the standard to which he provides a
comparison for the future middle, then the situation that would be potentially subject to
"Allan, The Middle Voice, 147-50,154-56.
"Allan, The Middle Voice, 51-52. In the discussion of media tantum, he calls mental process
volitional mental activities, but both categories seem to refer to the same semantic domain.
'Allan, The Middle Voice, 200.

deponency presents itself (i.e., aonst passive form + active function, not aorist passive
form + middle function).55
One more question must be asked: why does the aorist tense use three separate
formations for each of its voices? Allan suggests that tense provides the basis for the
existence of a separate aorist passive form. Because an aorist passive (indicative) verb
represents past action, the degree to which the subject is affected (receives the action) is
heightened. Present middle (indicative) tense verbs functioning passively have lower
subject affectedness because the action is not yet completed.56
Finally, he argues that there are three ways to explain synonymous
active/middle verbs, the existence of which would support deponency. See "The Lexical
Argument" on p. 131 for the presentation and rebuttal of Allan's position. These verbs
demonstrate that there is nothing within their lexemes that requires a middle form as
opposed to an active; thus, they should be considered deponent.
In summary, Allan provides two direct reasons and three indirect arguments
for opposing deponency. An adequate response to each has been supplied.
Jonathan T. Pennington
Within the pages of the two publications by Jonathan T. Pennington are found
the most assertive articulation of the denial of deponency. Thus, a comprehensive
55
0f course, lexical intrusion would also have to be considered before a verb is considered
deponent.
56
evaluation of his presentation of deponency's milieu and the arguments against it are in
order.57
The presentation of the history and meaning of the middle voice found in
Setting Aside 'Deponency' accurately reflects that Greek had only two voices originally:
active and middle.58 Furthermore, he rightly notes that in the Koine period, Greek was
transitioning in such a way that the middle was loosing ground to the passive form and
meaning. The presentation of the major expressions of the middle voice is also
acceptable, although there is room for minor variation.59
The presentation of the definition of deponency, which affects the rest of his
rebuttal, borders on a straw man argument. He claims that the definition he is using is
used by "nearly all grammars";60 yet, his definition subtly deviates from virtually all
grammars. The grammars tend to include the passive form in the definition, a fact which
he seems to know because he stated such in "Deponency in Koine Greek" and because he
states such "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," both in the introduction and in a footnote.61 He
defines deponency: "the class of verbs which appear in the middle form but apparently
have instead an active meaning."62 The passive form is excluded from his definition.
57
This critique will emphasize Pennington's latter work on deponency because it is a fuller
treatment. See 262 on p. 95.
58
See the discussion that begins on p. 18.
59
Seen256onp.93.
60
6I
Jonathan T. Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek: The Grammatical Question and the
Lexicographal Dilemma," TJ24NS, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 59; Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency',"
181,186n24. See the discussion that begins on p. 94 for a presentation of how Pennington's definition
deviates from even the grammars that he cites in his 2003 article.

Herbert Weir Smyth is enlisted as support, but there are two problems with his reliance
upon Smyth's definition. First, Pennington's definition actually deviates from Smyth's by
omitting passive forms,63 thereby not adding the support that he sought. Secondly, Smyth
is actually treating a different period of Greek (which Pennington acknowledges).
Pennington's definition is also a deviation from the Koine grammars that he cited in
2003: John William Wenham and J. Gresham Machen. Although he cites Wallace and
Porter as having improved upon the definition of deponency, he does not seem to
recognize that they too, are not using his definition. As a result, the deponency that
Pennington sets out to overthrow is similar to but not the same as the deponency of
"nearly all grammars" (nor that of this dissertation).
The particular arguments that Pennington uses in favor of disposing with
deponency must be considered. He primarily articulates two reasons for viewing
deponency as suspect and two potential difficulties for his position. Each will be
evaluated here.
The first reason provided for viewing deponency as illegitimate is that our
understanding of Greek has come under the negative influence of Latin. Pennington,
suggests that Latin, being a language with "a two-part voice system,"64 caused us to
perceive deponency where it in fact does not exist. This understanding of Latin may be
underdeveloped. Robertson states, "In Latin no distinction in form exists between the
middle and the passive, though the middle exists as in potior, utor, plangor, etc."65
'See "Herbert Weir Smyth" on p. 64.

183
Likewise, Philip Baldi in "Deponent and Middle in Latin" argues for a tri-part voice
system in Latin. He summarizes his finds: "In this section I will attempt to redefine the
Latin Genera Verbi as a system which includes three voices: Active, Passive, and
Middle."66 Baldi's conclusion about deponency in Latin is like that which was suggested
in this work in the previous chapter. Verbs that are middle/passive in form cannot be
considered deponent if they possess a middle function.67 Nonetheless, deponency in Latin
continues to be a legitimate category for him. As a result, the voice verbal system of both
Latin and Greek are more similar than Pennington has allowed.
Pennington asserts that those who began learning Greek, most of whom
already knew Latin, incorrectly imported the category of deponency to explain middle
form verbs that appeared to function actively. (Again, he omits the passive from the
discussion.) Taylor's personal journey is used to illustrate.68 Although Taylor's journey is
real, it does not necessarily reflect accurately the historical development of deponency.
Taylor wants us to return to time prior to Latin's grammatical influence. In chapter two,
we did this very thing—returned to a period prior to grammatical study of Latin, prior to
a time when Latin would have impacted Greek grammatical understanding. The evidence
contradicts Taylor's claim, upon which Pennington is relying. Greek grammatical study
predates Latin grammatical study, and even in the infancy of Greek grammatical study,
ancient grammarians wrestled with the situation in which there was a discrepancy
66
Philip Baldi, "Deponent and Middle in Latin" (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1973),
87. James Hope Moulton and Suzanne Kemmer also recognize the middle voice in Latin (see n 85 on
p. 45).
67
Baldi, "Deponent and Middle in Latin," 97,109.
'Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 187-88.

between verbal voice's form and its function. Therefore, returning to this early period
would not extinguish deponency, but to the contrary, it would sustain this phenomenon.69
In "Deponency in Koine Greek," Pennington asks two questions as evidence
that Latin has unduly affected the conception of deponency. His answers to both of these
questions are inaccurate. First, he asks, "But is there any evidence that a Greek person
would have ever conceived of a verb as being 'deponent'?"70 The implied answer to this
question is, "no." In the second question, he queries, "Is not this a case where we have
taken a Latin grammatical category and applied it backwards?"71 The implied answer
here is positive. However, these responses could not be further from the actual state of
affairs. Absolutely Greek people in the Koine period would have conceived of a verb as
being deponent.72 Furthermore, no, we have not illegitimately taken a Latin grammatical
category and applied it backwards. This is not to deny any influence of Latin upon our
conception of grammar, but such an acknowledgement is well grounded. Latin
grammatical study was itself founded upon Greek grammatical study. The structures of
the two languages are similar, so similar observations between the two languages should
be expected. Finally, a mismatch between the form and function of verbs can be readily
observed in the Koine period. Therefore, this is not a case of illegitimately applying a
Latin grammatical category. Rather, this is a case of legitimately applying the category of
'deponent' to Greek because it fits. As a result, Pennington has failed to demonstrate his
69
For further discussion, see "The Medieval Witness (A.D. 1100-1453)," which begins on
p. 43.
70
Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 63.
"Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 63.

72
See "The Ancient Witness (ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 500)" on p. 21.
185
case against deponency with his reason that Latin has unduly affected our perception of
the phenomenon.
The second reason that Pennington gives is that we do not fully comprehend
the meaning of the middle voice because we are viewing deponency from an English
perspective. He writes, "But because English lacks a middle voice we do not consider this
as an option when classifying how the subject relates to the verb. Therefore we assume it
is active in meaning and force upon ourselves a seeming discrepancy between meaning
and form."13 There are two problems with the way he has framed this reason. First, he
states that the problem is with the way English speakers understand voice in Greek. By
framing the discussion this way, he is indirectly asserting that the observation of
deponency in Koine Greek is an English-only phenomenon. To the contrary, many non-
English-speaking scholars also observe deponency (e.g., Chrys Caragounis; BDF; Blass-
Debrunner-Rehkopf; Kuhner-Blass/Kiihner-Gerth; Hoffman-von Siebenthal; Georg
Benedikt Winer). Furthermore, some of the ancient grammarians who also observed
tension between the voice's form and function, such as Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius
Dyscolus, should also be mentioned. (See chapter 2 for further details.) As a result,
Pennington has skewed his discussion of deponency from the outset to a perspective that
does not correspond to the actual state of affairs. Yes, English-speakers have observed
deponency, but they are not alone. Thus, it seems that their English frame of reference
has not created deponency as has been suggested.

Two arguments, which go hand in hand, are provided to support the second
reason: imprecise pedagogy and misunderstanding the active and middle voices.74 He
says, "grammarians have usually written off the vast majority of middle verbs in the New
Testament as simply deponent,"75 at which point he cites Wenham and William D.
Mounce. Both indicate that most middle verbs are deponent, but Mounce's
pronouncement is more precise.76 Pennington argument seems to imply that Mounce's
grammar is largely to blame for unfamiliarity with the middle voice. This can be traced to
three reasons. First, Mounce's grammar is widely used to teach introductory Greek.
Second, Mounce waits before presenting the meaning of the middle until later in his
grammar. He defines the middle for the first time in chapter 25, although the
middle/passive form is found beginning in chapter 18. Third, he states that approximately
75% of middle verbs are deponent. Each of these reasons combine to create a situation
for Pennington in which
we typically read Greek with the assumption that nearly all of the occurrences of
the middle are irrelevant exegetically. This stems from the recurrent statements
that some 75% of the middle forms are merely deponent. In reality, this often
translates into irrelevancy for 100% of middle forms. A generation of Greek
74
In his 2003 article, he suggests another argument: "chronological distance" (Pennington,
"Deponency in Koine Greek," 61). The chronological distance argument suggests that a huge gap exists
between us and Koine Greek (i.e., there is a big difference between Koine and Modern Greek). His point is
that the chronological distance is very great and negatively impacts our perception of the language.
However, such a supposition is dispelled convincingly by Caragounis's influential tome: The Development
of Greek and the New Testament (Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New
Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, WUNT, ed. Jorg Frey [Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006]). The chronological distance argument
also illumines the way Pennington has incorrectly framed his evidence with regard to deponency. If more
continuity between Koine and Modern Greek exists than Pennington allows, then modern scholars are not
at such a great deficit when evaluating voice function.
"Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 189.
'See n 270 on p. 96.

187
students has now been trained with little knowledge about the middle voice except
that it is used for the anomalous 'deponent verbs' V
Pennington is both misguided and correct. He has placed too much emphasis on the '75%
estimate'. The 75% estimate and the withholding of the definition of middle until several
chapters after the introduction of a middle form suggest to a beginning student that the
middle voice is insignificant. I, like Pennington,78 supplement an introductory grammar
when teaching the middle voice. However, providing clear teaching on the middle voice
should also include orientation to deponency. There is no reason to throw out the baby
with the bath water. Teaching the middle voice poorly is no reason to do away with
deponency. Further, an implication of Pennington's claim is that deponency is only
perceived as a valid category because the middle voice is not properly understood, but the
sources he cites to support the claim are dated 1993 and 1965, respectively.79 Scholars for
centuries have seen deponency in Greek; it is not a new development. Thus, current
unfamiliarity with the middle voice has no relation to deponency's long-standing position
on the structure of the language.
Moreover, Pennington has overstated his case. He writes, "behind this
approach [calling the majority of verbs deponent] is the assumption that all such middle-
only verbs at one time must have had active forms. But this is patently not the case.
Middle-only verbs are not 'defective' words that have at some point lost or laid aside
their active forms."80 He is right that these verbs may not have had an active form in their
'Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 196-97.

188
history, but he fails to recognize the phenomenological language employed.81 Linguistic
inquiry can demonstrate that these verbs are in fact 'exceptional'.82 It is rather unfortunate
that he enlists the support of a weak source on this point.83
Next, Pennington suggests that verbs are misidentified as deponents because
of misunderstanding the definitions of the active and middle voices.84 An English
perspective is to blame. The research presented in chapter 3 demonstrates that some verbs
possess LIb/rs (negating deponency), but many verbs (that meet the other criteria for
deponency) function actively in another way (either by falling into one of Allan's
categories which we have called active or by not falling into one of those categories but
are nevertheless active). In conclusion, there truly is a voice mismatch with these verbs
where they are middle, middle/passive, or passive but active in function.
The previous conclusion identifies a false choice that Pennington is forcing
upon his readers. He is forcing the reader to choose between the active or middle function
of these verbs. However, the passive function should be included as an option because
these verbs are often either middle/passive or passive in form, and the passive function is
81
See "Conclusion: A Refined Definition of Deponency" on p. 162.
82
See "Normal Realization" on p. 120.
83
He uses a block quotation of Carl Conrad. We have refrained from interacting with Conrad's
work. See n 45 on p. 13 and n 221 on p. 85.
84
0n this point, Pennington deviates from his 2003 article, where he says that the majority of
verbs should be understood as active from an English perspective only (Pennington, "Deponency in Koine
Greek," 62). It is unclear whether he would still affirm this statement. Nevertheless, the effect of this
argument is diminished because he allows for some verbs, the minority, to be active from a Koine Greek
perspective. Even if the point is conceded, this does not prove that deponency does not exist because it still
exists in a minority of cases, which is consistent with its nature of being an exceptional usage. This is what
makes it exceptional—that there is not a form-function mismatch in the majority of cases. For further
discussion, see "Normal Realization," which begins on p. 120.
189
more frequent than the middle.85 Even Taylor used aorist, which has distinct forms for the
active, middle, and future, as his testing ground.86 Pennington's definition of deponent is
being used to his advantage, and he has biased his results.
In summary, Pennington's case for his second reason that verbs are often
'misunderstood' as deponents is found to be lacking. He has framed the discussion
poorly, and the evidence he has provided does not necessitate the denial of deponency.
The first potential objection to his position that Pennington addresses consists
of verbs that are active in the present but middle-only in the future. He correctly identifies
the fact that these verbs are semi-deponent and some are suppletive.87 Many fall into a
lexical group ("emotions, physical movements, acts of cognition, etc."88). Yet, his
treatment of this issue is lacking in several ways. First, the presentation of the first
explanation in defense of present active/future middle-only verbs is weak on two fronts.
The description of variation does not eliminate the tension that he is attempting to avoid
by denying deponency. In fact, the result is a description of the situation that sounds like
deponency. He writes, "We can identify a variety of event-types which tend to use the
middle voice, but in the on-the-ground, everyday functioning of a language some verbs in
those categories are middle-only and some are not.. . . Thus, we should not be surprised
at occasional instances which do not conform to the general rule."89 Verbs that do not
85
See "The Conclusion Extended" on p. 154.
86
87
Pennington's presentation of semi-deponent verbs implies that the only semi-deponent verbs
are those that are present active/future middle-only (Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 192-93).
Although semi-deponency applies to this situation, it should be recognized that the term is exclusive to it.
88
'Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 193-94. See n 276 on p. 97.

conform to the general rule can be called 'irregular,' 'defective,' or 'exceptional'.
Interestingly, these are ways that deponency can be described. He is satisfied with his
explanation that these verbs' voices vacillate on occasion because he is being descriptive.
We are also being descriptive when describing the voice mismatch in deponency. He has
not provided a solution but described a situation that an acknowledgement of deponency
likewise explains.
Furthermore, the details of his examples do not support his contention. He
says that the reason (the general rule) most synonymous verbs occur in different voices
(active-only or middle-only) is the amount of control the subject has (i.e., voluntary
versus involuntary). He explains that the involuntary actions are the ones found in the
middle voice, while voluntary actions are found in the active voice. For example, "jump,
look, accompany"90 are middle-only verbs. In contrast, "vomit, hear, urinate"91 are active-
only verbs. This explanation is the opposite of what would be expected according to the
logic of the voices. The active voice has the subject that performs the action, which is
more consistent with jumping, looking, and accompanying. The middle voice has a
subject that participates in the action in such a way that the subject is emphasized by or
benefits from the action, which is more consistent with the involuntary concepts of
vomiting, hearing, and urinating. Therefore, the details provided in support of the
explanation for why almost synonymous verbs appear in different voices is not consistent
with the functions of the unaffected meanings of the voices.
90
''Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 194.

191
He continues by arguing that the middle voice is especially suited for
representing the future tense. He explains, "Quite simply, because the future tense can
only present an event as a mental disposition or intention, the middle voice serves well in
many instances to communicate that sense."92 Little explanation is offered, but he does
attempt to defend against the logical inference that such a situation would demand that all
verbs in the future tense be found in the middle form. Again, the picture painted is
parallel to that of deponency. He says, "There are many factors that go into why different
verbs conjugate differently. These include the transitivity of the verb, the lexical idea of
the verb, a verb's Actionsart and aspect, and at times the indefinable mystery of
historical, geographical, and cultural accident."93 It seems that he is suggesting a general
rule (future tense verbs are normally found in the middle form), while acknowledging
that exceptions (future tense verbs in the active form) occur. Such an understanding is
amazingly similar to a proper understanding of deponency. Therefore, both of
Pennington's explanations of verbs that are active in the present but middle-only in the
future describe the situation in terms which are parallel to deponency—terms which he
himself rejects when applied there. Semi-deponency itself is an argument for
deponency.94
The second and final potential difficulty addressed by Pennington is passive
deponency, which are those that "occur in the middle with an apparently active
!
'Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 194n53.
'See "The Lexical Argument" on p. 131.

meaning—yet whose aorist forms are passive rather than middle." It would seem that
these verbs, due to the contrast between their distinct passive form and an active function,
which is more distinguishable than the middle, would support deponency. Pennington is
not fully convinced. He has provided a solution that is "possible"96 but not one that is the
most likely. First of all, his conclusion based on the fact that "the middle voice form was
losing ground to the passive"97 is a stretch. He concludes that there are "an increasing
number of passive forms without a distinctive passive idea."98 The idea that the middle
was losing ground to the passive is an observation of the morphological forms that were
available. Thus, the idea was not that the passive form lacked passive meaning but that
the distinctively middle forms ceased to exist.99 In fact, such an understanding seems to
contradict what he states earlier in the same essay: "In Koine Greek, the middle forms
and meaning are still very much alive."100 If they are very much alive, then why
emphasize that they are loosing ground? Thus, tense stems came to have a middle/passive
form; the form was still able to function passively, and even can be said to usually
95
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 195. This definition of passive deponency
illustrates how Pennington has consistently resisted the allowance of 'passive forms' into his definition.
Here he is still attempting to emphasize middle forms, even when aorist passive is in view, and the
definition becomes blurred in the process.
96
"Possible" is his word (Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 68n58; Pennington,
"Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 195n58).
"Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 195. See also Pennington, "Deponency in Koine
Greek," 68. Miller suggests a similar line of argumentation (Miller, "Deponent Verbs," 424).
98
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 195. See also Pennington, "Deponency in Koine
Greek," 68.
"This description differs from what Pennington states. He explains that the passive came to
override the middle in form and function (Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 182). Even if
Pennington's inverse trajectory of the development of voice is accepted, then there seems to be a
contradiction. One would then expect the passive form verbs to function passively, not as middles.
l00
Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency'," 183. Based on this quotation, the reason he
emphasizes the middle in his explanation of would-be deponent verbs is quite puzzling.
function passively. In the case of aorist passive verbs, of which he includes several
examples (&7t£Kpi0r|v, eyevriGriv, fi5uvf|0r|v, e7top£iJ0r|v, and eôpViGrrv), there is a clear
discrepancy between the form and function of the verbs.102 Furthermore, claiming that
these verbs are passive in form but middle in meaning does not resolve the form-function
discrepancy.103 It only shifts the incongruity from the active to the middle (though this
admittedly moves the mismatch out of the realm of deponency). Pennington's
explanation of 'passive deponents' is unconvincing.
Finally, we agree with exegesis of some passages while still observing
deponency in others. For example, his treatment of Eph 1:4 is solid.104 Therefore, the
middle voice need not be neglected for deponency to be valid.
In conclusion, Pennington's case against deponency is weak in many ways.
Pennington's assessment of deponency is far from establishing his premise that
deponency does not exist in the NT. His evidence for his two primary arguments—
allowing Latin grammatical understanding to affect our view of deponency and viewing
deponency from an English perspective—has been found to be weak. The two further
scenarios (present active-future middles and passive deponents) are in fact evidence of
deponency. He often subtly changes a definition or argument, and in so doing, he fails to
make his case.
101
See Gregory T. Christopher, "Determining the Voice of New Testament Verbs whose
Middle and Passive Forms Are Identical: A Consideration of the Perfect Middle/Passive Forms" (Th.M.
thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1985); "The Conclusion Extended" on p. 154, and n 99 on p. 192.
102
Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 68; Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency',"
195. See "Aorist Passive Investigation" on p. 148.
103
I do not agree that these verbs are functioning as middles, but assuming the assersion's
veracity, his claim still does not substantiate his argument.
'See "Ephesians 1:4" on p. 206.

Conclusion
In addition to the specific arguments raised by the dissenting voice, their
individual claims on two fronts need to be contrasted. First, Miller disagrees
fundamentally with Taylor and Pennington on the place of Latin in relation to deponency.
Miller claims that the arguments that she raises against deponency in Greek could also be
brought against deponency in Latin. She writes, "Much of what is said here could also
apply to Latin verbs with equivalent meanings."105 In contrast, Taylor and Pennington
view deponency in Latin as valid, but this concept has been illegitimately transferred to
Greek. Taylor writes, "In the interface between Greek and Latin, at least one Latin notion
was transferred to Greek that had not existed in that language before: the notion of
deponency."106 Similarly, Pennington notes, "Deponency is a clear case where we have
taken a Latin grammatical category and applied it to Greek with little reflection on the
fundamental differences between the two languages."107 The discrepancy between the
ways in which these scholars treat Latin is curious. For Miller, deponency would not be
valid in Greek or Latin. However, for Taylor and Pennington, Latin's conceptualization
of deponency is legitimate but becomes a significant, illegitimate cause for the faux pas
in Greek. As a result, Miller, who sides with Taylor and Pennington within the dissenting
voice, would seem to disagree with her 'teammates" argument.108

108
Miller, Taylor, Allan, and Pennington are not really teammates. Each has worked
independently. Also, Miller's work preceded that of Taylor, Allan, and Pennington.
195
Second, Pennington seems to disagree with McKay, an insipient dissenter who
sees the term 'deponent' as unnecessary, on the function of deponent verbs. In fact, the
reason McKay sees no need for the term is because these verbs tend to "have an
obviously middle or passive element in their meaning or in their history."109 In contrast,
Pennington argues that would-be deponent verbs are middle in function, even those that
are in an exclusively passive form (e.g., aorist passive).110 Thus, these two, who
essentially espouse the same view, disagree on the function of the verbs in question. This
disagreement is evidence that modern scholars are doing the same thing that ancient
Greek grammarians did; both are wrestling with the meaning of voice form and function.
Deponency provides terminology and a category for a specific type of incongruity.
In conclusion, the arguments brought against deponency by four scholars, who
completely reject it, have been critiqued. Each problem raised has been sufficiently
answered. Furthermore, disagreements within the dissenting voice have been noted. The
refutation of the arguments from the dissenting voice and their own disagreements result
in further strengthening deponency's validity.
109
McKay, A New Syntax, 26.
""Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek," 68-69.

Chapter 5
EXEGETICALLY SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES
Introduction
Five verbs in four passages have been selected to demonstrate how potentially
deponent verbs are handled: 7iope\)0evxec; and eveteiXauriv in Matt 28:19-20, fiyepGn in
Mark 2:12, eêleâxo in Eph 1:4, and Ttccuaovrai in 1 Cor 13:8. Although many
passages could have been chosen, these passages are illustrative of different scenarios
that bear upon the discussion of deponency.1 The two verbs in the Great Commission
illustrate deponency well in a significant passage. Mark 2:12 demonstrates how a verb
with incongruity between its voice form and function can nevertheless not be deponent.
Ephesians 1:4 emphasizes how the theological richness of a passage can be overlooked if
a verb's voice function is classified incorrectly as a deponent. Finally, the voice function
ofrcocuaovToain 1 Cor 13:8 and its relationship to the cessation of the gift of tongues is
discussed.
Matthew 28:19-20
nopevQevxec, ovv \xaQr\xevaaxe navxa xa eGvn, $anxit,ovx£c, a-uxoix; eiq TO

ovoîa xov naxpbq KOU xov moti Kai xov ayiot) Kvev\iaxoq, 8i5&aK0VT£<; onjxo'uc;
'Additional verbs that could have been have been used in this investigation include
OOTO0vfioKco in the second principal part, £&co in the second principal part, £nuxco0fjvca in Mark 8:36,
Kocu%cbu£0a in Rom 5:2, <]>cciveo0£ in Phil 2:15, e£r|uub6r|v in Phil 3:8, ex&pr|v in Phil 4:10, xaneivovaQca
in Phil 4:12 (is parallel to an active), et al. See also n 4 on p. 19 for an explanation of the usage of the
middle form of 7toveco as an active.
196
Tripeiv 7I&VTOC oaoc evexetXauTiv uiiiv- KCXI i5ou eyco ue0 v[i(bv ei(a,i ndoaq zaq
r\\xepaq eco<; xfj<; cvvxeteiaq xov odcovoc;.
Two verbal forms in Matt 28:19-20 are worthy of consideration for
deponency: nopevQevxeq and £vexeika\ir\v. Each will be treated separately.
riopet)0evxe<; is an aorist passive participle that functions adverbially as an
attendant circumstance participle. It meets all five characteristics of this classification:
• The tense of the participle is usually aorist.

• The tense of the main verb is usually aorist.
• The mood of the main verb is usually imperative or indicative.
• The participle will precede the main verb—both in word order and time of
event (though usually there is a very close proximity).
• Attendant circumstance participles occur frequently in narrative literature,
infrequently elsewhere.2
Also, the wordings in English translations reflect an attendant circumstance interpretation
(NASB, NIV, NET, ESV, HCSV, RSV, and NRSV). How does the interpretation of
voice affect the understanding of this participle?
According to its form, a passive understanding would be natural, if it is not
deponent. Neva Miller, who denies deponency, suggests "journey" as a translation of
rcopeijoum with the sense of "I move myself,"3 which does not fit this context because
7top£\)08VT8<; is passive, not middle. McKay, whom Pennington follows, suggests
"convey" for the meaning of Ttopewum.4 Therefore, if 7topEU0£VT8(; were translated
2
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 642; see 640-45 for the complete discussion.
3
Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and Timothy Friberg (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 428.
4
Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 26.
198
passively in an attendant circumstance construction according to these translations
suggested, it would be "be journeyed/traveled" or "be conveyed."
Although passive in form, nopevQevxec, could also be interpreted with the
force of the middle. Pennington suggests that passive verbs that appear to be deponent are
"truly middles,"5 although McKay, who Pennington approvingly cites, disagrees
concerning this particular verb.6 It is curious that Pennington's solution to the voice
irregularity of this verb would be to call it middle even though it is passive. By doing so,
he creates a mismatch between the form and function of the verb—the essential
characteristic of deponency !7 A direct middle would be translated "go yourself/travel
yourself," which is nonsensical because the verb is intransitive. The translation, "you
move yourselves," which captures the sense of Miller's depiction of the verb, could also
be utilized. The indirect middle understanding could be conveyed by "go for/by yourself
or "go in your own interest."
Neither the passive nor the middle interpretations do justice to the sense of the
passage. The idea behind an attendant circumstance participle is that it is coordinate with
the action but prior to the time of the main verb, which in this case is an imperative.
Wallace says, "The participle then 'piggy-backs' on the mood of the main verb."8 This
'Jonathan T. Pennington, "Setting Aside 'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle

Voice in New Testament Studies," in Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic
Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, New Testament
Monographs, ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 11 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 196.
6
McKay, A New Syntax, 25-26; Jonathan T. Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek: The
Grammatical Question and the Lexicographal Dilemma," 77 24NS, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 62.
7
However, the mismatch created is outside the boundaries of deponency. See the discussion
beginning on p. 191 for a critique of that view.
8
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 640. A participial form of Ttopeijoum followed by an imperative
within 4 words is found 12 times in the NT: Matt 2:8,9:13,10:7,11:4,17:27,28:7,28:19; Luke 7:22,
13:32,14:10,17:14,22:8. In each construction, the participle is aorist passive, and the finite verb is aorist
coordinate action can be illustrated by the parallel accounts of the cleansing of a leper.
Matt 8:4 and Mark 1:44 use the words vnaye ceawov 5elôv, whereas Luke 5:14 uses
the words dc7teA,0cbv 8eiôv ceocmov. To take nopevQevxec, as a passive or middle does
not do justice to the urgency of an aorist imperative.9 The passive, "be conveyed and
make disciples," misses the sense of the passage. The indirect middle understandings of
"go for/by yourself or "go in your own interest" completely misunderstand the
command, especially in light of what follows ("I am with you always"). The idea is more
naturally, "go and make disciples," which the deponent interpretation captures well.
The translation of the deponent interpretation is "go and make disciples."
Does this participle in this verse meet the criteria for deponency? What, then, is the
meaning of the verse in light of its interpretation?
The three testable criteria for deponency are (1) a middle and/or passive form
with an active function, (2) the absence of the active form for the particular principal part
in Koine literature, and (3) the absence of lexical intrusion with a beneficiary/recipient-
subject (LIb/rs). The first and third can be addressed together. As a verb of body motion, it
is an intransitive active, which corresponds to all of the glosses that BDAG gives for this
word: go, proceed, travel, live, walk, die.10 As such, nopevQevxec, lacks lexical intrusion
and possesses an active function with passive morphology. 7top£iJoum also meets the
second criterion for deponency; only one active form of the third principal part is found
active with the exception of Matt 10:7, which uses a present middle/passive participle and a present active
finite verb. Each of these passive participles is understood in an active sense.
'Wallace argues that the attendant circumstance participle has an ingressive nuance, and the
ingressive aorist imperative conveys urgency (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 642,719).
10
BDAG,853.
200
in the Koine period.11 Thus, nopevo\iai is deponent in the sixth principal part (along with
the first, second, and fifth in the NT).
The best interpretation of the voice of nopevQevxeq in Matt 28:19 is as a
deponent. Its parsing is aorist, passive®, participle, nominative, masculine, plural from
7iopeiJO|j,oa, and its syntactical classification is simple active.12 A deponent understanding
meets all the criteria for deponency and makes the most logical sense in the passage.
The voice function of ev£T£iA,&ur|v in Matt 28:20 also demands scrutiny.
Although BDAG lists the headword as evxeXXco, it states that this word is exclusively
middle deponent in the NT and AF.13 Is BDAG's designation of the voice of eveteiA-duriv
as deponent correct, or is its middle function apparent?
The direct middle translation in this context is "I commanded myself all
things14 for you" where the implied reflexive object is the person in a double accusative
of person and thing construction.15 However, this interpretation of the voice has some
weaknesses. First, the indirect object, uurv, is more naturally the recipient of the
command, not the beneficiary of it. If -uuiv is indirect object, then the construction is not
a double accusative of person and thing because the person usually receives the action (in
this case understood "myself) and would make v\ilv out of place in the clause. Second,
"More precisely, there is one aorist active infinitive found. The infinitive was searched in an
effort to reduce ambiguous forms. For example, according to TLG, nopevar\ could be (1) aorist, middle,
subjunctive, 2nd, singular from Ttopetico; (2) aorist, active, subjunctive, 3rd, singular from nopeva;
(3) future, middle, indicative, 2nd, singular from 7topeixo; or (4) dative, feminine, singular from Ttope-uon;.
12
See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 411.
13
BDAG,339.
14
The antecedent of oaa has been substituted in the translation for clarity.
15
Robertson substantiates such an interpretation as possible in his discussion of Luke 16:19
when he says "this may be direct middle with accusative of thing added" (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of
the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. [Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 810).
the context emphasizes Jesus' exhortation to others, not himself. Common sense in this
place leads us away from the direct middle interpretation.
The translation of evexeiMuriv as an indirect middle would produce two
possible alternatives: "I commanded all things to you for/by myself or "I commanded all
things to you in my own interest."16 Again, context and common sense must prevail. The
beneficiary of the statement must be determined.17 Is Jesus really claiming that he
commanded his disciples for/by himself or in his own interest? Are these nuances even
true? In light of the connection of this verb back to p,a0r|T£X)G) in Matt 28:19,18 it seems
that a negative reply is in order. A couple of answers to this question could be suggested:
Jesus' benefit, the disciples' benefit, the benefit of would-be disciples. The first is the
most unlikely. It is better to view the commanding as the content of what was to be
observed, which itself was the content of the teaching as a means to making disciples.
The context reveals that the commanding was not for Jesus' own benefit but for the
benefit of those who would become disciples. It might be said that the commanding was
for the benefit of the kingdom, but not for Jesus' own interest. Furthermore, did Jesus
command them by himself? A negative response is most likely. John 17:6-8 NASB says,
16
Another unlikely translation is "I myself commanded all things to you." Although it seems
defensible, its validity is negated because the active forms do not exist in the Koine period. Without the
active voice being available, then emphasis by voice is not possible (see "The Logical Argument" on
p. 135).
l7
In a similar approach, Joseph D. Fantin applies the "notation of benefit" to the imperative
mood. See Joseph D. Fantin, "The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and
Communicative Approach" (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003), 319-26.
18
A chain connecting evexeiâuTiv to [iadr\xevaaxe is formed. The object of eveTeiA,dunv is
6ooc, which has Ttdvta as its antecedent, navza itself is the direct object of rnpeiv, which is a part of an
infinitival clause that functions as the direct object of SrSdoKovxeq, and 8v8doKOVTe<; modifies
\iaQr\xevaaxe.
202
I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world;
they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now
they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the
words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received [them] and
truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
Jesus' did not command the disciples by himself; this text tells us the Father was the
ultimate source of Jesus' instruction. Therefore, neither the direct middle nor the indirect
middle interpretations provide satisfactory explanations of the context.
The best interpretation of the voice is deponent middle: "I commanded all
things to you." eveieiXa\ir\v in Matt 28:20 meets the three tests for deponency. First,
only four occurrences of the active in the third principal part are extant in all Koine
literature.19 Second, as speech act, evxeXXco is not lexically conditioned. Third, its
function is active with a middle form. As a result, evexeika[ir\v is an aorist, middle®,
indicative, 1st, singular from evxeXka with the syntactical force of a simple active.
The Great Commission is a passage that illustrates well the importance of
recognizing deponency for correct interpretation. While the middle or passive
interpretations of these two verbs either missed the force of the context or misrepresent
the author's presentation altogether, the deponent interpretation captures well the natural
meaning of the narrative.
Mark 2:12
Kod ryyep6r| Koci euOix; apac, xov Kpd|3ocxxov et,f\kQev euTtpoaOev rcavxcov, waxe
eîaxccaOai 7idvxa<; KOU 5o£,aC,ei\ xov 0e6v êyovxaq oxi ovxcaq ox)887ioxe
e'iSouev.
'See p. 269, n 129 for an explanation.

'Hyep0r| in Mark 2:12 is passive in form and seems to have an active function.
Several English translations use the active to capture its voice.20 If fryepGr) has an active
function, then this form would be a candidate for deponency. The dilemma on how to
handle voice of eyeipco is a common one;21 thus, the resolution to the problem in this
verse aids in the interpretation of other occurrences of this lexeme.
Based on the proposed definition (see "A Composite View of Deponency's
Anatomy," which begins on p. 144), one does not need to look far to recognize that
eyeipco in Mark 2:12 does not meet all three tests of deponency. The final criterion of
deponency discussed under "Normal Function No Longer Available"22 has both a
semantic aspect and a morphological aspect to it: (1) normal middle and/or passive
function is no longer available and (2) the active form is not used. Semantically, this
criterion would suggest that the sixth principal part of eyeipco would not have a passive
function if it were deponent. However, the passive function occurs in the NT,23
disqualifying it from deponency. Disqualification from deponency is also found
morphologically. The active form of the third principal part is found frequently in the
Koine period. In fact, the active form is found thirty-two times in the NT. Thus, due to
the passive function of the sixth principal part and the existence of the active form in the
third principal part, the occurrence in Mark 2:12 cannot be viewed as deponent.
20
NASB; NET; ESV; NIV; HCSB; RSV; NRSV; KJV.
21
eyeipco is found 144 times in the NT and seventy-six times in the aorist tense.
22
Seep. 126.
23
BDAG lists several passages in which eyeipco has a passive force (BDAG, 272 [s.v. eyeipco
7]). Matt 14:2,27:52; and Luke 9:7 demonstrate the passive function in the sixth principal part. See also
n 27 on p. 204.
In light of the fact that there seems to be a mismatch between the voice form
and function, what is the explanation of eyeipco in Mark 2:12? Two factors seem to affect
the form and usage of eyeipco: transitivity and a form-function mismatch. First, the voice
form of the aorist active of eyeipco corresponds to its usage with regard to transitivity. In
the NT, that aorist active form is only used transitively with a direct object stated.24
Conversely, with the possible exception of one occurrence, all aorist passive forms of
eyeipco in the NT are intransitive.25 Thus, the normal usage pattern for the aorist of
eyeipco in the NT was for the active form to be used with a direct object, and the passive
form was used when no direct object was required.26 Second, a form-function mismatch
exists with the intransitive use of the aorist passive of eyeipco. Jacob Kremer says, "The
aor. pass, is to be regarded as mid. in the general use of eyeipco (in Hellenistic Greek it
stands in place of the mid... .)."27 Similarly, Gregory T. Stump makes a similar
24
All thirty-two occurrences of the aorist active form are transitive: Matt 3:9, 8:25; Mark 1:31,
9:27; Luke 1:69,3:8; John 12:1,12:9,12:17; Acts 3:7,3:15,4:10,5:30,10:26,10:40,12:7,13:22,13:30,
13:37; Rom 4:24, 8:11 (twice), 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14,15:15 (twice); 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12;
IThess 1:10; and 1 Pet 1:21.
25
The lone possible occurrence of an aorist passive with a transitive function is found in Matt
9:25. The transitivity of fiyepGn depends on the case of TO Kopdoiov. If the neuter noun is accusative, then
the verb is transitive and the translation would be "he entered and took her hand, and he raised the girl."
On the other hand, if TO Kop&cnov is nominative, then the verb is intransitive and the translation would be
"he entered and took her hand, and the girl rose." Of the remaining forty-three uses, all are intransitive:
Matt 1:24,2:13,2:14,2:20,2:21, 8:15, 8:26,9:6,9:7,9:19,14:2,16:21,17:7,17:9,25:7,26:32,27:52,
27:64,28:6,28:7; Mark 2:12,6:16,14:28,16:6; Luke 7:14,7:16,9:7,9:22,11:8,13:25,24:6,24:34; John
2:22,11:29,21:14; Acts 9:8; Rom 4:25,6:4,6:9,7:4, 8:34,13:11; and 2 Cor 5:15. Almost half of these are
found in Matthew's Gospel.
z6
In addition to my own survey, two other sources corroborate this claim. First, BDF asserts
that the aorist passive form is used intransitively (BDF, 50 [§101]). Second, the same notion can be
construed from a careful reading of BDAG, which makes many remarks about the intransitive uses of
eyeipco (BDAG, 271-72).
27
Jacob Kremer, "eyeipco," in EDNT, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 1 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 373. The only exception to what Kremer says seems to be when the verb is used
of being raised from the dead. (See BDAG, 272 [s.v. eyeipco 7].) The reason is logical. A dead person is not
conceived of being able to do anything actively, nor is he able to emphasize himself in his rising. The act of
observation from Sanskrit. Furthermore, no aorist middles of eyeipco are found in the
NT, and this tense and lexeme only occur sixty-seven times in the middle form in all
Koine literature.29 Due to the dominant intransitive usage and the relatively rare middle
form, the voice mismatch between form and function that exists for fiyepGn is a passive
form with a middle function. This mismatch further disqualifies this verb in Mark 2:12
from deponency because deponency requires a middle and/or passive form with an active
function.
Nevertheless, a voice form-function mismatch exists. The situation is not that
of deponency by definition, eyeipco in the sixth principal part is better explained as an
example of syncretism. Syncretism is the phenomenon in which a verb's form is both
normal and defective.30 In other words, the sixth principal part can function either
passively or as a middle due to syncretism. Transitivity determines which voice function
the verb uses.
Therefore, rryep0r| in Mark 2:12 functions intransitively as an indirect middle.
The sense of the verb would be captured this way: and he got up by himself^ and
immediately picked up his pallet and went out before all, so that all were amazed and
being raised from the dead is more naturally a passive action. So eyeipco can be used passively too (i.e.,
syncretism).
28
Seep.212.
29
Accordance, ver. 8.2.3, programmed by Roy Brown (Altamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree
Software, May 2009), GNT-T 3; TLG accessed on August 13,2009.
30
See the discussion of syncretism that begins on p. 138. Syncretism can be viewed as a copy
and paste (in contrast to deponency, which is a cut and paste).
31
BDAG,271 (s.v. eyeipco 4).
206
glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"32 The meaning is
especially rich, given the fact that it was a lame man who "got up by himself"]
Ephesians 1:4
KOCGCOC; eêXeâzo f||j.d<; ev ocrncp Tcpo KocTocPoXf|<; Koqaot) eivoa rpac; ayiotx; Kai
au.couo'uq KaxevcoTuov onjTOTj ev dyd7iri,
BDAG lists the lexical form for eêXeâxo in Eph 1:4 as eicA,eyoum. The
very presence of this headword causes many to interpret the voice as deponent. Some NT
Greek grammars suggest that the headword found in the lexicon is the key to
determination. When describing present deponent verbs, William D. Mounce writes:
You can tell if a verb is deponent by its lexical form. Deponent verbs are always
listed in the vocabulary sections with passive endings. In other words, if the
lexical form ends in an omega, it is not deponent (e.g., dyocTr&co). If the lexical
form ends in -oum, the verb is deponent (e.g., epxo|j,ca).33
For other tenses, Mounce suggests looking to the tense stem,34 which is the same
principle logically extrapolated. The third principal part for eêXeâxo is Eêê^duriv,35
which would suggest a deponency in Eph 1:4. Wallace's "Rough and Ready Rule"
follows a similar method of determining deponency. "The simplest procedure is to
consider a middle (or passive) to be deponent if the lexical form of the word in B AGD is
middle (or passive), not active."36 Although Wallace details the weaknesses of this
32
This wording in the quotation is from NET.
33
William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009), 152 (§18.11).
34
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 162-63 (§19.23), 208 (§23.19).
35
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 400.
36
207
approach and even uses EKTisyoum as an example of its deficiency,37 many rely upon the
simpler method.
The problem with identifying eê?ieâxo as deponent in Eph 1:4 is that the
interpreter misses the richness of the statement. This verb meets only one of the criteria
for deponency: absence of lexical intrusion. It possesses active forms in the third
principal part (and in the first and second too),38 and there is no mismatch between the
form and function. In fact, a careful observation of BDAG's suggested translations
indicates a middle nuance. The first two suggested translations are "choose (for oneself)"
and "select someone/someth. for oneself," respectively.39 BDF concurs, stating that only
in Acts 6:5; 15:22, 25 is the middle idea of 'for oneself "not absolutely necessary" for
this verb.40
Therefore, because eêXeâxo in Eph 1:4 does not meet the criteria for
deponency, the interpreter is correct to view it as an indirect middle. Thus, Harold W.
Hoehner is most certainly correct in his understanding of the verb's voice: "it is in the
middle voice, as is in almost every instance, indicating a personal interest in the one
chosen. Hence, God chose with great personal interest rather than a random personal
choice."41
"Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 429. Due to the deficiencies of the rough and ready method,
Wallace also provides "The Ideal Approach" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 429-30).
38
See eKÊyo|iou on p. 268.
39
BDAG, 305 (s.v. eKXeyouoci, 1,2).
40
BDF, 165 (§316.1).
41
Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002), 175-76.
208
1 Corinthians 13:8
'H dydcTtTi ovbenoie ninxei- e'lre 8ercpo^riTeToa,KocTapynGTiaovTca- e'ixe

yXcoacca, 7ia-uaovrai- e'ixe yvcoau;, KcxTapyr|0f|a£Tai.
First Corinthians 13 is a beautifully written passage. Robertson says that in
this chapter, Paul's Greek style "reaches the elevation and dignity of Plato."42 Despite this
elegance, nav<x> in the context of 1 Cor 13:8 has been the center of much debate. Both the
meaning of the verb and its syntactical use are controverted. Here we want to set forth the
problem, the potential solutions, and then relate our discussion to deponency.
What is the problem? The central issue hinges on the function of the middle
voice of 7rat)aovxai. What are the solutions? There are three predominant ways to
interpret the voice: direct middle, indirect middle, and deponent.
• direct middle—tongues will cause themselves to cease

• indirect middle—tongues will cease by themselves
• deponent middle—tongues will be caused to cease43
The understanding of the voice of navoovxai has implications as to when the gift of
tongues will stop functioning in the church. The timing is tied to the identification of the
referent of xo xeTieiov in 1 Cor 13:10. When TO TEA-EIOV comes, those gifts specifically
identified as TO £K u-epoix; (Ttpo^nxeiou and yvcoau;) will be abolished. The question is
this: are tongues included with the gifts that are abolished in 1 Cor 13:10? Or, will
tongues have already ceased at a point in time prior to the coming of the perfect? The
voice of TtocutfovTca helps to answer this question. If the voice ofrcoaiaovToais middle—
42
43
Wallace lists these three views; however, his translations for direct and indirect middle are
slightly different than those above (although capturing the same understanding), and he does not translate
the deponent option. Wallace translates the direct middle "tongues will cut themselves off and the indirect
middle tongues "will cease of their own accord" (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 422). It is understood that the
suggested deponent translation is actually passive (not active), but those who argue for the deponent view
consistently use the passive understanding. See below for further elaboration.
understood either as a direct middle or an indirect middle—then tongues will cease on
their own at a time prior to the coming of the perfect. If the voice is deponent, then the
argument is that tongues will be caused to cease at the same time as prophecy and
knowledge when the perfect comes. Daniel B. Wallace states, "The dominant opinion
among NT scholars today, however, is that Ttauaovcoa is not an indirect middle. The
argument is that 7tauoo in the future is deponent, and that the change in verbs is merely
stylistic."44
The deponent view of TECX-UGOVTOU is weak on several fronts. We have
established three tests for deponency: (1) middle and/or passive form with an active
function, (2) the absence of an active form for the corresponding principal part in Koine
Greek, and (3) the absence of lexical intrusion. The only criterion that ^ccucc meets is the
third. It does not have an active function. If 7ionjoovTca were a different voice in 1 Cor
13:8, its function would be passive. Note the translation above—tongues will be caused
to cease. D. A. Carson seems to hold this view. He states, "it [7icx"uoovToa in 1 Cor 13:8]
becomes the equivalent to a deponent with intransitive force,"45 and he seems to allude to
the verb in question when he writes, "Occasionally a verb is active in some tenses and
44
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 422. Most scholars do not reference deponency specifically but
argue that the shift in verbs is stylistic. A few scholars mention deponency directly while not necessarily
holding that view: D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 66-67; D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996), 75-77; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 422-23; Myron J. Houghton, "A Reexamination of
1 Corinthians 13:8-13," BSac 153, no. 611 (July-September 1996): 348-49; Donald G. McDougall,
"Cessationism in 1 Cor 13:8-12," MSJ 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 197-99. Others refer to the view indirectly by
calling the use a stylistic use: Carson, Showing the Spirit, 66-67; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 643-44nl7; David E. Garland,
1 Corinthians, BECNT, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003), 622nl3. Although he does not refer to deponency specifically or to Paul's style, Toussaint seems to
rebut the deponent view (Stanley D. Toussaint, "Symposium on the Tongues Movement: First Corinthians
Thirteen and the Tongues Question," BSac 120, no. 480 [October-December 1963]: 314-15).
'Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 11.

middle deponent in others (especially the future)." His definition of deponent is not
apparently clear. Based on his interpretation of 7toa>aovToa in 1 Cor 13:8 and the fact that
he is arguing against direct or indirect middle interpretations, it seems that he holds to a
view of deponency in which the verb is middle in form but passive in meaning.47 Carson
employs Luke 8:24 to demonstrate that the middle 7tauco must be passive because the
wind and raging water would be unable to cease by themselves "because of something
intrinsic to their nature."48 Such an interpretation is a misunderstanding of the usage of
Ttonjco. navco seems to be used with a volitional agent, either personal or personified. In
Luke 8:24, the wind and sea are personified, which is clearly indicated by the fact that
Jesus rebuked them. If the wind and sea were unable to obey, then why admonish them?
Personification is employed. In fact, when this figure is properly understood, it
demonstrates that Tcccuaovxca in 1 Cor 13:8 is not deponent (i.e., it is not a middle form
with a passive meaning but has middle meaning).49 Likewise, deponency is a one-way
mismatch (i.e., middle and/or passive form with an active function).50 To call navaovzai
in 1 Cor 13:8 a deponent verb is to misunderstand the phenomenon. A middle form with
a passive function is outside the boundaries of deponency. In addition, although a passive
naxHO seems to make sense in context (KaTapyr|0fiGOVToa on either side of TiocuaovTOu is
passive), this is not what is written. A search of TLG shows that at least four authors used
the future passive of navoz in the Koine period, which demonstrates that the future
46
Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 76.
47
Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 75-76.
48
Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 11.
49
50
See "Active and Middle/Passive," which begins on p. 117, especially n 45 on p. 118.
211
passive was available to Paul.51 He had a choice in his words, and although surrounding
navooviai in the context with passives, he chose to use the middle with naxxo. Wallace
explains, "Although it is true that the future middle is occasionally used in a passive
sense . . . , it is apparently so with certain verbs because of a set idiom. Such is not the
case with Traijco."52 Therefore, the evidence strongly suggests that 7r<xuaovToa in 1 Cor
13:8 is neither passive nor deponent.
Furthermore, naxxo in 1 Cor 13:8 does not meet the second criterion of
deponency (absence of an active form). The future active ofrarucois still available and
occurs 396 times in the Koine period.53 For example, The Hibeh Papyri has a citation
from ca. 245 B.C. in which the future of %ax>a> is used: ei uri %ax><5z\ K[oc]K07tocov sv TTJI
Kcburifi] |a.£TOcu£?if|[c]£i (joi (if you do not cease your malpractices in the village, you will
be sorry for it).54 Gordon D. Fee's argument—the two verbs in 1 Cor 13:8 are so similar
in meaning that here they are indistinguishable, even though their voices are different—
surely misses Paul's point.55 The result is that rtorua) in 1 Cor 13:8 does not meet the
criteria for deponency; therefore, its usage is more than a Pauline stylistic shift.
What is the meaning of Ttaijco in 1 Cor 13:8? The meaning is clarified by
observing its transitivity with respect to its voice,rcaijooin the active means "to cause
5l
It is understood that the future passive of nomco is a rare form in the Koine period. It
occurred only one time prior to the third century B.C. and seventy-four times in the fourth through thirteenth
centuries A.D.
"Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 423n43.
"Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 422n41.

54
Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Graeco-Roman Branch, part 1 of The Hibeh Papyri,
Egypt Exploration Fund (London: Oxford University Press, 1906), 205 [59.10]. MM also lists this passage
under noctico (MM, 500). The English translation is from MM.
55
Fee, First Corinthians, 643^4nl7; Gordon D. Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy
Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 206n467.
212
someth. to stop or keep someth. from happening, stop, cause to stop, quiet, relieve";56
in the middle it is intransitive and means "to cease doing someth., stop (oneself),
cease."51 Stump makes the same observation from Sanskrit: "Certain verbs—typically
expressing movement or changes of state—appear in the middle voice when used
intransitively and in the active voice when used transitively."58 Thus, in 1 Cor 13:8, 7100x0
is not deponent (nor passive) but is intransitive. Note that the intransitive meaning loses
the causative idea.
If navGOvxai is neither deponent nor passive, then it must be either direct or
indirect middle. Three factors point to an indirect middle usage. Direct middles are rare in
the NT, and most verbs that are direct middles are lexically nuanced.59 Also, the middle
ofrarucois intransitive, which lends itself to an indirect usage. Finally, an indirect
interpretation fits the context. Therefore, it is much better to recognize rcaijcovrai as an
indirect middle in 1 Cor 13:8: tongues will cease by themselves.
If the use of voice inrcocuaovTcuis more significant than stylistic variation by
Paul, then he is making a statement about the timing of the cessation of the gift of
tongues. Although a precise time is not provided, three factors point to the fact that
56
BDAG, 790. Gerhard Schneider affirms the same understanding of the meaning of rcoruco
with its corresponding voice (Gerhard Schneider, "navw," in EDNT, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider,
vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 62). Rutger J. Allan also indicates that the active of 7taixo is
transitive (stop) while its middle function is intransitive (cease). It is interesting that he notes that the
intransitive middle usage occurs more frequently than the transitive active (Rutger J. Allan, The Middle
Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, ed. Albert
Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm Pinkster, vol. 11 [Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2003], 55). See also
57
BDAG,790.
58
Gregory T. Stump, "A Non-Canonical Pattern of Deponency and Its Implications," in
Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, ed. Matthew Baerman et al., Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. 145 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 75.

213
tongues cease as a gift prior to the time when prophecy and knowledge are abolished. The
changes of verbs and voices work coordinately to suggest that tongues will have ceased
prior to prophecy and knowledge. Also, the omission of tongues in 1 Cor 13:10 seems to
suggest that tongues will not be extant at the time of the coming of the perfect (TO
xeleiov). As a result, the shift in verbs, the shift in voices, and the omission of tongues
from 13:10 suggest that tongues will have ceased when the perfect comes.60 These
reasons do not, however, indicate precisely when tongues will cease—only that they will
cease prior to the coming of the perfect. Thus, Wallace is correct: "This verse does not
specifically address when tongues would cease, although it is giving a terminus ad quern:
when the perfect comes."61
Conclusion
In conclusion, five verbal forms were used to illustrate the way potential
deponency is handled. Based upon the definition of deponency (see "A Composite View
of Deponency's Anatomy," which begins on p. 144), the three tests were applied to these
verbs in their respective contexts. Although only 7ropet>9evT£<; and eveTeiAairnv in Matt
28:19-20 were found to be deponent, the exercises demonstrating the process of
validating potential deponent verbs have been instructive. Mark 2:12, Eph 1:4, and 1 Cor
13:8 provide examples of how the interpretation of a passage can be misunderstood if a
verb is mistakenly taken as deponent, thereby demonstrating the significance of
recognizing deponency. Accurate interpretations of these five verbs have been provided.
60
Toussaint, "First Corinthians Thirteen," 314-15; McDougall, "Cessationism," 196-200;
contra Houghton, "A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13," 348^19.

Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
In an effort to be conceptually and practically relevant, I have studied Greek
deponency of the middle and passive voices in the Koine period because I wanted to
discover whether it exists—and if so to provide a redefinition of it—in order to help the
reader understand Greek voice so that we can interpret the New Testament properly.
Consequently, having Greek deponency as its broader topic and Greek deponency of the
middle and passive voices in the Koine period as its focused topic, this dissertation has
set out to answer several questions:
• What is the definition of deponency? (Where are deponency's boundaries?)

• Does deponency exist in Koine Greek?
• In what voices does deponency occur?
• What are the characteristics of deponency?
• What verbs are deponent?
• What verbs are semi-deponent?
• What exegetically significant passages are affected by deponency?
The body and appendices of the dissertation were structured to address these questions.
Chapter 2, "A History of Deponency," provided a focused account of the
background and impetus for the investigation of deponency. The history was presented
with five emphases: the ancient witness, the Gothic witness, the medieval witness, the
modern witness, and the disappointment with deponency. The historical treatment makes
four contributions to the whole. First, it documents the ways deponency has been treated
diachronically. Second, the inconsistency of usage of the term is observed. Third, the
214
215
investigation of the ancient period demonstrates that deponency is phenomenon whose
origins are archaic. Finally, this treatment presents the views of those who hold to the
dissenting perspective.
The falsifiable hypothesis was introduced in the third chapter, "Deponency's
Validation and Redefinition." The postulation was that the Greek middle and passive
voices in the Koine period include deponency as a legitimate expression of voice.1 By
validating it, several of the questions raised above were also addressed. The salient points
from the definition of deponency found in Latin were lifted and used as tests in Koine
Greek. By doing so, we learned the anatomy of deponency. With the anatomy in place, a
redefinition of the term was proposed based on the noted characteristics:

principal part in Koine literature and lacking a beneficiary/recipient-subject.2
The result was a definition with three testable facets: (1) a mismatch between form and
function—that is, a middle and/or passive form with an active function, (2) the absence of
an active form in a particular principal part, and (3) the absence of a lexical intrusion—
that is, a beneficiary/recipient-subject. Based upon the refined definition, Koine Greek
was observed to establish its existence in Koine Greek. The byproducts of chapter 3 were
four appendices. The first two (Appendix A and Appendix B) provide evidence for
deponency from aorist passive and aorist middle verbs, respectively. These are significant
studies because the aorist tense stem uses separate forms for each voice. The aorist
'Seep. 103.
2
Seep. 145.
216
passive is especially noteworthy because the presence of a direct object signals that the
voice function is not passive. Appendix D is a broader catalogue, containing verbs in the
NT. Each verb in this appendix is marked for active forms in the first four principal parts,
lexical intrusion, and deponency where relevant. Finally, Appendix E displays the fruit of
the research in this dissertation. It provides lists of deponent and semi-deponent verbs in
the NT.
After the positive case for deponency was laid in chapter 3, chapter 4
consisted of a critique of the dissenting voice. A defense was given in response to the
four scholars most vocal about denying deponency: Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor,
Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington.
Finally, four exegetically significant passages were explored in chapter 5:
Matt 28:19-20, Mark 2:12, Eph 1:4, and 1 Cor 13:8. The two verbs found in the Great
Commission illustrate verbs that meet the criteria established in the definition of
deponency, and their interpretation otherwise is strained or impossible. Mark 2:12 and
Eph 1:4 illustrate the necessity of careful scrutiny before calling a verb deponent because
without it the richness of interpretation could be lost. Lastly, deponency finds itself in the
center of the discussion of the cessation of the gift of tongues. navGOvxai in 1 Cor 13:8
was found to not meet the requirements for deponency. Thus, the verb carries an indirect
middle nuance. The verbs in these passages serve to demonstrate the significance of
recognizing the deponency, the method of determining phenomenon, and the accurate
resulting interpretations.
In conclusion, Greek deponency of the middle and passive voices in the Koine
period was investigated in order to discover is validity and a redefinition was suggested.
217
Our understanding of this particular phenomenon in the language of the NT has been
furthered; thus, our interpretations of the NT will be better grounded.

Appendix A
AORIST PASSIVE INVESTIGATION1
The first investigation is the inquiry into the aorist passive. The goal is to
illustrate the mismatch between form and function in those verbs that BDAG has labeled
as deponent.2 The aorist tense stem in the passive voice has been used because the form-
function incongruity is seen the clearest here due to the separate form for the passive and
the clear distinction in function between the active and passive. Another parallel study is
also included in Appendix B in which the aorist middle of these same verbs is explored.
Although the columns are relatively self-explanatory, a few comments are in
order. The column for "Active Form Available?" indicates whether an active form for the
third principal part was found in TLG. Occasionally rare active forms may exist for the
third principal part of the particular lexical term, but the question is answered, "no." The
reason for a negative answer even when a rare active form is found is that the existence
of the active can be explained historically. (See Appendix D for the full data.) Also, most
of the compound verbs listed in this list have not been searched to determine if they
possess active forms. The results from searching the corresponding simple verbs were
used.
'For additional description of this investigation, see "Aorist Passive Investigation" on p. 148.
2
Those verbs in this list that do not appear in the NT are not reproduced in Appendix D
because that list covers the NT exclusively.
218
219
Ultimately, the uses of the verbs in this table are not labeled as deponent (or
not deponent), but such information can be inferred from the data in the chart. If a use
demonstrates (1) dissonance between its form and function (i.e., passive form with active
function), (2) it lacks an active form (for the third principal part), and (3) its meaning
does not suffer from lexical intrusion [LIb/rs or passivity], then it is deponent in its aorist
passive form. Consult Appendix D for a fuller treatment of active forms and lexical
intrusion.
Table 43: Aorist Passive Investigation
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
V)
Function
Features
s
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
9 Form ing
2
aor.
&YccM.i&co John stative
1 &yaXîa9fjvott pass. act. yes intr.
(E&C) 5:35 active
inf.
(ivd^co 0 yes
aor.
SEOUCU pass, Matt w/gen.
59 8£r|0r|T£ act. yes trans.
(SA) impv. 9:38 D.O.
2 pi.
aor.
pass, Luke w/gen.
£5ef|0r| act. trans.
indie. 5:12 D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Luke w/gen.
£8efi0Tiv act. trans.
indie. 9:40 D.O.
1 sing.
aor.
pass, Luke w/gen.
8£Ti0r|X£ act. trans.
impv. 10:2 D.O.
2 pi.
âyaXkmo) is syncretistic in the sixth principal part.
4
The aorist passive form functions actively but is not deponent because active forms are found
in the third principal part.
220
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
no
pass, Luke
e8eTi0r|v act. trans. D.O.
indie. 22:32
stated
1 sing.
8iape(3aioo-
0 no
uat
5iaXoyt£o|a.ai 0 no
8ia7ipayua-
xeijoum 0 no
(Ub/r.S)
aor.
pass, Matt
fiSwriGrioav act. intr. helper
indie. 17:16
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Matt
f)8\)VT)0Tmev act. intr. helper
indie, 17:19
lpl.
aor.
pass, Mark stative
Swaum 67 T|8\)VT10T| act. no intr. helper
indie. 7:24 active
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Mark
ri5uvri0rpev act. intr. helper
indie, 9:28
lpl.
aor.
pass, Luke
fi8wT|0Tioav act. intr. helper
indie. 9:40
3 pi.
eYKpotT£i3o|j.ca
( L I b/r- S )
0 no
aor.
pass.
ptc. Matt gen. ab-
evGuufioucu 15 evO-uirnOevTOC, act. no trans.
gen. 1:20 solute
masc.
sing.
aor.
no
pass, Gen.
EVe0\)^T10T| act. trans. D.O.
indie. 6:6
stated
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Deut w/gen.
evG'uiJ.riOfji; act. trans.
subj. 21:11 D.O.
2 sing.
221
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
X Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
O Form ing
aor.
pass.
ptc. Josh w/gen.
evQviir\Qevxeq act. trans.
nom. 6:18 D.O.
masc.
pi.
aor.
pass. atten-
ptc. Josh w/gen. dant
£V0i)(ir|0£i<; act. trans.
nom. 7:21 D.O. circum-
masc. stance
sing.
evxeXka 0 no
aor.
no
pass, Gen
evu7ivi6taer| act. trans. D.O.
indie. 28:12
stated
3 sing.
aor.
pass.
ptc. Gen
ewnvmoQeiq act. trans.
nom. 37:5
masc.
sing.
aor.
evimvraôum 8 no no
pass, Gen
evi)7ivicco0r|v act. trans. D.O.
indie. 37:6
3 sing. stated
aor.
no
pass, Gen
ev\)7ivido0Ti(; act. trans. D.O.
indie. 37:10
stated
2 sing.
aor.
no
pass, Gen
ev\)7tvida0T| act. trans. D.O.
indie. 41:5
stated
3 sing.
aor.
2 Cor
eôatopeoo 1 eâTiopiiOfivai pass. pass. no intr.
1:8
inf.
e^Tiyeonai 0 no
aor.
pass, Luke w/gen.
e7ri|ieêo(j.ai 3 £7ie|i,eA.Ti0T| act. no trans.
indie. 10:34 D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Luke w/gen.
£7UUeA,fl0T|Tl act. trans.
impv. 10:35 D.O.
2 sing.
222
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
*•*
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
X Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form 4-1 Text
© Form ing
aor.
lEsd w/gen.
£7ii|i£^r|0fjvca pass. act. trans.
6:26 D.O.
infin.
aor.
pass, Num
ETieOKETtTloaV pass. intr.
indie. 1:19
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Num
E7teoKe7CT|aav pass. intr.
indie. 1:47
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Num
£7teaK£7triaav pass. intr.
indie. 4:38
en\.CKemo\i,ai 30 yes
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Num
eneoKe7iTioav pass. intr.
indie. 4:42
3 pi.
aor.
pass.
ptc. Num
emcKenevxeq pass. intr.
nom. 4:48
masc.
plur.
eniaxa[i<xi 0 no
aor.
pass.
ptc. Heb
euXaPeoum 15 ETjâPriGei^ act. no
nom. 11:7
masc.
sing.
aor.
1 no
pass,
eijX,aPT|9T| Mace act. trans. D.O.
indie.
3:30 stated
3 sing.
aor.
1 no
pass,
£i)taxpf|0r| Mace act. trans. D.O.
indie.
12:40 stated
3 sing.
aor.
1
pass,
£v\a$T\&r\ Mace act. trans. helper
indie.
12:42
3 sing.
223
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
(A
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
X Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form o Text
Form ing
aor.
pass.
4
ptc.
e\)A.a(3r|9ei(; Mace act. intr.
nom.
4:13
masc.
sing.
aor. 2
0ai)uao0fjvca pass. Thess pass. intr.
inf. 1:10
aor.
no
pass, Rev
e0ca>|aao0T| act. trans. D.O.
indie. 13:3
stated
3 sing.
aor.
Esth
0a\)(j.ao0fjvai pass. act. trans.
14.10
inf.
0CO)|I&£CO 6 yes
aor.
pass.
4 no
ptc.
0a\)âo0evxe<; Mace act. trans. D.O.
nom.
1:11 stated
masc.
Pi-
aor.
4
eBavîacQr\- pass,
Mace pass. intr.
occv indie.
18:3
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Matt
ld0T| pass. intr.
indie. 8:13
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Matt
id0Ti pass. intr.
indie. 15:28
3 sing.
aor.
Luke
iaoucu 21 ia0f|vca pass. pass. no intr.
6:18
inf.
aor.
pass, Luke
ia0f)TCO pass. intr.
impv. 7:7
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Luke
id0T| pass. intr.
indie. 8:47
3 sing.
224
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
Function
Features
s
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical F o r m «M Text
Form ing
a
2
can be
stative
aor.
active;
pass, Luke w/dat.
iXaa&nxi act. trans. it is a
impv. 18:13 D.O.
dat. of
2 sing.
advan-
tage5
aor.
pass, Exod stative
iX&a0r| act. intr.
indie. 32:14 active
3 sing.
aor. no can be
2Kgs
iA.aa9f]vca pass. act. trans. D.O. stative
24:4
infin. stated active
iA&oKO(i,oa 7 no
can be
stative
aor.
active;
pass, Esth w/dat.
iXdo0Tixi act. trans. it is a
impv. 13:17 D.O. dat. of
2 sing.
advan-
tage
can be
stative
aor.
active;
pass, Ps w/dat.
iâoGnxi act. trans. it is a
impv. 78:9 D.O.
dat. of
2 sing.
advan-
tage
Kocxaycoviô-
0 no
|j.ai
K(xxa8EXonai
0 no
(LIb/r"s)
KaxaKpodo-
0 no
aor.
pass, Job
mxapaeevn pass. intr.
opt. 3:6
3 sing.
mxapaouou 2 no
aor.
pass, Job
KaxapaGeiri pass. intr.
opt. 24:18
3 sing.
Kocxao"0<|>i£o-
0 no
|j.ai
Kaxa\|/ri<))iô-
0 no
uou
5
BDAG, 474 (s.v. ilaaKoum 1).
225
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
en
Function
Features
s
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
O Form ing
aor.
pass, 2 Cor
Kax£ipyda0r| pass. intr.
indie. 12:12
3 sing.
KoiTepY&£o|j.oa 2 no
aor.
pass, Exod
KaxeipydoBTi pass. intr.
indie. 39:1
3 sing.
Kccux&o^ca
(Ub/r-S)
0 no
aor.
pass, Matt
KpenaoGfi pass. intr.
subj. 18:6
3 sing.
aor.
pass.
xrav
ptc. Luke
Kpep.ao0ev- pass. intr.
gen. 23:39
xcov
masc.
plur.
Kp£udvVUU.l/
10 aor. yes
Kpe|idôo Gen
Kpe|i.ao9fivav pass. pass. intr.
41:13
inf.
aor.
pass, 2 Sam
eKpe|ido0ri pass. intr.
indie. 18:9
3 sing.
aor.
pass, 2 Sam
eKpe|ido0T| pass. intr.
indie. 18:9
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Luke
^.OYiônai 39 eXojiaQr\ pass. no intr.
indie. 22:37
3 sing.
aor.
Act
ôyioGfjvai pass. pass. intr.
19:27
inf.
aor.
pass, Rom
eXojiaQi] pass. intr.
indie. 4:3
3 sing.
aor.
pass, Rom
eX,oyic0Ti pass. intr.
indie. 4:9
3 sing.
226
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
X Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form o Text
Form ing
aor.
pass, Rom
ekoyiaQr\ pass. intr.
indie. 4:10
3 sing.
X/uuaivco 0 no
aor.
pass.
ptc. Matt stative
|j.a0TiTe'ueei<; pass. intr.
nom. 13:52 active
masc.
sing.
Haerixeija) 3 aor. yes
pass, Matt stative
epaeriTetiGri pass. intr.
indie. 27:57 active
3 sing.
aor. Ign.
stative
Ha0T|XE-u0fivai pass. Eph. pass. intr.
active
inf. 10:1
uavTeiJouai 0 no
uocxoum 0 no
aor.
pass.
no
ptc. Matt
b/r s 10 ueTaueXriGeii; act. yes trans. D.O.
(LI - ; E&C) nom. 21:29
stated
masc.
sing.
adver-
aor.
no bial
pass, Matt
(IEX£(J.EXf|9r|TE act. trans. D.O. infin. of
indie. 21:32
stated result
2 pi.
follows
ptc.in
an
aor.
atten-
pass.
no dant
ptc. Matt
(j.£xa(iEX,T|eEi(; act. trans. D.O. circum-
nom. 27:3
stated stance
masc.
con-
sing.
struc-
tion
^The aorist passive form functions actively but is not deponent because active forms are found
in the third principal part.
227
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVaofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
oxi
aor. D.O.:
pass, 1 Sam D.O. indirect
U£T£U£A,T)0T| act. trans.
indie. 15:35 stated dis-
3 sing. course
clause
aor.
no
pass, IChr
îeieîeXr\Qr\ act. trans. D.O.
indie. 21:15
stated
3 sing.
Hiueouai
(Ub/r-S)
0 no
aor.
pass, 2 Cor mid.
uranaoutti 1 (xoonTiefi pass. no intr.
subj. 6:3 dep.7
3 sing.
aor.
pass.
1
|i,COUOaK07t£0- UraUOOK07IT|- ptc. D.O.
1 Clem. pass. no trans.
um 0£V ace. stated
41:2
neut.
sing.
vT)xo|iai 0 no
68t)pouca 0 no
opxeouca 0 no
TtapaPuxôuea 0 no
7iapatxeo|iai
0 no
(SA)
aor. "aor.
pass. pass. w.
7iapaKa9eô-
7capaKa9ea- ptc. Luke act.
ucu 1 mid. no intr.
0£iaa nom. 10:39 reflex-
(LIb/r-s)
fern. ive
sing. sense
mid.
7tapaK£Xet)co 0 yes
dep.9
7iapa^.oyiô-
0 no
uai
7tapocn\)0£ouai 0 no
7
BDAG,663.
8
BDAG, 764.
9
BDAG, 766.
228
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
K Inflected Pars-
Lexical F o r m Text
o Form ing
aor. used
TtapcOTopeiJO- 7cape7topeu9ri- pass, Deut D.O. figura-
1 act. no trans.
iiev indie, 2:14 stated tively
lpl. of time
7tapeioep%o-
0 yes
uoa
7tapepxo|iai 0 yes
Ttapoixoum 0 no
Tiapprioidô-
0 no
u.ca
TtEpvepydô-
0 no
u.ou
rcepiKEiuou 0 no
71OVEC0 0 yes
7iovT)pei)0|a.av 0 no
jipayuttTEiJO-
0 no
um
Ttpoavudoum 0 no
7tpoepxo|iai 0 yes
7ipoT)Yeo(iai 0 no
7ip6K£Uica 0 no
7tpouapTupo-
0 no
uca
Tipoopidôjim 0 no
aor.
pass, Sir w/dat.
7tpoo8e8fj<; act. 10 trans.
subj. 18:32 D.O.
jtpoa880|icu 2 sing.
2 no
(LIb/r-s) aor.
pass, Sir w/gen.
7tpooe5eTi0T| act. trans.
indie. 42:21 D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
Mart.
TtpooSexoum pass,
(LIb/r-S)
4 7tpoo8e%0eiriv Pol. pass. no intr.
opt.
14:2
1 sing.
aor.
Pr
7tpoo8£%0evn- pass,
Man pass. intr.
fiev opt. 1
7:39
plur.
aor.
pass, Wis
7ipoae8ex9r| pass. intr.
indie. 18:7
3 sing.
10
The aorist passive form functions actively, but 7ipoa8exouca is not deponent because of
lexical intrusion.
229
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
Add
7ipoo8ex8eir|- pass,
Dan pass. intr.
U£V opt.
3:39
lpl.
7tpoaep%oâi 0 yes
7ipoaeiJXop.ai 0 no
7tpOC5K£l|J.(Xl 0 no
TtpoaTiope'uo-
0 no
npoxeipi^co
0 no
(LI"*"5)
TCUVS&VOHCU 0 yes
aor.
pass.
ptc. Luke
pvaQevxaq pass.
ace. 1:74 BDAG
masc. says is
pTJojxm 13 no
pi. mid.
aor. dep.
pass, Rom
p-uaOra pass.
subj. 15:31
1 sing.
aor.
pass, Rom w/dat.
oepdônai 1 eoepdo9r|aav act. no trans.
indie. 1:25 D.O.
3 pi.
aor. pass,
anXay%vi!!,o-
pass, Matt dep.;
um 16 eanXajxviaQr\ act. no intr.
indie. 9:36 stative
(E&C)
3 sing. active
aor.
pass, Matt
EOTtXayxviaGTi act. intr.
indie. 14:14
3 sing.
aor.
pass.
anXayxvia- ptc. Matt
act. intr.
0EI<; nom. 18:27
masc.
sing.
aor.
pass.
07iXayxvia- ptc. Matt
act. intr.
9ei<; nom. 20:34
masc.
sing.
"BDAG, 908.
230
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JV» of Hits
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
pass.
anXayxviG- ptc. Mark
act. intr.
0EI<; nom. 1:41
masc.
sing.
aor.
pass, Judg
errpocTEtjeo 1 axpaxevQr\xi pass. yes
impv. 19:8
2 sing.
cuYKata\|rri(|)i- aor.
£ouou ovyKazeyT]- pass, Act mid.
1 pass. no intr.
(Inherently (f)ia0Ti indie. 1:26 dep.
Passive) 3 sing.
cuyKoiii-donav
0 no
(LIb/r-s)
cruYXp&0|ioa 0 no
ot)(X7rapaYivo-
0 no
aor.
pass.
cruuTtope'uGev- ptc. Gen
act. intr.
xcov gen. 14:24
masc.
plur.
aor.
a\)U7tope'u0f|- pass, Exod
act. intr.
xco impv. 34:9
3 sing.
aor.
ODveTiopeTjGri- pass, Num
au(X7iope'uo|j.ai 6 act. no intr.
aav indie. 16:25
3 pi.
aor.
pass, Num
at)|j.7cope'u6T|xi act. intr.
impv. 22:36
2 sing.
aor.
pass.
cuiiTtopstieei- ptc. Tob
act. intr.
oiv dat. 1:3
masc.
Pi.
cruvaycoviô-
0 no
(J.CU
12
BDAG,951.
231
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
JV» of Hits
Function
Features
Lexical
Active
Form
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
cvvakiC,co/
0 no
avvavXiôîai
(LIb/r-s)
o\)vavocKev(xai 0 no
oweioepxo-
0 yes
(iav
cuve7tepxo|i,av 0 yes
auveTioum 0 no
oweucoxeo|iai
(LIb/r-S)
0 no
ouvri8o|iai 0 no
OTJVTpEXCO 0 yes
aor.
OWUTlOKpiVO- awo7t£Kpi0r|- pass, Gal w/dat.
1 act. no trans.
|im (LIb/r-s) oav indie. 2:13 D.O.
3 pi.
•bnepayaXko-
0 no
|xai
UTUOXVEOÔU 0 no
•UTto5exouai
0 no
(LIWr-s)
•UTIOKEUICU 0 no
<t>ei8o|j.ott 0 no
<|>0£YYO|J.oa 0 no
<|)i,A-oxi|ieo(xai 0 no
aor.
Acts D.O.
XapiaGfivai pass. pass. trans.
3:14 stated
inf.
aor.
pass.
ptc. ICor w/dat.
XapioGevxa pass. trans.
Xapi£oôu 3 ace. 2:12 no D.O.
neut.
Pi.
aor.
pass, Phil w/dat.
exaplo0r| pass. trans.
indie. 1:29 D.O.
3 sing.
Xpoco^m 0 no
Xprioteijonav 0 no
cbveo|icu 0 no
©piio^ca 0 no
Appendix B
AORIST MIDDLE INVESTIGATION1
Table 44: Aorist Middle Investigation
Active Form
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
mid. Luke
fiyaM-iaaocTO act. intr.
indie. 10:21
3 sing.
aor.
mid. John
fyyaM.i&aaTO act. intr.
indie. 8:56
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Acts
ocyaîotco 20 T|yocM.iaoocTO act. yes intr. stative
indie. 2:26
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Acts
iVyaAAiaaaro act. intr.
indie. 16:34
3 sing.
aor.
ayaXkmaav- mid. 2 Sam
act. intr.
subj. 1:20
3 pi.
Pux^co 0 yes
8eo|jm
0 yes
(LIb,r"s)
8iaPe[3av6o-
0 no
ucu
aor.
mid. 2 Sam D.O.
Sio&oyiôum 6 SiaôyiadaQco act. no trans.
impv. 19:20 stated
3 sing.
'For additional description of this investigation, see "Aorist Middle Investigation" on p. 151.
2
ayaXkm(o is syncretistic in the third principal part.
232
233
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
*-
Function
Features
Lexical
B Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
O Form ing
aor.
mid. Ps D.O.
SieXoyioavTO act. trans.
indie. 20:12 stated
3 pi.
aor.
mid. Ps D.O.
8veXoyioaTO act. trans.
indie. 35:5 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Ps D.O.
dieXoyvadnriv act. trans.
indie. 76:6 stated
1 sing.
aor.
mid. Ps D.O.
SiEXoyioauriv act. trans.
indie. 118:59 stated
1 sing.
aor.
8ia7ipayp.a- 5i£7tpay|ia- mid. Luke D.O.
1 act. no trans.
TETJOUai xeiJoavTO indie. 19:15 stated
3 pi.
w/
aor. com-
Mart. help-"
mid. ple-
"(\bvvaio Pol. act. ing
indie. men-
7:1 verb
3 sing. tary
inf.
w/
aor. com-
help--
mid. Barn. ple-
T|8TJVCU:O act. ing
indie. 7:2 men-
verb
3 sing. tary Stative
inf. active -
8uvauai 4 no
w/ to be
aor. com- able
Herm. help-i
mid. ple-
fiSuvavto Sim. act. ing
indie. men-
93:2 verb
3 pi. tary
inf.
w/
aor. com-
help-i
mid. Judg ple-
ESIJVCCTO act. ing
indie. 1:19 men-
verb
3 sing. tary
inf.
Accordance has td Suv&uevoc incorrectly labeled as an active participle; it is a middle/

passive participle. Also, the forms noted in the table for Swauou are ambiguous forms. They could also be
imperfect. For more information, see n 60 on p. 124.
234
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
X Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form <+-
o Text
Form ing
eyKpaxeuouai
(LIb/r-S)
5 no
ev0-uueouai 0 no
aor.
w/
mid. Matt
evexeiXaxo act. trans. dative
indie. 17:9
D.O.
3 sing.
w/inf.
aor. of
mid. Matt indi-
evexeitaxxo act. trans.
indie. 19:7 rect
3 sing. dis-
course
aor.
w/
mid. Mark
evexeitaxxo act. trans. dative
indie. 10:3
D.O.
3 sing.
evxeM.a> 28 no
aor.
w/
mid. Mark
evexeikaxo act. trans. dative
indie. 13:34
3 sing. D.O.
w/
dative
D.O.
aor. &
mid. John w/inf.
evexeikaxo act. trans.
indie. 8:5 of
3 sing. indi-
rect
dis-
course
aor.
mid. Gen D.O.
evu7tviaod)iT|v act. trans.
indie. 37:9 stated
1 sing.
aor.
mid. Jer D.O.
evurcvidôum 3 f|vu7rviaad|rr|v act. no trans.
indie. 23:25 stated
1 sing.
aor.
mid. Judg D.O.
evurcviaaduriv act. trans.
indie. 7:13 stated
1 sing.
eâTtopea) 0 no
aor.
no
mid. John
efyr\yeoyiai 7 e^riynoaxo act. no trans. D.O.
indie. 1:18
stated
3 sing.
235
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
«5
Function
Features
s
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
o Form ing
aor.
mid.
ptc. Acts D.O.
E^Tiynadjievoi; act. trans.
nom. 10:8 stated
masc.
sing.
aor. indi-
mid. Acts rect
e^Tiyiloaxo act. trans.
indie. 15:14 dis-
3 sing. course
aor. l
D.O.
et,r\yy\aaaQai mid. Clem. act. trans.
stated
inf. 49:3
aor.
Herm.
mid. D.O.
e^fyyTiaai Vis. act. trans.
impv. stated
23:5
2 sing.
ETUUfiXfiOUm 0 no
aor.
mid. Matt D.O.
e7ieoKev)/ao9e act. trans.
indie. 25:36 stated
2 pi.
aor.
mid. Matt D.O.
E7teoKe\)/aaee act. trans.
indie. 25:43 stated
2 pi.
aor.
no
mid. Luke
£7EIGK£7ETOU.OCI 82 87teoKe\|/axo act. no trans. D.O.
indie. 1:68
stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Luke D.O.
£7l£OKEV|/0CTO act. trans.
indie. 7:16 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Acts D.O.
£7IIOK£\|/OCO0£ act. trans.
impv. 6:3 stated
2 sing.
eniaxaiiai 0 no
e\)X.a(3eop.ai 0 no
Qav[iaC,(o 0 yes
aor.
mid. Luke D.O.
iaoum 34 iaaccco act. no trans.
indie. 9:42 stated
3 sing.
236
Active Form
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
© Form ing
2
aor.
mid. Luke D.O.
idaocxo act. trans.
indie. 14:4 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Luke D.O.
idaaxo act. trans.
indie. 22:51 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. John D.O.
iacmxca act. trans.
subj. 4:47 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Act D.O.
idoaxo act. trans.
indie. 28:8 stated
3 sing.
iA&OKonoa 0 no
aor.
Kaxriycovioav- mid. Heb D.O.
act. trans.
xo indie. 11:33 stated
3 pi.
Kcraxycoviô- aor.
2 no
um mid.
Mart.
Kaxaycovvod- ptc. D.O.
Pol. act. trans.
(xevoq nom. stated
19:2
masc.
sing.
KocxaSsxoum
(Ub/r-S)
3 no
Kaxaicpoao-
0 no
aor.
mid. Mark D.O.
Kocxapaoum 33 Kaxripdoco act. no trans.
indie. 11:21 stated
2 sing.
D.O. is
relative
aor.
pro-
mid. Gen D.O.
KaxTipdoaxo act. trans. noun in
indie. 5:29 stated
the gen.
3 sing.
(attrac-
tion)
aor.
Kaxapdoa- Gen D.O.
mid. act. trans.
o0ai 8:21 stated
inf.
237
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form o Text
Form ing
aor.
mid. Lev D.O.
Kaxtipdoaxo act. trans.
indie. 24:11 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid.
no
Kaxapaad- ptc. Lev
act. trans. D.O.
uevov ace. 24:14
stated
masc.
sing.
aor.
mid.
KaxaaocjHod- ptc. Acts D.O.
mid. trans.
(IEVOI; nom. 7:19 stated
masc.
sing.
aor.
horta-
KOCTaao(t)iaco- mid. Exod D.O.
mid. trans. tory
ue9a subj. 1:10 stated
K(XI0COO(t)i.£o- subj.
lpl.
|XOU 4 no
b/r s aor.
(LI - )
mid. Jdt D.O.
Kaxeoocjuaaxo mid. trans.
indie. 5:11 stated
3 sing.
supple-
men-
aor.
Kaxaooc|)ioa- Jdt D.O. tary inf.
mid. mid. trans.
o0oa 10:19 stated to
inf.
Suva-
Kaxai|/ri(|)i£o-
0 no
um
aor. duap-
mid. Rom D.O. xiais
Kaxepydôuat 16 Kaxeipydoaxo act. no trans.
indie. 7:8 stated the
3 sing. subj.
aor.
no
mid. Rom
Kocxeipydaaxo act. trans. D.O.
indie. 15:18
stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid.
Kaxepyaad- ptc. ICor D.O.
act. trans.
(xevov ace. 5:3 stated
masc.
sing.
238
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Lexical Form
£ Inflected Pars-
Text
o Form ing
2
aor.
mid.
KctTepyaod- ptc. 2 Cor D.O.
act. trans.
\ievoq nom. 5:5 stated
masc.
sing.
aor.
mid. 2 Cor D.O.
Kaxeipydoaxo act. trans.
indie. 7:11 stated
3 sing.
one
active
form
re-
turned
but it
Kauxdoucu was
15 no
(LIb,r"s) mis-
label.
It was a
act.
mid/
pass,
ptc.
KpeudvVUUl/
0 yes
Kpeud^ro
aor.
mid. Rom D.O.
TioyicmTou act. trans.
subj. 4:8 stated
3 sing.
aor.
2 Cor D.O.
Xoyioao0cu mid. act. trans.
3:5 stated
inf.
aor.
no
mid. 2 Cor
ôyicmTou act. trans. D.O.
subj. 12:6
stated
Xoyiôum 49 3 sing. no
aor.
D.O. is
mid.
OTlOf
ptc. Heb D.O.
A,oyiod(ievoi; act. trans. indirect
nom. 11:19 stated
dis-
masc.
course
sing.
aor.
1
mid. D.O.
eXoyvod(ie9a Clem. act. trans.
indie, stated
16:4
lpl.
OgBJ
-UBApB
•guiS £
"SIP J O
•JBp JO 'SUBJJ •JOB
9e:ie •oipui
01X)O3%)0Ti3
UOQ •pirn
oa •JOB
SAIJBp
/A\
pojBjs
"OTpUT
oa "SUBJJ •JOB
UOQ •piui
01A»D3X»rl3
ou •JOB
"Id£
pOJBJS
02:93 •otpui
oa 'SUB J) ou •JOB
UOQ •piiu
01AX)D3%X)Ti3 SI JIOTIOXIOTI
ou •JOB
pojBjs "J"!
'SUBJJ •JOB
93:1Z •piui J»0DX)Oa.31AX)Tl
oa 5[Ozg
•JOB
-
ld£
pOJBJS
£3:£I •fqns
oa 'SUBJJ
ou
•JOB
>joza •piui
30OU£>a31AX)Tl
£ j»Tioa3iA»rl
ou
•JOB
•guis z
pOJBJS
8:83 •Aduit
oa •SUBJJ •JOB
UIBS I •piui
iraoasiAwrl
ou •JOB
SOA" 0 coa3iU.0»rl
•SUTS z
pojBjs 8:g9 •fqns
'SUBJJ •JOB LLAliTlaY
oa BSJ •piui
JOB
•guiS £
pojBjs TUT •oipui
•SUBJJ 'JOB 01X3ALlTlaY3
oa souiy •piui
•JOB
•guiS £
pOJBJS PV-6L •oipui
•SUBJJ ou •JOB onoAlirlaY? L ooAiwrlaY
oa Sd •piui
•JOB
•guiS £
pojBjs
8:81 •oipui
'SUBJJ •JOB OOB]AI oi»AUriaY3
oa p
piui
•JOB
•gUIS £
pojBjs
01:91 •oipui
oa 'SUBJJ •JOB
WDZ •pTUJ
OlMAUTlaYS
ou JOB
Active Form
H
Comments
Available?
% ST s e
s §ui UIJOJ 0
rs JX3X l-"S I U J O j [BDixaq
S «' -SJBd papaijui
5*
S
X
en
6£3
240
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
no
mid. Lev
e|j.a%EoavTO act. trans. D.O.
indie. 24:10
stated
3 pi.
aor.
w/
mid. Josh
E(ia%Eaavto act. trans. dative
indie. 9:18
D.O.
3 pi.
HeTa|a.EX.op.m
0 yes
(LIb/r-s; E&C)
aor.
Ign.
mid. D.O.
Hlji.fi OT|T0U Magn. mid. trans.
subj. stated
10:1
3 sing.
aor.
Diogn. D.O.
Hi|if|oao0av mid. mid. trans.
10:5 stated
inf.
uauEOum
4 aor. no
(LI b ' rs ) 4
mid. D.O.
|j.i(j.f|oaa0E Mace mid. trans.
impv. stated
9:23
2 pi.
aor.
4
mid. D.O.
(ii(iTioco(XE9a Mace mid. trans.
subj. stated
13:9
lpl.
aor.
mid. 2 Cor D.O.
Hcour|cmTai act. trans.
subj. 8:20 stated
3 sing.
aor.
urauaoHcu 2 no
mid.
u.cou.r|aau£:- ptc. Wis D.O.
act. trans.
vovq ace. 10:14 stated
masc.
Pi-
U.Cfl|I0OK07ie0-
0 no
um
vf|%o)i.ai 0 no
oSvjpoum 0 no
aor.
mid. Matt
opxeoum 5 d)p%Tiooco9e act. no intr.
indie. 11:17
2 pi.
aor.
mid. Matt
cbpxf|oaTO act. intr.
indie. 14:6
3 sing.
241
Active Form
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
CO
Function
Features
Lexical
Lexical Form
S Inflected Pars-
Text
CM
O Form ing
aor.
mid.
ptc. Mark
6pxr|oa|ievT|<; act. intr.
gen. 6:22
fern.
sing.
aor.
mid. Luke
(bpxrioaoGe act. intr.
indie. 7:32
2 pi.
aor.
Eccl
6pxT)oao0ai mid. act. intr.
3:4
inf.
aor.
mid. Luke D.O.
7tape|3idoavxo act. trans.
indie. 24:29 stated
3 pi.
aor.
mid. Acts D.O.
TtapePi&accTO act. trans.
indie. 16:15 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid.
Mart.
7iapa(Jvaod- ptc. D.O. D.O. is
Pol. act. trans.
uevog nom. stated eawov
Ttapafhdôum 6 4:1 no
masc.
sing.
aor.
mid.
no
7tapa|3iaod- ptc. Deut
act. trans. D.O.
uevoi nom. 1:43
stated
masc.
pi.
aor.
mid. 2Kgs D.O.
Ttapepidoavxo act. trans.
indie. 2:17 stated
3 pi.
aor.
no
7tapoaT£0|ica mid. Heb
7 7rapr|xfioavT0 act. no trans. D.O.
(SA) indie. 12:19
stated
3 pi.
aor.
mid. Heb D.O.
7iapaiTTioT|o8e act. trans.
subj. 12:25 stated
2 pi.
242
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
mid.
7tapauT|od- ptc. Heb D.O.
act. trans.
(J.EVOI nom. 12:25 stated
masc.
Pi.
aor.
7capavTT|oa- Diogn. D.O.
mid. act. trans.
a9ca 6:10 stated
inf.
pres.
mid./
pass. no
7tapaiTOiJ(is- 1 Sam
ptc. act. trans. D.O.
voq 20:6
nom. stated
masc.
sing.
D.O. is
aor.
a sub-
mid. 1 Sam D.O.
7iaprixT)oaTO act. trans. stan-
indie. 20:6 stated
tival
3 sing.
inf.
7tOCpCCKCC0e£o-
um 0 no
(LIb/r-S)
TiapaKeX-eiJCO 0 yes
aor.
mid.
2
7iapaA.oyioa- ptc. D.O.
Clem. act. trans.
\ievovq ace. stated
17:6
masc.
Pi.
aor.
mid. Gen D.O. follows
Ttapeôyioco act. trans.
indie. 29:25 stated 'ivoc
2 sing.
rcapaXoyiô- aor.
14 no
[ica mid. Gen D.O.
TiapeX-oyioco act. trans.
indie. 31:41 stated
2 sing.
aor.
7rapeX,oyioa- mid. Josh D.O.
act. trans.
cQe indie. 9:22 stated
2 pi.
aor.
mid. Judg D.O.
Ttapeloyioco act. trans.
indie. 16:10 stated
2 sing.
243
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVaofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
7iapau/u0£o- 7tapa|ru0r|- mid. John D.O.
1 act. no trans.
|IOU acovica subj. 11:19 stated
3 pi.
7iapa7topet)o-
0 no
um
Ttapeioepxo-
0 yes
uoa
7iapep%oucu 0 yes
7tapoi%ouca 0 no
aor.
no
£7rappr|aidaa- mid. Acts
act. trans. D.O.
xo indie. 9:27
stated
1 sing.
aor.
mid. atten-
7tappt|aiao6c- ptc. Acts D.O. dant
act. trans.
uevoi nom. 13:46 stated circum-
masc. stance
pi.
7Uxpprjcn.d£o- aor.
5 no no
7iappTiovdoco- mid. Eph
act. trans. D.O.
ucu subj. 6:20
stated
1 sing.
aor.
1
eirappriaiaad- mid. D.O.
Thess act. trans.
H80a indie, stated
2:2
lpl.
aor.
ercappriaidoa- mid. Ps D.O.
act. trans.
TO indie. 93:1 stated
3 sing.
rcepiepydô-
0 no
um
7tepiK£i|j.ai 0 no
itoveco 0 yes
aor. the
7tovr|pei)(yr|- mid. Gen general
rcovripeiioum 15 o0e act. no intr.
subj. 19:7 defi-
2 pi. nition
aor. given
w/ in
mid. Deut
7tovr|pei>or|Tai act. tran. dative
subj. 15:9 BDAG
3 sing. D.O.
indi-
244
Active Form
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
Function
Features
s
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
O Form ing
aor. cates a
mid. Deut stative
£7tovnp£i3oaxo act. intr.
indie. 19:19 active
3 sing. func-
aor. .. 4
novripeiJOTi- mid. Judg tion
act. intr.
o9e subj. 19:23
2 pi.
aor.
mid. lKgs
eno\rr\pevcsaxo act. intr.
subj. 16:25
3 sing.
aor.
no
npaj[iaxevaa- mid. Luke
act. trans. D.O.
impv. 19:13
stated
7tpaYnaT£t)0- 2 pi.
2 no
aor.
enpaYliotteij- mid. lKgs D.O.
act. trans.
aaxo indie. 9:22 stated
3 sing.
aor.
Tcpor|xiaa6t|xe- mid. Rom D.O.
rcpoouxuxoum 1 act. no trans.
6a indie, 3:9 stated
lpl.
7rpoepxo|iav 0 yes
aor.
mid.
2
7tpOTyyT|aa|i£- ptc.
nporiYEOnai 1 Mace pass. no
vcu gen.
4:40
masc.
sing.
defec-
rcpoiceuiou 0 no tive
dep.5
TrpojiapTupo-
0 no
(xai
4
BDAG,851.
5
BDAG,871.
245
Active Form
Transitivity
Comments
Available?
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
mid.
Mart.
7tpooPiaa&|i£- ptc. 6 D.O.
7tpoaPia£ouoa 1 Pol. mid. trans.
voq nom. yes stated
3:1
masc.
sing.
7tpoa5eon<xi
0 no
(LIb/r-s)
rcpoaSexoum
15 no
(LIb/rs)
rcpooepxoum 0 yes
aor.
w/
mid. Matt
rcpoaeuôu act. trans. dative
impv. 6:6
2 sing. D.O.
aor.
Matt
7tpoo£ijâo9ai mid. act. intr.
14:23
inf.
aor.
mid. Matt
npoaevt,r\xai act. intr.
npoaevôîai 92 subj. 19:13 no
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Matt
7ipooei3^conai act. intr.
subj. 26:36
lpl.
aor.
mid. Matt
TtpOaTfUâTO act. intr.
indie. 26:42
3 sing.
defec-
Ttpocnceuiou 0 no tive
dep.7
TipooTiopeiJo-
0 no
7ipoxeipi^co
(Ub/r-S)
2 no
6
Despite the fact that Pi&^co/piaôum and TtapaPi&ôuixi are deponent in the third principal
part,rcpooPiccôuouis not deponent in the third principal part because one active occurs and only two
middle forms are extant. Thus, the actives are almost as common as the middles for the third principal part.
7
BDAG,881.
246
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVeofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
7TUV8&VO|J,OU 7 yes
aor.
mid. Matt D.O.
pvcca act. trans.
impv. 6:13 stated
2 sing.
aor.
no
mid. Matt
pvaaaQm act. trans. D.O.
impv. 27:43
stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. 2 Cor D.O.
pcuo(iai eppuaaxo act. no trans.
indie. 1:10 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Col D.O.
eppuoaxo act. trans.
indie. 1:13 stated
3 sing.
aor.
mid. 2 Tim D.O.
epp-uaaxo act. trans.
indie. 3:11 stated
3 sing.
O£|36c£oum 0 no
anXayxviC,o-
0 no
ucu
aor.
1
GXpa,XEVGW[l£- mid.
Clem. act. intr.
6a subj.
37:1
lpl.
aor. the
4
mid. D.O. reci-
axpaxevaaaQe Mace act. trans.
impv. stated procal
9:24
axpaxevco 3 2 pi. yes mean-
ing is a
aor.
figura-
mid. tive
no
oxpaxeuoaue- ptc. Isa exten-
act. tran. D.O.
vov nom. 29:7 sion of
stated
masc. mean-
pi. ing 1
cuYKaTa\)/T|(|)i-
0 no
£o|ica
auyKoi[ido|j.ai
0 no
(LIb/r-s)
auyxpaouou 0 no
247
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form o Text
Form ing
2
aor. it
mid. seems
av[mapayev6- ptc. Luke that
act. intr.
uevoi nom. 23:48 some-
masc. times
Pi. the
verb is
LIb/r-s
ou^Tiapayivo-
2 no
um mid,
aor. but that
cruuTtapeyeve- mid. Ps is not
act. intr.
xo indie. 82:9 the case
3 sing. w/the
second
mean-
ing
ODIITtOpElJOHai 0 no
aor.
owaycovtô- awayoovioa- Rom D.O.
mid. act. no trans.
(iai O0CU 15:30 stated
1 inf.
cuvaXi^co/
cvvaXi^m/
0 no
cruvocuMôuai
(LIb/r-S)
cruvavaKEuicu 0 no
ovvEiaepxo-
0 yes
um
aw87iepxo|a.ai 0 yes
cruv£7ro|iou 0 no
cvvevaxeo-
0 no
ucu (LIb/r-s)
awfi8op.ai 0 no
auvxpexco 0 yes
CTUVU7tOKpivO-
0 no
um (LIb/rs)
-imepayaM.0-
0 no
um
D.O. is
aor.
Pol. inf. of
mid. D.O.
imioxveoum 1 •U7ieoxeto Phil act. no trans. indirect
indie. stated
5:2 dis-
3 sing.
course
imoSexouca
10 no
(LIb/r-s)
\OT6K£1|ICU 0 no
248
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
w/
mid. Rom
ecfieioaxo act. trans. gen.
indie. 8:32
D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
w/
mid. Rom
eêiaaxo act. trans. gen.
indie. 11:21
D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
w/
mid. 2 Pet
<)>£i8oucu 56 efyeiaazo act. no trans. gen.
indie. 2:4
D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
w/
mid. 2 Pet
efyeiaaxo act. trans. gen.
indie. 2:5
D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
Ign. w/
mid.
())eicjTio0e Rom. act. trans. gen.
subj.
1:2 D.O.
3 pi.
aor.
mid.
no
ptc. 2 Pet
00eY^cciievov act. trans. D.O.
nom. 2:16
stated
neut.
sing.
Frag-
com-
aor. ments w/
ple-
<|)0eYâo0av mid. of act. trans. gen.
men-
infin. Papias D.O.
tary inf.
22:1
((>0eyyo|iai 8 aor. no
mid. Judg D.O.
<^Qeyi,aaQe act. trans.
impv. 5:11 stated
2 pi.
aor.
Ps
mid. D.O.
(|)0eYâixo 118:17 act. trans.
opt. stated
2
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Sir D.O.
e<t)0eyâTO act. trans.
indie. 13:22 stated
3 sing.
(|)ita)xui£ouou 0 no
D.O. is
aor.
a sub-
mid. Luke D.O.
XapiCoaai 19 e%apioaxo act. no trans. stan-
indie. 7:21 stated
tival
3 sing.
inf.
249
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
JVsofHits
Function
Features
Lexical
Inflected Pars-
Lexical Form Text
Form ing
aor.
mid. Luke w/ dat.
£%apioaxo act. trans.
indie. 7:42 D.O.
3 sing.
aor.
mid. Luke w/ dat.
exapioato act. trans.
indie. 7:43 D.O.
3 sing.
com-
aor.
Acts D.O. ple-
Xocpioao9av mid. act. trans.
25:11 stated men-
infin.
tary inf.
aor. no
2 Cor
%apiaaa6cu mid. act. trans. D.O.
2:6
infin. stated
atten-
dant
aor. circum-
mid. stance;
ptc. Acts w/ dat. "'use',
Xpriodnevoq act. trans. a com-
nom. 27:3 D.O.
masc. mon
sing. multi-
valent
term"8
aor.
no
mid. ICor
XPâou act. trans. D.O.
impv. 7:21
Xpaoum 10 no stated
2 sing.
aor.
mid. ICor w/ dat.
EXpnoaueGa act. trans.
indie, 9:12 D.O.
lpl.
aor. w/dat.
mid. 2 Cor of
EXptioaunv act. intr.
indie. 1:17 man-
1 sing. ner
aor.
no
mid. 2 Cor
Xpriocouai act. trans. D.O.
subj. 13:10
stated
1 sing.
aor.
XprioxE'UCTcbue- mid. w/ dat.
XptiaxEiJoiicti 1 Clem. act. no trans.
9a subj. D.O.
14:3
lpl.
!
BDAG, 1087.
250
Active Form
Transitivity
Available?
Comments
en
Function
Features
Lexical
Lexical Form
B Inflected Pars-
Text
o Form ing
aor.
mid. Acts w/ dat.
cbveoum 1 cbvriaaxo act. no trans.
indie. 7:16 D.O.
3 sing.
<bp\)0|j.ai 0 no
Appendix C
BDAG'S "ONLY MIDDLE" AND "ONLY PASSIVE" VERBS
Table 45: BDAG's "Only Middle" and "Only Passive" Verbs
aipsco £TtiXa|j.pdvo|j,ai 7t8pipê7ico

aia%t)v(o eTtiaK8\)d^0(xai TiepiTtoieco
dve%co e7iia7id(o rcepumdco
dvx£%oo epriuoco rciaxoco
6tvxiA,a|j,p&vco euoSooo KOpSTJCO
dvxixdoaco £n|j.i6co Kpoe7tayyeA,A,co
otTcaipco fixxdop,ai Ttpotrmi
aTtoTicucfl Gajj-Peco upoaavaxi9ri(a.i
d7toauTi%co 0opi)Pd£co TtpoaKaêco
duoxdaaco iSptico rcpoaKîvco
dftCOGECO Kaxa%pdo|a.ai TipoaKoXXda)
d%p£ioco Koip.dco npoanoieco
pouXevco Kpaxcaoco npoxpe7ico
Sie'keyxca Kco<j)6a) rcpo%£ipi£co
8taaxE?iA,co Ampoco nupoco
8iaxi0r||ja uxxpodvco aaA,£i3co
8m%£ipi£co H-EGIJOKCO armeioco
eiaicaXeoum |a.exapdM,co aKoxi^co
eio7topeiJO(iai pi8xaypd(|)(o CTKOXOO)
8K8i8cojxi [lexaycakea) cmdco
ev5eiKvt)|j.i (xexa|j.op(|)6co a7iev8co
£V58(0 uExarceuTtco oxeXka
EKGoqipeco fiexeoopiôum auyKaxa\|/Ti(l)iô|a.ai
eK^TJCO uxcGoco a\)(j.7i^rip6a)
8KXp87TC0 (xoi%dco cruvavaGxpe<|)CO
8|^7l?l8KC0 ^copaivco cruvotTtdyco
evevXoyeoi ve|a.co (ruvapuo^G)
evoco voa(|)i£co cruv£7uxi0r||a.i
evxeXXoi 68wdco awoiKo8o|j,8(o
eâixeco ovivrpi (Tuaxocupoco
8â7iopeco 6pyi£co a(()dX,?ico
erceyeipco opeyro xu(()6(o
87teKxeivo|j.ou 7lOC%X)V(0 1J7l8peKXlJV(0 ("UTtEpeKX-UVVCO)
e7iev8iJO)j.ai 7teipdco \)7io8eco
251
252
<|)odvcD %epaoco yei)5op,oa

<t>oPeoo %eco
Appendix D
NEW TESTAMENT VERBS
The table represents potential deponency in the first four principal parts. In
other words, this list indicates whether verbs have an absent active form and whether
lexical intrusion has occurred, which was determined by surveying the definition(s) for
the term in BDAG. The left column includes the lexical forms of verbs as found in
BDAG from the body of the entire Greek New Testament (i.e., the apparatus was not
consulted). This list of verbs was compiled by searching for all verbs used in the body of
NA27 using Accordance.1 Accordance's lexical forms were not always those used by
BDAG. So, the list of verbs was modified by working through BDAG to compare the
lexical forms generated by Accordance to the lexical forms of BDAG. When differences
were encountered, BDAG's form was used. BDAG listed alternate lexical forms in
different ways: sometimes with a solidus ("/"), sometimes with an equals ("="),
sometimes with "or," sometimes with "and," and sometimes within parentheses. Some
were labeled "by-forms," but most were not. The alternate lexical forms in this list have
been separated with a solidus, regardless of how BDAG separated the alternate forms.
After working with a list that included all verbs occurring in the NT, those verbs that
were not investigated for deponency were removed from the list. The result is a list of
'Accordance, ver. 8.2.3, programmed by Roy Brown (Altamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree
Software, May 2009), GNT-T 3.7.
253
verbs that have been tested for deponency by determining active forms by principal part
(or the lack thereof) and lexical intrusion.
Inasmuch as deponency is a syntactical category that also must exhibit
incongruity between form and function (i.e., a middle and/or passive form with an active
function), these verbs in this list are deponent for their respective principal parts if a
mismatch is present. If a mismatch is not present, the verb is not deponent in that
particular principal part, even when active forms are not present and lexical intrusion has
not occurred. Thus, © indicates deponency if the verb has a middle and/or passive form
with an active function, lacks an active form for a particular principal part, and lacks a
beneficiary/recipient-subject (LIb/rs) or lacks passive function. %ocpi£oum in the third
principal part illustrates deponency represented by this table when a rare active form
exists in the third principal part. This verb was labeled deponent in the third principal part
because the only five occurrences of the active in TLG could be explained historically,
the verb is not lexically influenced, and incongruity between form and function exists.
Nevertheless, it is not deponent in the sixth principal part because it retains a passive
function. In the three aorist passive uses of this verb in the NT (Acts 3:14,1 Cor 2:12,
and Phil 1:29), each functions passively.
The method used was to search primarily simple verbs (i.e., those without a
preposition prefix) in TLG in the Koine period.2 However, compound verbs were
2
TLG, which includes extant literary texts from Homer to the fall of Byzantium (eighth
century B.C. to A.D. 1453), was searched online because the CD ROM format has been unsupported since
2004. The steps employed are listed.
1. Enter TLG's website (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/), which is accessed by subscription only. I entered
by using Unicode input and diplay.
2. An author search is conducted ("Search the Canon by Author"). This should be the default type of
search. If one signs in to his account, TLG will provide hypertext links to parsings and meanings
of words.
3. Under date, select the range of 3 B .c. to A .D. 3.
255
occasionally searched also. Some verbs whose lexical forms had an -co ending in the
simple form but an -ouou ending in the compound form were explored to determine
deponency in the compound form although they were not researched in the simple form
(e.g., ouvwoKpivo|j.ai/&7toKpivouxxi vs. Kpivco). Compound verbs were also searched if a
simple form did not exist in the NT (e.g., 7tapapA)0eouai). Furthermore, the method
included searching the first four principal parts for extant active forms. For the first
(present and imperfect), third (aorist), and fourth (perfect and pluperfect) principal parts
the infinitive was searched, and the indicative was searched for the second principal part
(future). The limits were employed in order to reduce the number of ambiguous forms.
When only a few actives were found with these limitations in place, then usually the
search was re-conducted without the controls, in which case it was indicated in a
footnote. If a verb was found to have active forms for the first four principal parts, then it
was not usually investigated for lexical intrusion.
The presentation of the data in each cell is in the following order: (1) an
indication of deponency, (2) the result from the search for active forms, and (3) the nature
of the lexeme. If one of these three is absent, then no data is available or a negative result
can be assumed. Thus, if a © is not found for a principal part, then it was deemed not to
4. Click "search." Seven hundred forty-eight authors are found.

5. Click "Search all."
6. In the "Search for:" box, type the lexical form of a verb.
7. (Deselect "switch to beta code input" and) click "Lemma Search."
8. The lexical form is assigned by TLG on this results page. (TLG does not explicitly state that the
lexical form is given here, but if variations occur, they will be listed. For example, if aiccapeouoa,
which is the lexical form found in BDAG, is searched [step 6 above], the results returned are for
&Koupeco, which suggests that TLG considers &Koupeco to be the lexical form.) Scroll to the bottom
of the page (if necessary) and click "Grammatical Categories."
9. From this page, limitations to the verb's morphological valence can be made. For our purpose, it is
important to determine whether active forms for each of the first four principal parts exist.
Therefore, selections are made and searched based on these criteria. For example, for the first
principal part, the infinitive form was searched. So, checks are placed next to present, imperfect,
active, and infinitive. After selecting specific morphological criteria, click "Selected Forms."
be deponent for that principal part. The symbol '0' was used to indicate that active forms
were found. If 0 is not found, then no actives were found for the corresponding principal
part. If a relatively low number of active occurrences were found, the number was
indicated in parentheses. Allan's categories for the middle were used to indicate the
nature of the lexeme.3 When the meaning of the verb did not fit into one of these
categories, then "other" was placed in this slot. If there were multiple nuances, then they
were each noted. LIb/rs is the category most pertinent; if it is present, then the verb is
disqualified from being deponent. If "N/A" is placed in a cell, it means a particular
principal part does not occur in TLG for the Koine period.
Table 46: Legend for New Testament Verbs

an active form exists for a
0
particular principal part of a verb
BM body motion
® deponent
E&C emotion and cognition
fig. figuratively, figurative of
LI lexical intrusion
Ub/r-s
lexical intrusion with a
beneficiary/recipient-subject
Not Applicable (i.e., the principal
N/A
part does not occur in TLG
P perception
R reciprocal
SA speech act
VMA volitional mental activities
3
See the discussion beginning on p. 129.
257
Table 47: New Testament Verbs

Fourth &
First Second Third Fifth
Lexical Form Principal Principal Principal Principal
inBDAG Part Part Part Parts
0, 5 E&C, ®, 6 E&C, 0(6), 7 E&C,
dyaXXiocco4 N/A
stative stative stative
ocYyeX^co 0,SA 0 (6),8 SA 0(14),SA 0 (2),9 SA
ayco 0,BM, other 0,BM, other 0,BM, other 0,10BM, other
dycoviôixav ®,R 0,R ©,0(3),nR ®,R
12
odpeco 0 0 0 0(7)
oupco 0 0 0 013
4
ayaKkwa) is apparently a new word in the Koine period. (See BDAG, 4.) It does not occur
before the third century B.C.
5
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 107 middle/passive forms of
the first principal part were found.
6
All actives of the second principal part were searched. The future active indicative of
dyccM-raco (dya^tdoev), the only future active form in the Koine period, is an ambiguous form; it could
also be dative feminine singular of dyaMaocoK;. Of the fifty-six occurrences found in TLG, eight were from
the LXX; therefore, the lexeme of these could be checked easily using Accordance because it has a tagged
text. The eight occurrences in the LXX were nouns. Of the remaining, only one does not follow the
preposition ev, and it seems to be a noun too (see Acta Joannis, section 82, line 1). In contrast, ninety-eight
middle forms of the second principal part were found. ayccM-iacei was also suggested by TLG as a middle
form for ajaXkmm; it was omitted from the search for middle forms because it is a noun.
7
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. TLG found seven actives, but one was a
future middle indicative verb from Jer 30:20 LXX. In contrast, fifty-five middles of the third principal part
were found, and eight forms of the sixth principal part were found. dyaXXictco is syncretistic in the third and
sixth principal parts because it has active functions in the aorist middle and passive, but it has active forms
in the Koine period. See Appendix A and Appendix B.
8
All actives of the second principal part were searched.
9
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. There are only twenty occurrences of
this principal part in any voice in the Koine period; thus, the two actives represent ten percent of the uses.
10
AU actives of the fourth principal part were searched.
"All actives of the third principal part were searched; one of the three occurrences was from
an uncertain text. In contrast, 546 middle forms of the third principal part were found, and five forms of the
sixth principal part were found. In the fourth through the thirteenth centuries A.D., only three uses of the
infinitive of the third principal part are found. Its rare active seems to suggest deponency in the third
principal part.
12
odpeco has two roots: *cape and *peX.
258
Fourth &
in BDAG Part Part Part Parts
ai.a0avou.oa ©,P ©,P ®,0(1) 1 4 ,P ®,P
0(15),
0 (6), E&C, 0(5), E&C, 0(3), E&C,16
ala/wco E&C,15
stative active stative active stative active
stative active
aixeco 0,SA 0,SA 0,SA 0(17), 17 SA
' ' IS
0(1), insufficient
insufficient N/A N/A
aKaipeoum sample
sample
aAi^co 0 (9),19 other 0, other 0 (ll), 20 other other21
avaxacaoum 22 0,23E&C? N/A E&C?24 0,E&C?
13
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched.
14
The lone active is from an uncertain text.
15
The infinitive of the third principal part (caa%vvai) has an ambiguous form with the noun,
oaoxwn.
16
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Although there were only three
occurrences of the active in this principal part, it is not considered deponent because there were only seven
occurrences of this lexeme in this principal part in any voice.
17
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched.
li
TLG suggests araipeco as the lexical form. This word is found only four times in the Koine
period in all of TLG.
I9
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, nine middle/passive forms
were found in the first principal part.
20
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, zero middle forms were
found in the third principal part, and eleven forms of the sixth principal part were found.
21
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, five forms were found in
the fifth principal part.
22
TLG suggests dvaxdooco as the lexical form. This word is found only twelve times in the
Koine period in all of TLG.
23
The indicatives and infinitives of the first principal part were searched.
259
Fourth &
6cv5pi£o|j,oa25 LI 26 LI LI LI
dve%co 0,LIb/r"s 0 (3),27 LIb/r"s 0,LIb/r-s 0 (4),28 LIb/r-s
dv0op,oA,oy8O(j,ai29 ©,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
6cvTaYcovi£o|a.ca ®,R ®,R ®,R ®,R
&VT0OTOKpivO|J.Ca30 ©,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
®,v(l), 3 3 R,
6c7i8K8-6ofxai31 © R, other ®, 32 R, other ® R, other
other
24
All actives of the third principal part were searched. Although no actives occur in TLG in the
Koine period, it is better to not view the third principal part as deponent in light of the infrequency of the
tense stem. The third principal part is only found seven times in TLG.
25
TLG suggests dv8pi£c» as the lexical form.
26
There is one active form found in the first principal part (not an infinitive), but it is an
ambiguous form (dvSpi^ri); it could also be a middle/passive form.
27
One form (dveêi) was ambiguous. It could be parsed as future, active, indicative, 3rd,
singular or future, middle, indicative, 2nd, singular. In the context of Hag 1:10 LXX, it can only be active.
28
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Although only four actives occurred in
this principal part, it is not considered deponent because only five occurrences were found in any voice and
its meaning is lexically influenced.
29
TLG suggests dv0onoX,oyeco as the lexical form.
30
TLG suggests dvTanoKpivco as the lexical form. This word only occurs twenty-four times in
TLG.
M
TLG suggests d7t£K5v>co as the lexical form. This word only occurs thirty times in TLG. BDF
suggests that the middle is used for the active. There is a shift in the meaning of the word over time. In the
attic, it was used to convey a beneficiary/recipient-subject (and is thus not deponent due to lexical
intrusion). However, in the Koine period (Col 2:15), it is deponent as the middle is used for the active
(BDF, 165 [§316.1]).
32
The future active indicative has ambiguous forms with dnsicS-ovo) and dTreKSucHq; neither is
an active form of dTteKSijoum. It seems that all five occurrences are from the nominal form.
33
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The lone active in the third principal
part is a participle. Although there is one active form, this principal part was classified as deponent because
the one author may not have known the convention for this rare word. See n 31 on p. 259. In contrast,
twenty-two middle forms of the third principal part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part
were found.
260
Fourth &
OOTOOVJIGKCO 0,LIb/r"s T jb/r-s34
0,LIb/r"s 0(13), LIb/r-s
aTtOKpivon-oci35 0,SA 0 (8),36 SA 0 (95),37 SA ®, 38 SA
6t7ioA,oyeop.ai L I Wr-s
0(l),LI b/r - s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s
cmopeco 39 0,E&C 0,E&C 0,E&C 0,E&C

L jb/r-s Ub/r-s L I b/r-s L jb/r-s
&7to(|)opTi£o|j.oa40
6C71(JL)0SCO 0(20) 0 0(10) ®41

6cp|j.6£a> 0 0 o42 ©,0(6) 4 3
34
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, 407 middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
i5
TLG suggests COTOKpivco as the lexical form.
36
All actives of the second principal part were searched. Only two authors used the active of
the second principal part in the Koine period. Although actives only rarely occur, middle-only forms of
&7ioKpivoura are not deponent. In the NT, the middle (any tense) of &7toKpivoum occurs fifteen times.
Each time, the subject's interest can be seen in the verb's action.
37
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 1,419 middle forms were
found in the third principal part, and 982 forms of the sixth principal part were found. Thus, the ninety-five
actives can be interpreted as rare actives when observed in comparison to middle and passive forms.
38
39
&7topeco has ambiguous form with 6«|)opda) and oatoppeco.
W
TLG suggests aTtoôpti^ci) as the lexical form. Although no active forms were found in the
initial TLG search, the verb has a beneficiary/recipient-subject. It means to unload cargo in a storm
(BDAG, 125), which is an active idea, but the alternative is to have the ship sink. Thus, the action clearly
has the subject's well-being in mind.
41
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, thirty-nine forms of the
fifth principal part were found.
42
BDF suggests that the middle is used for the active in 2 Cor 11:2 (BDF §316.1; BDAG, 132
[s.v. apuo^co 2]). However, this is doubtful because active forms are extant. There are five actives of the
third principal part in the AF and LXX: Herm. Vis. 15:5; Herm. Sim. 84:2, 85:4,86:3, and Ps 151:2.
43
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, 349 forms were found in
the fifth principal part. One occurrence is found prior to the third century B.C., and six occurrences are
found in the fourth through the thirteenth centuries. Although six actives were found in the Koine period,
only two authors used the active, which suggests that it is deponent in this principal part.
261
Fourth &
0 (22),
&pvso(am ©, VMA/SA ® , VMA/SA © , VMA/SA
VMA/SA
dpxco 0 0 0 o44
®,0(4), 4 6 ©,v(2)47 ©,v(2)48
aarcaôpm45 N/A
SA SA SA
avXiC,0[iai49 ®, 0 (2)50 0 (l) 51 ®52 ®53
44
45
The lexeme is in transition in the Koine period. There is one possible active before the third
century B.C., depending upon the date of the source. Testamenta XII Patriarcharum is dated either in the
second century B.C. or in the third century A.D. by TLG. Forty-two actives are found between the fourth and
thirteenth centuries A.D. In light of the fact that the greatest number of occurrences in a principal part is
four and the historical transitioning of the word, it seems that in the Koine period it is better to view this
lexeme as deponent.
46
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 650 middle/passives were
found in the first principal part.
47
All actives of the second principal part were searched. The form is ambiguous: it could be
future active indicative or aorist active subjunctive. Thus, the two actives for the second and third principal
parts are actually references to the same two occurrences. In contrast, forty-five middles of the second
principal part were found.
48
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The form is ambiguous: it could be
future active indicative or aorist active subjunctive. Thus, the two actives for the second and third principal
parts are actually references to the same two occurrences. In contrast, 441 middles of the third principal
part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
49
The lexeme is in transition. There are no actives found before it is found in Jer 38:9 LXX,
but there are thirty-six actives found between the fourth and thirteenth centuries A.D. Thus, is seems
appropriate to view this verb as deponent in the Koine period because there are only three actives in the
entire period and the term is in a transitional stage.
50
All actives of the first principal part were searched. Only one infinitive and one participle
are found. In contrast, 115 middle/passive forms are found in the first principal part.
51
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, zero middles of the
second principal part were found.
52
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, twenty-nine middles of the
third principal part were found, and ninety-two forms of the sixth principal part were found.
'All actives of the fourth principal part were searched.

262
Fourth &
®,0(22), 5 4
&<j)iKveo|j.ai ©,fig.BM ©,fig.BM ®,fig.BM
fig. BM
d(()iaxri(xi 0 0 0 0
0 (2),55 0 (13),56
© , causative ®, causative
a%pei6oo causative causative
active active
active active
Podvco57 0 0 (18)58 0(23) 0
fiaXkco 0 0 0 0
®,0(2), 6 0 ®,0(3), 6 1
(38eXijaao(j,ai59 ®,E&C ®,E&C 62
E&C E&C
54
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched for cttfuKveoum. Three forms were found
twenty-two times; one of the forms is ambiguous and could be an aorist middle subjunctive 2nd singular. In
contrast, 2,732 middle forms of the third principal part were found, and one form of the sixth principal part
was found. This verb is deponent in this principal part in light of the rare actives (which include an
ambiguous form).
55
All actives of the second principal part were searched. There is a very slight increase in the
usage of the active diachronically. Prior to the third century B.C., the active is not found. In the Koine
period, it is found in the active twice, and from the fourth through the thirteenth centuries, it is found in the
active four times. Nevertheless, the second principal part of this verb is not deponent because its two active
forms are the only two uses of the term in the second principal part in any voice.
56
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, one middle form of the third
principal part was found, and twenty forms of the sixth principal part were found.
"Although Pocivco is not found in the simple form in the NT, it has been included in the
investigation because it has many compound forms that are used in the NT.
58
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, forty-four middle forms
of the second principal part were found.
59
The lexeme is in transition. There are no actives found before it is found in Lev 20:25 LXX,
but there are twenty-three actives found between the fourth and thirteenth centuries A.D. Thus, it seems
appropriate to view this verb as deponent in the Koine period because there are only two actives in the
entire period and the term is in a transitional stage.
60
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, ten middle forms of the
61
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, twenty-eight middles of the
third principal part were found, and twelve forms of the sixth principal part were found.
263
Fourth &
®,0(31), 64 ®,0(14), 66
©,0(1), 6 5 R, ®, 67 R,
(3id^co/(3idcôp,ai63 R; R;
VMA/E&C VMA/E&C
VMA/E&C VMA/E&C
pXercco 0,P 0 (22), P 0(18),P 0 (2),68 P
POUAEIJCO 0,E&C 0(21), 69 E&C 0,E&C v(4), 70 E&C
AH actives of the fourth principal part were searched. BDAG suggests that the perfect
passive participle of pSeWoao|iai is equivalent to the adjective PSSA/UKTOI; (detestable) (BDAG, 172 [s.v.
pSeXucooum]). This understanding suggests that the participial form in the fifth principal part is stative
active.
63
Jannaris states that Pid^co was deponent in the classical antiquity (500-300 B.C.) and not
deponent in the periods that follow (300 B.C.-present) (Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek
Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present
Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek [London:
Macmillan, 1897], 284 [§1000]). The lexeme does seem to be in transition in the Koine period but the low
percentage of actives compared to the middle and/or passive forms suggests that it is still deponent in the
Koine period. Whereas there are sixteen actives prior to the Koine period (as opposed to 499 middle and/or
passive forms) and forty-six actives in the Koine period (as opposed to 2,027 middle and/or passive forms),
there are 252 actives in the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D. (as opposed to 4,247 middle and/or
passive forms).
"All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 1,139 middle/passive forms
of the first principal part were found. Before the third century B.C., fourteen actives of the first principal
part were found, and 305 middle/passive forms were found. In the fourth through the thirteenth centuries
A.D., 205 actives were found, and 2,557 middle/passive forms were found. Thus, the lowest percentage of
actives is found in the Koine period (2.7% in the Koine versus 4.6% before Koine and 8% after Koine),
which suggests deponency in the first principal part in the Koine period.
65
66
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contast, 507 middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and 277 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
67
68
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only three occurrences in a voice of
pXi:7ta) in this principal part are found in all of TLG.
69
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. The history of the lexeme does not
produce any clarification on the issue of deponency. It is used seven times prior to the third century B.C.
and ten times from the fourth through the thirteenth centuries A.D. In light of the fact that four actives are
found and there is no clear trajectory in the history of the term, POUXETJCO is not deponent in the fourth
principal part.
264
Fourth &
PouXoum 0 (10),71 LIb/rs 0 (3),72 LIb/r"s 0 (3),73 LIb/r"s 0 (2),74 LIb/r"s
Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s L jb/r-s
ye-uoum
© , stative ®,v(l), 7 5 ®,v(l), 7 6 0, stative
yivoum
active stative active stative active active
©,v(l), 7 7
yivcoaKco 0 0 0
E&C
ypd(|)co 0 0 0 0
Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s
8ou(iovi£o|i.oa
O.SA, O.SA, 0,SA, 0,79SA,
78
8eiKvt)|j.i/5eiKv-6a) causative causative causative causative
active active active active
8eoum80 0,SA 0,SA 0(14),SA 81 ©, 82 SA
70
71
All actives of the first principal part were searched.
72
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. The only form, (JauWiao), is an
ambiguous form. It could be either a future active or aorist active. In contrast, 196 middle forms of the
73
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The only form, PoiAfiaco, is an
ambiguous form. It could be either a future active or aorist active. In contrast, zero middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and 1,332 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
74
75
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, 2,118 middles of the
76
In contrast to the one active infinitival form found, 9,407 middle infinitives of the third
principal part were found, and twenty-five infinitives of the sixth principal part were found.
77
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, 881 middles of the second
principal part were found, and 529 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
8
8£iKvuni was searched in TLG.

265
Fourth &
8e%°Mm 0(l),LI b/r - s 0(2),83LIb/r-s T Tb/r-s84 Ub/r-s
Sew 0 0 0 0 (ll) 8 5
©,0(5),86
8iap£[3ai6o|j.ai 0 (l), 87 SA ®,SA ®,SA
SA
8iocKaTeA.eyxoiJ.oa88 ®,R/SA N/A N/A N/A
8iaêyo|xai89 ®, 90 SA 0 (34), SA 0 (4), SA ®,SA
8uxA,A,6caaop,ou91 o,R 0(12),R o,R 0(4), 92 R
8icai;oveonca93 0,E&C 0(2), E&C 0 (4), E&C 0(1), E&C
80
LSJ lists Ssoum under 8eco (LSJ, 383), which has two separate roots. The root meaning
"lack" or "pray" was searched.
81
The sixth principal part of Seouoci functions actively but is not deponent because active
forms are found in the (second and) third principal part(s).
82
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, eighteen forms of the fifth
83
The future active indicative is an ambiguous form: 8eêi.
84
The aorist SEÔCI is an ambiguous form, most likely either the aorist middle imperative of
8exoum or a form of SEIKVOUI. Neither is evidence of an aorist active infinitive of 8exoum.
85
86
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 131 middle/passives of the
first principal part were found.
87
second principal part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
88
8uxKaTeA,£YXOUoa. is a hapax legomenon in TLG; it is only found in Acts 18:28.
i9
TLG suggests SiaXeym as the lexical form.
90
Twenty-four actives of the first principal part were found, but it seems that TLG suggested
forms from another lexical form (e.g., Sieipco), not 8uxêyouai (nor 8iaXeyco). The result is that there are
zero actives of the first principal part in TLG.
91
TLG suggests diakXaaaa as the lexical form.
92
266
Fourth &
5ia%eipi£w 0 (22)94 0 (5)95 0 (9)96 97
8i8(0|j,i 0 0 0 0
8iiKV£0(a.ai @, other @, other 0 (3),98 other © , other
©,0(2), 100 o (D, 101
5iia%t)piô(iai99 ® , E&C/SA ©, E&C/SA
E&C/SA E&C/SA
5paaao|j,oa ©, other ®,ni),102 @, other © , other

other
@,0(1), 103 ©, stative © , stative ®,v(2), 104
8t)va|iai
stative active active active stative active
93
TLG suggests Siarcovecfl as the lexical form.
94
95
96
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched.
97
8iocx£ipiCco only occurs one time in the fourth principal part (middle/passive).
98
All actives of the third principal part were searched. Two of the three uses are from the same
author, in the same work. By comparison, four middle forms of the third principal part were found, and
zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
"TLG suggests 5ua%i)pi£co as the lexical form.

100
All actives of the first principal part were searched. Both uses are from the same author, in
the same work. In contrast, fifty-two middle/passive forms of the first principal part were found.
101
The lone active is the only occurrence in the second principal part.
102
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, nine middle forms of the
103
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, 2,961 middle/passive infinitival forms were
found.
104
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Both occurrences are in the same
author, same work. In contrast, 150 middle/passive forms of the fifth principal part were found.
267
Fourth &
®,0(1), 108 ®,0(1), 109
8copeo|j.at105 ®,106 other ©,107 other
other other
eyeipco 0 0 0 0
eyKO(j.poo|j,ai LI LI LI LI
eYKpaxet)0|j.ai110 LI LI LI LI
0, stative ©,v(3), I U
ei|j.i N/A N/A
active stative active
eioKa^80(a.ai112 0(16), 113 SA v(ll), 1 1 4 SA 0 (17),115 SA v(l), 116 SA
eictaxv6&vo|j,oa117 ©,E&C ©,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C
m
TLG suggests Scopsco as the lexical form.
106
The four infinitives returned in the search of the first principal are from Scopiôo, not
Scopeoum.
107
When the indicative of the second principal part is searched, 284 results are retrieved, but
all 284 occurrences were nominal (the proper name Acopteiq). All were capitalized.
108
All actives of the third principal part were searched. TLG suggested two forms, but one was
omitted from the search because it was from Scopi^co. In contrast, 302 middle forms of the third principal
part were found, and thirty-four forms of the sixth principal part were found.
109
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, eighty-two forms of the
m
TLG suggests eyKpaxe-uco as the lexical form.
'"All actives of the second principal part were searched; all occurrences were from the same
author and work. In contrast, 19,832 middles of the second principal part were found, and eiui does not
exist in the sixth principal part.
1n
TLG suggests Eiam^co as the lexical form.
"3A11 actives of the first principal part were searched.

114
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched.
1,5
All actives of the third principal part were searched.
"6A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only one other occurrence of this
lexeme in the fourth principal part is extant.
1
TLG suggests £KX.av9&vco as the lexical form.
268
Fourth &
EKêyoum118 0 0 0 0 (5)m
0(17),E&C, v,E&C, 0,E&C, 0(8), 1 2 0 E&C,
£-KTtXr\GG(0/eKTlXr\XX(0
stative active stative active stative active stative active
0(12), 0 (5),121
8K%eco/eKXijva)/ 0, causative 0, causative
causative causative
£K%WVCO active, LIb/rs active, LIb/rs
active, LIb/rs active, LI b/rs
0122
eA£Y%co 0 0 0
®,E&C,SA, ®,E&C,SA, ®,E&C,SA, ®,E&C,SA,
£|aPpiu.aoum
evayKa?uôu.ca ©, other @, other © , other ® , other
evdpxo|o.ai123 © , other 0(1),124 other © , other ©, other
© , stative © , stative © , stative ©, stative
evSo^&ôum125
evGuuEOum ©,E&C ®,E&C 0 (l),126 E&C ®,E&C
ns
TLG suggests eKêyco as the lexical form.
119
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only thirty-four occurrences of the
fourth principal part are found in all voices combined.
120
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, 155 forms of the fifth
I21
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Active forms are rare in the diachrony
of the lexeme in this principal part. Prior to the third century B.C., the active is found only twice (in the
same work by the same author). In the fourth through the thirteenth centuries A.D., the active is found only
three times. Thus, the highest number of actives is found in the Koine period, although even then active
forms are rare.
122
l23
TLG suggests the lexical form could be evccpxco. TLG did not return any results for
evdpxo|iai; thus, the results above are for evdp%co.
124
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, two middles of the
second principal part were searched, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
n5
TLG suggests ev5o^d^co as the lexical form.
126
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, two middles of the third
principal part were found, and 316 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
269
Fourth &
®,v(4), 129
evxeXko) ®, 127 SA ®, 128 SA ®, 130 SA
SA
£.vvnvmC,o[iai131 © , other ® , other ® , other ® , other
8vooxiô(a.ai132 ®,P/VMA ®,P/VMA ®,P/VMA ®,P/VMA
e.%6Xko[iai ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM
EôaropecD 0 (2),133 E&C ®, 134 E&C 0 (4),135 E&C ®, 136 E&C
e7iayye?iô|j,ai o137 0 (2)138 o139 0 (5)140
127
128
129
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 640 middles of the third
principal part were found, and four forms of the sixth principal part were found. A couple of factors
contribute to the conclusion of evxeXkm being deponent in this principal part. First, of all four principal
parts, there are only four actives. This evidence strongly supports the notion of deponency, even in this
principal part with rare actives. Second, these four actives occur in only three authors. Finally, prior to the
third century B.C., only one active is found. From the fourth through the thirteenth centuries, the active is
found fifteen times. The trend seems to be toward a greater use of the active in the third principal part in the
diachrony of the word, but in the Koine period, the active is still extremely rare. Therefore, the term in this
principal part should be considered deponent.
130
m
TLG suggests evurcvia^co as the lexical form.
{32
TLG suggests evcoxi^co as the lexical form.
133
All actives of the first principal part were search. Both occurrences were in the same author.
In contrast, two middle/passive forms of the first principal part were found.
134
135
A11 actives of the third principal part were search. All four occurrences were in the same
author. In contrast, zero middle forms of the third principal part were found, and eight forms of the sixth
136
137
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched.
138
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, one middle form of the
second principal part was found.
270
Fourth &
£7toaa%vvo|j.oa141 © , stative © , stative o (D, 1 4 2 © , stative

active active stative active active
ercaKpoaoiaxu ®,P/VMA ©,P/VMA ©,P/VMA ®,P/VMA
£7iava7iaiJO|j.ai143 © , other ®,144 other 0 (5),145 other ® , other
0 (23),147
£7i£Kxeivo(j.ai146 0 (6), other ® , other ® , other
other
en£vdvo\iaiws L jb/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s
£7u8iotT&aao|a.ou © , other © , other © , other ®, other

0 (13),150
£Kika\i$avo[iai149 0)U b/r-s L jb/r-s
0(23),LIb/r"s L jb/r-s
139
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 431 middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and eighteen forms of the sixth principal part were found.
140
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, seventy-seven forms of
the fifth principal part were found.
141
e7iouox'uvouai is an intransitive stative active verb. Although it is occasionally followed by
an accusative (e.g., Mark 8:28), it is better to view the accusative as an accusative of respect.
142
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, two middles of the third
principal part were found, and thirty-six forms of the sixth principal part were found.
m
TLG suggests enavanavm as the lexical form.
144
145
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, ten middles of the third
principal part were found, and seven forms of the sixth principal part were found.
m
TLG suggests e7teKxeivco as the lexical form.
147
Ui
TLG suggests £7t£v5\>co as the lexical form.
,49
TLG suggests eniXaâvco as the lexical form.
150
271
Fourth &
®,0(1), 152 ®,0(3), 153 ®,0(1), 154 ©,0(2), 155
emtaxv06cvo|j.oa151
E&C E&C E&C E&C
®,0(2), 156 ®,0(1), 157
e7U|j.£?ieo|iott ©, other ®, other
other other
®,0(27), 159
E7uaK£7rco|xai ©,P 158 0,P ®,P
P
£7uaK£t>&£ofxai160 0(12) 0 (3)161 0(15) 0 (l) 162
,5[
TLG suggests £7tiAav0avco as the lexical form.
152
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, twenty-four middle/passive infinitival forms
were found.
153
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, fifty-one middle forms of
the second principal part were found. It seems that £7uX,av8&voum in this principal part is deponent. Its
three occurrences are found in only two authors.
154
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, sixty-one middle infinitival forms of the third
principal part were found, and twenty-three forms (not limited to infinitives) of the sixth principal part were
found.
155
principal part were found. The fifth principal part is typically deponent (e.g. Ps 9:32 LXX), but in its only
occurrence in the NT (Luke 12:6), it is a part of a passive periphrastic construction.
I56
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, thirteen middle forms of
the third principal part were found, and 177 forms of the sixth principal part were found. The lexical
nuance of caring for someone or something (BDAG, 375) suggests that the subject is not the beneficiary or
recipient of the action, making the third principal part deponent.
157
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, nineteen forms of the fifth
principal part were found. The lexical nuance of caring for someone or something (BDAG, 375) suggests
that the subject is not the beneficiary or recipient of the action, making the fifth principal part deponent.
l5i
TLG returns actives for the first principal part, but they actually correspond to another
lexical form, emaKorcera.
159
All active of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 704 middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and forty-one forms of the sixth principal part were found. Thus, the
twenty-seven actives are rare in comparison to the 704 middle forms, and £7tioK£7tToucci is deponent in the
third principal part.
'TLG suggests eTtiaKe'u&^ro as the lexical form.

272
Fourth &
87riaxa(xai ®,VMA ®,VMA ®,VMA ®,VMA
8py&£o|j.oa ®,0(1) 1 6 3 ®164 ® ®165
®,v(3), 166
ep£t>YO|j,ai ®, 167 SA 0 (26),168 SA N/A
SA
0 (10),170 ©,0(2), 171
epriiioco 0,169 other 0 (8), other
other other
" 172 ©,v(2), 173
®,BM 0,BM 0,BM
ep%op,ai BM
161
second principal part are found, and eleven forms of the sixth principal part were found.
162
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, eight forms of the fifth
principal part are found.
163
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, 537 middle/passive forms of the first principal
part were found.
m
TLG returns one hit for the future active, but the form is actually middle: Epyot^fi.
165
Although epy&ôum is typically deponent in the fifth principal part (e.g., Deut 21:3 LXX),
in its only occurrence in the NT (John 3:21), it is a part of a passive periphrastic construction.
166
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, sixty-seven middle/passive
forms of the first principal part were found.
167
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, six middle forms of the
168
169
170'
There are only forty-one occurrences of the second principal part in any voice.
171
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, sixty-five forms of the
fifth principal part were found. The active of eprmoco in this principal part does not occur prior to the third
century B.C., and it only occurs twice (in the same author) in the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D.
Therefore, the fourth principal part seems to be deponent because actives are very rare in the diachrony of
the lexeme.
!
ep%oum has two roots: *ep% and *e^.e\)9.
273
Fourth &
0,LIb/r-s; 0 (8),175 LIb/r"s; 0,LIb/r"s; 0(12),LIb/r-s;
ea9ico174/ea0(o
© , stative © , stative @, stative © , stative
eaaoojjm
®,E&C, ®,E&C, ®,E&C, ®,E&C,
e\)Xapeo(j.ai
ETjXoyeco 0,SA 0,SA 0,176SA 0 (9),177 SA
8IJO56(O 0 (19)178 0(18) v (19)179 0 (4)180
£-U%°M,ai ©,SA,E&C ©,SA,E&C ®,SA,E&C ®,SA,E&C
£.<^6Xko[iai ©,BM ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM
e(J)iKveo|a,ai ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM
[?dco] 0 0 0 0,(26)181
^ri|j,i6(o 0,LIb/r"s 0(7),LIb/r"s 0(20),LI b/rs 0(l), ,82 LI b/r - s
173
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 2,692 middle/passive forms
of the first principal part were found. TLG suggested two forms (epxeG' and epêx'), which were omitted
from the search because TLG also parsed both as middle/passive only. It is unclear why TLG suggested the
forms for the search when clearly they were not active.
174
eo9ico has two roots: *e8 and *§cq.
175
176
177
178
179
180
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. The four active occurrences account
for all of the uses in this principal part.
181
182
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only seventeen occurrences of this
lexeme are extant in the fourth principal part.
274
Fourth &
©,E&C, ®,E&C, ®,E&C; ®,E&C,
TiY£O|0.ca
other other other other
0 (5),'83 o (i),184 0(1), inherently
flTT&O|J.0U inherently inherently inherently passive
passive passive passive
0 (18),185 0 (20) ,186
®,E&C, v(l), 187 E&C,
9ajj.(3E(o E&C, E&C,
stative active stative active
stative active stative active
0,E&C, 0,E&C, 0,E&C, 0,E&C,
0oa>|j.&£cG
Geaouai ®,0(4), 1 8 8 P 0(7),P ®,0(1), 1 8 9 P ®,P
Gepumvco/ 0)U b/r-s
v(2),LIb/r"s 0,LIb/r-s Ub/r-s
Gepumvouai
0(1),
0opt)(3d^co insufficient N/A N/A N/A
sample190
183
All actives of the first principal part were searched. It cannot be deponent in this principal
part because there are no extant middle/passive forms in the literature and it suffers from lexical intrusion.
184
185
186
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, one middle form of the
third principal part was found, and seventeen forms of the sixth principal part were found.
187
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only three occurrences of this lexeme
are extant in the fourth principal part.
188
In contrast to the four active infinitival forms, fifty-two middle/passive infinitival forms of
the first principal part were found. The infinitive of the first principal part (Geocv) has an ambiguous form. I
could be genitive, feminine, plural from the noun 8ecc ("a seeing") or from the noun Sect ("godess").
189
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, 467 middle infinitival forms of the third
principal part were found, and twenty-three forms (not limited to infinitives) of the sixth principal part were
found.
'Gop-uP&^co is only found in TLG twice. It is found both times in the first principal part.
275
Fourth &
®,0(2), 192
Laoum ®,191 other © , other ® , other
other
© , stative © , stative ® , stative ® , stative
iA,&GKO|J.0U
active, other active, other active, other active, other
'icxr\\i\Jioiav(a 0 0 0 0
©,BM, ®,BM, ®,BM,

KocGeôuoa BM, stative
active
®,BM, ®,BM, ®,BM, ®,BM,
KaGrpoa stative active, stative active, stative active, stative active,
other other other other
®,0(4), 194
0, causative 0, causative 0, causative
Kaico causative
active, other active, other active, other
active, other
Kakeco 0,SA 0,SA 0,SA 0(11),SA
®,0(2), 195
KaxaPcdvoo 0,(fig.)BM 0, (fig.) BM 0, (fig.)BM
(fig.)BM
Kaxaycoviôixai ® , other ® , other ® , other © , other
19
'TLG returns actives for the first principal part, but they actually are middle/passive in form,
if|o8av.
192
All actives of the third principal part were searched in TLG. In contrast, 485 middle forms
of the third principal part were found, and 169 forms of the sixth principal part were found. In addition to
one active found in TLG, Accordance identified one aorist active infinitive in Num 12:13 LXX.
193
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, seventy-one middle
forms of the second principal part were found, and ninety-four forms of the sixth principal part were found.
In addition to the two actives found in the Koine period, two actives were found prior to the third century
B.C., and seven were found in the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D. Because the active is extremely
rare in the diachrony of the term and there are only two occurrences in the Koine period in the second
principal part, it seems best to identify mGeôum as deponent in that principal part.
194
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Of the four occurrences returned in
this search, none of the forms seemed to be from Kaico: KEKncc, KEKoeuKevai, and KEKoruKoq. In contrast,
817 forms of the fifth principal part were found.
195
276
Fourth &
0(1), LI 0(3), LI
LI inherently LI inherently
KaTavuaao|j.ai 196 inherently inherently
passive passive
passive passive
Kaxapccopm ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA 1 9 7

Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L I b/r-s
KaTaao<|)i£o|a,oa198
Kaxepxofxai @,(fig.)BM ©,(fig.)BM 0,(fig.)BM 0,(fig.)BM
Kax£(|)ic7ra(a,ai199 © , other © , other 0, other ® , other

L jb/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s
Ka-ux^0!^011
Ub/r-s L jb/r-s L I b/r-s jjb/r-s
Keijiai
Keêijco 0,SA 0,SA 0,SA 0(30),SA 2 0 0
KAAVOO 0(17) 0(23) 0 0 (13)201
inherently inherently inherently inherently

Kû8coviô(iai
passive passive passive passive
L I b/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s
KOUlOtOO
®,v(l), 2 0 2
KOAX&CO 0, other 0, other 0 ( 1 7 ) , other
other
KO|j,i£co 0 0 0 0
0 (20) ,203 0 (3),204 0,205 stative © , stative

Kpaxaioco
stative active stative active active active206
m
TLG suggests Kaxavuooco as the lexical form.
197
The perfect middle/passive participle is found with a passive function (BDAG, 525).
m
TLG suggests KOCTaoo<|>i£co as the lexical form.
199
KaT£<)>iaTaum is a hapax legomenon in TLG; it (Korcercecrrnoav) is only found in Acts
18:12.
200
201
202
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, thirty-eight forms of the
277
Fourth &
® , 0 (3),207 0 (l),208
Kpeu.avvvu.1/ 0, causative 0, causative
causative causative
Kpe|i&£co active, other active, other
active, other active, other
Kpivco 0,VMA 0,VMA 0,VMA 0(9),VMA
KT&0|IOU 0(l),LI b / r - s L jb/r-s
0(l),LI b/r - s Ub/r-s
?ux|a.p&vco 0,LIb/r-s 0(5),LIb/r"s v,LIb/r"s v,LIb/r's

teyco209 0 0 0 <>
®,0(2), 2 U
XoyiCoum 0 (2),210 E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C
E&C
0 (20), ®,v(l), 2 1 2
0, causative 0, causative
Xo-uco causative causative
203
204
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. All three of the actives were from
the LXX. In contrast, one middle form of the second principal part was found, and fifty-two forms of the
sixth principal part were found.
205
206
207
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 367 middle/passive forms
of the first principal part were found. The active is very rare for this principal part, and thus the first
principal part pan be considered deponent.
208
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, two forms of the fifth
209
ÊYCO has multiple roots: *Xej, *fep, and *fen.
210
AU actives of the first principal part were searched, ôytôum is not deponent in the first
principal part because it occasionally functions passively (e.g., Rom 4:5). Because form-function
incongruity does exist occasionally for the first principal part of X,oyi£oum, it seems to be syncretistic in
that principal part.
211
All actives of the third principal part were searched in TLG. In addition to the active form
found in TLG, Accordance found one aorist active subjunctive in 1 Clem. 60:2. In contrast, 454 middle
forms of the third principal part were found, ôyiôum is considered deponent in the third principal part
because the active is extremely rare.
278
Fourth &
©,v(l), 2 1 4 ®,0(4), 215
© , causative ©, causative
Auumvco 213 causative causative
active active
active active
A.-UTp6coA/UTp6ofioa © , other 0 (5) ,216 other © , other © , other
Xxxo 0 0 0 0(15)
0 (16),217 o (D, 218 0 (29) ,219 ©,220 stative
stative active, stative active, stative active, active,
jiaOiYceiJGL)
causative causative causative causative
0 (39),221
umvoum ©,E&C 0(3),E&C 0(15), E&C
E&C
212
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. It seems to be deponent in the fifth
principal part because there are only five occurrences of the active in the entire history of the word in this
principal part. Zero occurrences are found prior to the third century B.C.; one is found in the Koine period,
and four are found in the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D.
2i3
TLG suggests A/uuaivoum as the lexical form.
214
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, twenty-three middles of
the second principal part were found.
215
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 156 middles of the third
principal part were found, and nine forms of the sixth principal part were found. There are only two actives
prior to the third century B.C., and only sixteen actives are found in the fourth through the thirteenth
centuries A.D. Thus, only twenty-two actives in the third principal part are found in TLG prior to the
fourteenth century A.D. Because the active is so rare for the lexeme in its history, it seems that A/uuaivco is
deponent in this principal part.
216
217
218
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, zero middle forms of the
219
220
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, fifteen forms of the fifth
'AH actives of the third principal part were searched.

279
Fourth &
®,0(1), 222
(iavT£,uo|j.ca ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
SA
|j.apaivco 0(8), other 0 (l),223 other 0 (6),224 other ® , other
uopTupoum ©,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
(ia%oum ®,0(1), 2 2 5 R ®,R ®,R ®,R
0(7), 0 (10), 0(8),
causative,
causative, causative, causative,
ueGuaKco inherently
inherently inherently inherently
passive226
passive passive passive
©,0(1), 227
u£ux|>ou.ai ® , other © , other ® , other
other
U£pl£cO 0, other 0, other 0(25), other 0 (2),228 other
0(9),E&C, 0 (5), E&C, 0 (17),230
|a.eTau.£ta>|j.ou229 E&C,LI b / r s
Ub/r-s Ub/r-s
E&C,LI b/rs
222
In contrast to the lone active infinitival form, twenty-nine middle forms of the third
principal part were found, and four forms (not limited to infinitives) of the sixth principal part were found.
223
Only three occurrences of uapocivco in the second principal part are extant in any voice.
224
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, one middle form of the
third principal part was found, and seventy-nine forms of the sixth principal part were found.
225
The lone present active infinitive is from an uncertain text. In contrast, 617 middle/passive
infinitival forms are found for the first principal part.
226
227
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, seventy-six middles of
the second principal part were found, and twenty-three forms of the sixth principal part were found.
228
principal part were found. Although actives are rare, the fifth principal part is not deponent because it
retains a passive function.
229
TLG suggests Lr£rau£^.co as the lexical form.
230
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The aorist passive form functions
actively but is not deponent because active forms are found in the (second and) third principal part(s).
280
Fourth &
0 (13),stative 0 (7), stative 0 (14), stative stative
uexecopiôuou231 9^9
active active active
active
Ub/r-s Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s
IJ.iHeou.ca
|a,i|a.vfiGKO|aoa/ 0 (7),234 0 (26) ,235
' 233 ®,VMA,SA ®,VMA,SA
VMA, SA VMA, SA
uiuvr)o"Koum
uia96co o236 0 (10)237 0 (26)238 0 (6)239
0 240
insufficient
uoixaco N/A N/A
sample241
uopôoo 0(9),LIb/r"s 0(9),LI b/rs 0(16),LIb""s 0 (3),242 LIb/r"s
uuicaouai ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA 0(11),SA
u.oou.aou.ai @, other © , other © , other © , other
23l
TLG suggests |a.execopiâ) as the lexical form.
232
Although no actives are found in the fourth principal part, ueTECopiiôum does not seem to
be deponent in it because there are only seven occurrences of the lexeme in the principal part.
233
TLG suggests (j.uivf|ciKco as the lexical form.
234
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, twenty-one middle forms
of the second principal part were found.
235
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, eighty-six middle forms of
the third principal part were found, and 1,073 forms of the sixth principal part were found. Because so
many uses in the sixth principal part exist, eighty-six actives can be considered rare actives, and
HiuvfiaKouou is deponent in the sixth principal part.
236
237
238
239
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Only thirty-seven occurrences of
uio96co in this principal part are extant in any voice.
240
2 l
* [ioi%ao} only occurs five times in the third principal part.
242
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. The three occurrences are found in
two authors.
281
Fourth &
o (D, 2 4 4 insufficient
insufficient 0 (ll), 245
0,243 causative sample,246
licopocivco sample, causative
active causative
causative active
active
active
voa<j)i^co 0(3),247LIb/r"s 0(1)>248ub/r-s
0 (6),249 LIb/r-s T jb/r-s250
68\)vaco/68vvao|a.oa 0(3),LIb/r-s v(9),LIb/r"s 0(3),LIb/r-s Ljb/r-s
(HKoSoueCO 0 0 0 o 251
' ' 252/
oueipoum / ®,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C
i(ieipo(iai
ouoôyECO 0 0 0 0(11)
ovivrmi 0(12),LIb/r-s 0,LIb/r-s v(18),LI b/rs 0 (l),253 LIb/r"s
243
244
All actives of the second principal part were searched. urapocivco only occurs twice in this
principal part.
245
246
Hcopaivco is a hapax legomenon in TLG in the fourth principal part.
247
All actives of the first principal part were searched. The three occurrences are found in two
authors.
248
All actives of the second principal part were searched, vooifiCfa is found only twice in TLG
in this principal part.
9
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The six occurrences are found in four
authors.
250
251
252
6(j.eipo(xai only occurs twice in TLG: Job 3:21 and 1 Thess 2:8. Neither occurrence is
active.
253
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. The active occurrence is the lone
occurrence of ovivnux in this principal part.
282
Fourth &
® , stative 0 (l),256 © , stative © , stative
67r.Tavou.oa254
active255 stative active active257 active258
' ' 259
0,P ®,0(2), 2 6 0 P 0,P 0,P
opaco
®,E&C, ©,E&C, ®,E&C, ®,E&C,
6pyi£co/6pyi£ou.cu
insufficient
opeyco/opeyoum 0(23) 0 0(13)
sample261
6p%£ouai ©,BM ©,BM ®,BM ®,BM
®,0(1), 264
TtapaPidô(o.ai ©,262 other ®,263 other ®,265 other
other
TrapaPoê-uoum266
insufficient
(= the passive use of N/A N/A N/A
sample
napafiaXk(D)
4
TLG suggests 07n:a£oum as the lexical form, which is the lexical form that was searched for
actives.
255
256
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, zero middle forms of the
second principal part were found, and seventy-eight forms of the sixth principal part were found.
257
258
259
opdco has multiple roots: *popa, *07i, and *pi5.
260
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, 1,945 middle forms of
the second principal part were found., and 1,765 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
261
Although there is no occurrence of the active, there are only nine uses of the fourth
principal part in any voice.
262
263
264
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, eleven middles of the third
principal part were found, and two forms of the sixth principal part were found.
265
283
Fourth &
®,v(16), 267
Trapoateonoa ©,SA, other ®,SA,other SA, other268
SA, other
T jb/r-s269 y jb/r-s270 T jb/r-s271 T jb/r-s272
7tapaKoc6e£o|j,ai
T jb/r-s273 T jb/r-s274 T jb/r-s275 T jb/r-s276
7tapaK£i)j,ott
7tapaêyo|j.ai277 0,278BM ®,BM 0 (7),279 BM ®,BM

7tapoqru0eo[j,oa ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
7iapoixo|J.ai ®,fig.BM ®,fig.BM ®,fig.BM 0(2), fig. BM
l6
7tapapoleiJO|iai is a hapax legomenon in TLG; it (TtapccPoteuo&uevoq) is only found in
Phil 2:30.
267
The future active indicative is an ambiguous form with (1) other parsings of the verb and
(2) with Ttapaixricm;.
268
The fifth principal part has either a passive or a reflexive meaning (BDAG, 764 [s.v.
Ttapaueoum 2.a]; see Luke 14:18-19).
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
211
TLG suggests TtapaA-eyco as the lexical form.
278
All actives of the first principal part were found.
279
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, eighty-six middle forms of
the third principal part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
280
The meaning of the compound verb (to be past [of time]) is the figurative extension of
o'i%oum, which means to come or go (BDAG, 780).
284
Fourth &
7tappr|(n&£o|a.ai ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
' 9R1
0,LIb/r"s LIWr-s
0,LIb/r"s v,LIb/r"s
0 (6),282
0, causative 0, causative 0, causative
7tat)co causative
active active active
active
0 (23), 0 (7),283 0(H), ©, 2 8 4
na%v\(a causative causative causative causative
Tteipaoo/Tteipaoum 0(16),LIb/r-s 0(21),LIb/r-s v(ll),LI b / r s 0 (2),285 LIb/r"s
TCEUTIOO 0 0 0 0(14)
© , stative © , stative © , stative @, stative
7lEpi?lEi7tO|Xai
active, other active, other active, other active, other
Ub/r-s L jb/r-s Ub/r-s Ljb/r-s
TTEpTtepeiJOum
Ttexoum ©,BM ©,BM 0(12),BM ©,BM

—-i, . r ,.286
TtlVCO
0,LIb/r"s 0 (2),287 LIb/r"s 0,LIb/r"s 0,LIb/r-s
71171X00 0 ®,0(8) 2 8 8 0 0
281
7t&a%co has two roots: *7toc6 and *7tev9.
282
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Although the active of the fourth
principal part is rare, it is found in the diachrony of navm. Two occurrences are found prior to the third
century B.C., and it is found ten times in the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D.
283
284
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, twenty-six forms of the
285
286
7iivco has multiple roots: *7ti and *no (*7tco in the perfect).
287
288
All actives of the second principal part were searched. All eight of the active forms were
written by the same author in the same work. In contrast, 395 middle forms of the second principal part
were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal part were found.
285
Fourth &
0,289E&C, 0(4),E&C, 0 (8),290 E&C,
7iiax6co Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s
E&C,LIb/r-s291
®,0(3), 294
TtXeKOO 0, other 0 (8),292 other 0,293 other
other
nXr\p6(0 0 0 0 0(19)
7IOIEC0 0 0 0 0
7toA,lT£'UO|J.ai 0 (16), other 0 (4),295 other © , other © , other
®,0(5), 296 ®,0(1), 297
7tOp81JC0/7rop81JO|J.ai ©,(fig.)BM ®,(fig.)BM
(fig.) BM (fig.) BM
289
All actives of the first principal part were searched. Ambiguous forms exist in the active
search, but they do not account for the large number (181) of actives found. Thus, legitimate actives are
extant in the Koine period.
290
29
292
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, two middle forms of the
second principal part were found, and twenty forms of the sixth principal part were found. The future tense
stem of nkeKd) has only rare actives because only two authors (one of whom was the same author who used
the active in the fourth principal part and accounted for seven of the eight occurrences) used the active, who
may not have understood the convention. It is not deponent in the second principal part but may be in the
sixth principal part.
293
294
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, ninety-three forms of the
fifth principal part were searched. 7i?i£Kco in this principal part is deponent because all three uses are in the
same author (who was one of only two authors who used the active in the second principal part) who may
not have understood the convention.
295
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, thirty middle forms of
the second principal part were found, and ten forms of the sixth principal part were found.
296
All actives of the second principal part were searched. Five future active indicatives are
found in TLG, but they are ambiguous forms. In contrast, 365 middle forms of the second principal part
were found.
297
In contrast to the lone infinitival form of the third principal part, zero middle infinitival
forms were found, and 143 infinitival forms of the sixth principal part were found.
286
Fourth &
®,v(l), 2 9 9 ®,0(1), 301
TtpaYixaTeiJoiJm 298
®,300 other, R ®,302 other, R
other, R other, R
7tpoaiTido(a.ai © , other ®, other ® , other © , other
7rpo£DaYY£?u£o|a.ou ©,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
7tpoaavocu6r|!J.i 0 (2)303 N/A 0 (3)304 N/A
7tpo%eipi£co/ L jb/r-s
0(l),LI b / r s 0(l),LI b/r - s Ub/r-s
7tpo%etpi£o|j,oa
®,305 SA, ®, 306 SA, ®, 307 SA, ®,v(2), 308
7it)v0dvo|j,ai
other other other SA, other
298
BDAG suggests two glosses for this term: (1) do business and (2) trade. The second could
be understood as LI b/rs , but the business or trade is not always for the benefit of the subject. Often, the one
benefiting is a superior (e.g., employer, king, etc.) (Ceslas Spicq, xai-y/ev, vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of
the New Testament, ed. and trans. James D. Ernest [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 150). In light of
this usage, 7tpayuaT£-uouai was not labeled LIb/rs.
299
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 318 middle/passive forms
of the first principal part were found.
300
301
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 162 middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and twenty-two forms of the sixth principal part were found.
302
303
All actives of the first principal part were searched. Only five uses of this principal part are
extant in TLG.
304
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. Only twenty-four uses of this principal
part are extant in TLG.
305
In contrast to the zero occurrences of the active infinitival form of the first principal part,
170 middle/passive infinitival forms of the first principal part were found.
306
307
In contrast to the zero occurrences of the active infinitival form of the third principal part,
212 middle infinitival forms of the first principal part were found. TruvSavoum does not occur in the sixth
principal part.
308
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, 159 forms of the fifth
principal part were found. Actives are very rare for this principal part in the diachrony of 7fuvedvouav. The
active does not occur prior to the third century B.C., and it only occurs four times in the fourth through
287
Fourth &
TTUpOOO 0,309 other 0, other 0,310 other © , other
pijo|im ©, other ® , other © , other © , other
aaXexxo 0, other 0 (3),311 other 0(10), other other312
aepdô|a.ai 0 (3),313 E&C 0 (4),314 E&C 0 (l),315 E&C E&C316
© , stative ©, stative © , stative © , stative
GeXr\vmC,o\iai
arpEioco 0,317 other 0, other 0 (8),318 other @, other
0 (16),319 © , stative 0 (5),320 © , stative
oKOTi^co/aKOTiô|xai
stative active active stative active active
thirteenth centuries A.D. Thus, it seems appropriate to view 7ruv6avo|icu as deponent in the fourth principal
part.
309
310
31I
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, six middle forms of the
3I2
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. Although actives do not exist for the
fourth principal part, the fifth principal part is not deponent because it has a passive function (e.g., Ps 93:18
LXX).
313
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, six middle/passive forms of
the first principal part were found. In contrast, zero middle forms of the second principal part were found,
and fifteen forms of the sixth principal part were found.
314
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. Three of the occurrences were by the
same author. In contrast, zero middle forms of the second principal part were found.
315
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, four middle forms of the
third principal part were found, and fifteen forms of the sixth principal part were found, oep&ôucu is
deponent in the sixth principal part because only two authors used the future active in the Koine period and
only one aorist active exists.
316
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, one form of the fifth
principal part was found.
317
'All actives of the third principal part were searched.

288
Fourth &
0,321 stative 0 (6),322 o (i), 323 stative
OKOTOCO
active stative active stative active active324
orc&co 0325
0 (13)326 0 0 (9)327
328
O7tev5co 0 0(12) 0(16)
®,0(1), 329
a7rA.ocY%vi£o|am ©,E&C ©,E&C ©,E&C
E&C
axccupoco 0 33O
0 (6)331 o332 0 (3)333
319
320
321
322
All actives of the second principal part were searched. No future middle or passive forms
are extant for the Koine period.
323
324
Although zero active forms of the fourth principal part exist, the fifth principal part is not
deponent because a passive function is found (e.g., Rev 16:10).
325
326
All actives of the second principal part were searched. and(o only occurs thirty-three times
in this principal part.
327
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. O7tdco only occurs sixty-four times in
this principal part.
328
07iev8co occurs only four times in any voice in the fourth principal part.
329
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, sixteen middle/passive
330
331
All actives of the second principal part were searched. The active of this principal part is
only found in Matthew, Mark, John, and Origen.
332
333
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. There was an increasing trend in the
history of oxccupoco toward using the active in this principal part. The active was not used prior to the third
289
Fourth &
axeXXw 0 0 (8)334 0(18) 0 (22)335
axpaxevm/
0, other, R 0(3), other, R 0,336 other, R 0(4), other, R
crcpat:£iJO|j.oa
0(14), 0(19),
atpecjjco 0,BM(fig.) 0,BM(fig.)
BM (fig.) BM (fig.)
L I b/r-s L jb/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s
G1)YK(XKO'U%£O|J.0a337
LI, inherently LI, inherently LI, inherently LI, inherently

ai>YKaTa\|/r|(j)i£o|j,oa
(xowiept^co338/
©, other 0 (2),339 other © , other © , other
au|a.|a.epiô|a.ai
©,0(1), 340
cuvccYOOviôum ® , R , other341 ® , R , other342 ® , R , other343
R, other
century B.C.; it was used thirty-three times from the fourth through the thirteenth centuries (although the
fifth principal part dominates for the perfect and pluperfect, being used 687 times). It seems that in the
Koine period a shift began away from deponency in the fourth principal part.
334
335
33l
^The aorist active infinitive is an ambiguous form with OTpocxoco.
331
TLG suggests OUYKOCKOUXEOO as the lexical form. It is found in only two places in TLG in
the Koine period: Heb 11:25 and in Pseudo-Justin Martyr, Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos,
answer to question twenty-five. Both occurrences are present middle/passive infinitives.
338
cn)uuEpi£co only occurs eighteen times in TLG.
339
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, zero middle forms of the
second principal part were found, and zero forms of the sixth principal were found.
340
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 172 middle/passive forms
341
342
343
290
Fourth &
GvvaliC,(o/GX)vakiC,(o/
T jb/r-s345 y yb/r-s346
0(3),347LIb/r"s T yb/r-s348
cuvoruî£o|ioa344
®,v(3), 351
ai)vavoc7taijo|iou ®,349 other ®,350 other N/A
other
a\)vejro(j.ai ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM ®,BM
Ub/r-s Ub/r-s L jb/r-s L jb/r-s
<ruv£i)co%eo(j.ai
<n>vfi5ouai ®,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C
Ub/r-s L jb/r- S L jb/r-s L jb/r-s
at)v\)7ioKpivojiai
0 352
xdaoco 0 0 0
xiGTuxi/tiBeco353 0 0 0 0(22)
0 (10),354 0(21),
0, causative 0, causative
TIKTCO causative causative
active active
active active
344
auvocuM£oum only occurs nineteen times in TLG.
345
346
347
All actives of the third principal part were searched. Two of the three uses were in the same
author.
348
349
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, nineteen middle/passive
350
All actives of the second principal part were found. In contrast, ten middle forms of the
351
All actives of the third principal part were searched. The three actives are of an ambiguous
form (owavaTiaiJcri), each used by the same author. In contrast, eleven middle forms of the third principal
part were found; three of those were from the same form that produced the three active results
(cnjvava7toci>ar|). One form of the sixth principal part was found.
352
l
xi0Ti(j.i was searched in TLG.
291
Fourth &
' 355
0 0 (18) 0 0 (20)356
xpeTtco
' 357
0,BM 0(16),BM 0,BM 0 (13),358 BM
xpexor
0(1), 3 5 9 E&C, 0(2), 360 E&C, ®,361 E&C,
xi)(j)6coAru<l)6o|a.oa N/A
mspaipco/ 0)Ljb/r-s Ub/r-s
0(13),LI b/rs 0(l),LI b / r s
iL)7t£paipo|aoa
\)7toKpivo(j,oa362 © , other © , other © , other © , other
0, other, 0(21), other, 0(16), other, 0, other,
(])aivco inherently inherently inherently inherently
(|)£i8onoci © , other ©, other @, other © , other
êpco363 0 0 0 0(16)
354
second principal part were found, and 249 forms of the sixth principal part were found. Prior to the third
century B.C., the active of the second principal part was use twelve times. Eighty-six actives of the second
principal part were found in the fourth through the thirteenth centuries A.D.
355
tpenco is not found in the NT in its simple form, but it is found often in compound form.
xpe7tco was included in this list so that it could be searched in TLG and its results can be extrapolated to the
compound forms.
356
357
tpexco has two roots: *9pe% and *8pcc|i.
358
359
A11 actives of the first principal part were searched. Josephus was the only author to use the
active of this principal part. In contrast, three middle/passive forms of the first principal part were found.
360
A11 actives of the third principal part were searched. Josephus and Herodianus were the
only authors to use the active of this principal part. In contrast, zero middle forms of the third principal part
were found, and nine forms of the sixth principal part were found.
361
A11 actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, eighty-four forms of the
362
TLG suggests imoicpivco as the lexical form.
!
((>epa) has multiple roots: *§ep, *oi, and *ev£K.
292
Fourth &
®,0(2), 364
(|)£ljyCD 0,BM v,BM 0,BM
BM
(|)0£yYO|am ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
())iA,OTi|j.eo|a.ai ©,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C ®,E&C
0,365 stative 0 (8),366 0,367 stative ®,0(3), 368
<))oPecfl/(j)oP£0|j.oa active, E&C, stative active, active, E&C, stative active,
other E&C, other other E&C, other
Ub/r-s L jb/r-s y Tb/r-s370 Ub/r-s
^puaaaoum
0 (27), m
(jmcnoco/^'ua&oo L jb/r-s
0 (l),372 LIb/r"s 0(l),373LIb/r"s y jb/r-s374
0 (22) ,375
Xaipco/xaipofiai 0,E&C 0,376E&C ®,E&C
E&C
364
A11 actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, 210 middle forms of the
second principal part were found, and four forms of the sixth principal part were found.
365
366
367
368
All actives of the fourth principal part were searched. In contrast, seventy-one forms of the
fifth principal part were found. <f>oPeco seems to be deponent in this principal part. It lacks an active form
prior to the third century B.C. and only has three actives from the fourth through thirteenth centuries A.D.
Thus, there are only six actives in the diachrony of the term in this principal part. côPeco seems to be
deponent in this principal part because the active is very rare.
369
TLG suggests ^puaoooum as the lexical form.
370
Twelve actives of the aorist are found in the non-infinitival form.
371
All actives of the first principal part were searched. One of the actives is found in 1 Cor 8:1.
372
All actives of the second principal part were searched. The active form was found in only
one author: Origen (Contra Celsum, book 3, section 69, line 8).
373

293
Fourth &
©,v(l), 3 7 8 @,v(5), 379
Xapitpiam377 ©, other © , other
other other
@,v(9), 381
Xpao|j.oa ®,382 other ®,383 other ©,384 other
other
© , stative © , stative © , stative © , stative
XPTiaTeiJO|a.ai
© 0 (3),387
\|/£i)5oiioa 385 0,386 SA 0 (23) ,388 SA ®,SA 389
SA
375
All actives of the second principal part were searched. In contrast, sixty-one middle forms
of the second principal part were found, and 323 forms of the sixth principal part were found.
376
m
TLG suggests xapi^co as the lexical form.
378
A11 actives of the second principal part were found. In contrast, 109 middle forms of the
379
All actives of the third principal part were searched. In contrast, 580 middles of the third
principal part were found, and thirty-four forms of the sixth principal part were found. Prior to the third
century B.C., only one active of the third principal part was found, and it was an ambiguous form of a
possibly contracted word (%dpvo'). It can be either dative, feminine, plural from %ap\q or aorist, middle,
imperative, 2nd, singular from %ap\L,o\\.a\; it seems to be the imperative in this occurrence. Fifty-six actives
were found in the fourth through thirteenth centuries. The trajectory of the term seems to be one in which it
was deponent in the Classical period and normal in the Byzantine period. In the Koine period, it was in
transition, but because there were only five occurrences, it seems best to view it as deponent in the Koine
period in the third principal part.
3m
TLG suggests xpocco as the lexical form, which has two separate roots: (1) attack and
(2) furnish. The first (attack) was searched.
381
All actives of the first principal part were searched. In contrast, 534 middle/passive forms
382
383
384
3S5
TLG suggests i|/eij5a) as the lexical form.
'All actives of the first principal part were searched.

294
Fourth &
' ' 390 0 (12),391
© , other © , other © , other
coveo|j.ai other
cbpijofj-ai ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA ®,SA
387
All actives of the second principal part were searched. Two occurrences are in the same
author. In contrast, seventy-seven middle forms of the second principal part were found, and fifty-one
forms of the sixth principal part were found.
388
389
390
cbveo|ioa has two roots: *rcpia and *pcove.
'All actives of the first principal part were searched.

Appendix E
NEW TESTAMENT DEPONENT AND SEMI-DEPONENT VERBS
In a very real sense, Appendix E is fruit of the labor contained in the pages of
this dissertation. It consists of three tables that record deponency in the NT. Table 51 is a
presentation of deponency in the NT by principal part. In it, principal parts of each verb
listed were marked to indicate normal function (N), deponency (©), or nonexistence in
the NT (—).' Table 48 and Table 49 contain the repackaged results of Table 51 in simpler
'The pool of verbs included in Table 51 were taken from the verbs that were investigated for
deponency in Table 47: New Testament Verbs (Appendix D). Verbs in that table, which had were
determined to have at least one deponent principal part, were examined further for deponency in the NT,
and the results are recorded in Table 51. The method that was used follows. For each verb examined, the
verb was looked up using Accordance. Several searches were conducted: (1) BDAG, which provided an
opportunity for a double check of the classification of the verb's meaning in Table 47, (2) the entire NT
(GNT-T 3.8; also used in the subsequent searches), which provided a baseline to ensure that the verb under
investigation was spelled correctly, (3) the active of the first principal part (i.e., present and imperfect
active), (4) the middle/passive of the first principal part (i.e., present and imperfect middle/passive), (5) the
active of the second principal part (i.e., future active), (6) the middle of the second principal part (i.e.,
future middle), (7) the active of the third principal part (i.e., first aorist and second aorist active), (8) the
middle of the third principal part (i.e., first aorist and second aorist middle), (9) the active of the fourth
principal part (i.e., first perfect, second perfect, first pluperfect, and second pluperfect active) (10) the fifth
principal part (i.e., first perfect, second perfect, first pluperfect, and second pluperfect middle/passive), and
(11) the sixth principal part (i.e., first aorist, second aorist, and future passive). Searches which produced
zero results for a principal part were noted with "—." The verbs from searches that produced results were
investigated more closely. The principal part was checked against Table 47 for active forms. Verbs that had
active forms were marked with "N" (i.e., normal). If no actives forms or rare active forms were found, then
one or two uses of the verb were read in context, being especially careful to observe passive functions in
the first, fifth, and sixth principal parts. Principal parts that reflected a passive function were also marked
with "N." Principal parts of verbs that possessed a one-way mismatch between voice form and function
(i.e., middle and/or passive form with an active function), lacked active forms, and lacked lexical intrusion
were marked deponent with " © . " Verbs that are semi-deponent in wider Koine literature but only occur
with normal function in the NT are not listed in Appendix E.
Some deponent verbs are not presented in Appendix E because of the method used for Table
47: (1) compound verbs were not usually investigated and (2) not every verb was investigated.
Nevertheless, Table 51 represents a fairly complete list of deponent verbs in the NT. If a compound verb is
not listed, the reader is encouraged to look at the simple form of the verb to find if a verb is deponent. For
example, the compound verb 8iaXoyt£o)j.ai is not found in Appendix E. To find if it is deponent, look at the
simple form ta>yi£o|iai.
295
formats. Table 48 presents a list of verbs that are deponent in every occurrence in the NT.
This list does not indicate that these verbs are completely deponent in all extant Koine
literature, but only complete NT deponency. Table 49 lists those verbs that are semi-
deponent in the NT along with the principal parts in which deponency is found. The goal
here is to display verbs that are partially deponent in the NT. Thus, some verbs may be
deponent in one or more principal parts outside of the NT without having been identified
as such in Appendix E.
Deponent Verbs
Table 48: New Testament Deponent Verbs

dycoviôum e7tavoc7toa)ou.ai 7tapaXeyouai
odaGdvouai EmSiaxdaaoum rcapau/uGeoum
dv0ouoXoyeou.ai emueXeoum 7iapoi%op.ai
dvxaTtoKpivo|iai £7UaK£7CT0|J.CU 7tappr|cn.dC,ou.ou
d7i8K5iJ0)a.av ETuaxaum 7iepiXei7io|j.ai
da7td£oum epeuyouai 7t£X0U.CU
ocuAaôum eaaooum 7lOp8'UC0/7COp8'6o|J.ai
d(|)iKV£0|j.oa £vXa$£o\iai TtpocyumeTJOum
p8eA,\)aao(i.ai e^xoum rcpoaradoum
Pid^w/pidôum e()>&AAo|am 7ipoe\)ayyeA.iô|iai
8iaP8Pai6o|a.ai eîKveoum 7ruv0&voum
8iaKaxE^£y%oum fyyeoum 7rupoco
8viKveoum IXdaKoum aePdôum
8ua%\)piCo(j.ai KaOsôum aeXrividôum
Spdcaoum K&Gnum a7iXay%vi£oum
8wa(iai Kaxaycoviôum au|j,u£piCco/cru|j,u.£pi£o(j,at
Soopeoum \v\iai\(£> cruvaycflvi£ou.ca
£K?iav6dvo|j.oa uxxivoum cruvavaTta'uou.oa
8jj.Ppuj.doum (j,avTet)oum GVV£KO\iai
evayKaXiôum uapTX)po(ioa cruvr|Soum
evdp%oum jj,d%oum woKpivoum
evGuueouai LIEUÔU-CU (JjeiSoum
evxeXXco |iiuvfioKO(ioa (()6eyyoLiai
EVimVldÔU.ai |j/UK&oum (])iXoxi|j.eo|j.ai
Evcoxiô|aat 6(xeipo(iai %pdoum
OTTT&VOUm Xpnaxeijoum
£naio%vvo\ica 6p%eojj.ca cbveoum
£7taKpodou.oa 7tapaPidô(j.ai cbpwum,
Semi-Deponent Verbs
Table 49: New Testament Semi-Deponent Verbs

&7toKpivo|j,oa (6th) Kaxep%o|iai (1st)
yivoum (1st, 2nd, 3rd) Kpeuavvuua/KpEixd^co (1st)
yivcbcnccD (2nd) ?ioyi£ouca (3rd)
8iaXeyo|ica (1st) A,DTp6co (1st, 3rd)
eijui (2nd) |a.co|j.do|aca (3rd)
£7uAav0dvoum (1st, 3rd) opdco (2nd)
epydônou (1st, 3rd) 6pyi£oo(lst)
epr|uoa> (1st, 5th) 7iapaixeo|xai (1st, 3rd)
ep%o|am(lst, 2nd) 7ii7txco (2nd)
0a(a.peco (1st) TCoXueijoiioa (5th)
©edoum (3rd, 5th) puoum (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
idoum (1st, 2nd, 3rd) xu(|)6co/ru(t)6ou.oa (5th)
Kodco (5 th) (|)et)yco (2nd)
Kaxa(3atvco (2nd) %api£o|ioa (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th)
Kaxapdoiaxxi (1st, 3rd)
New Testament Deponency by Principal Part
Table 50: Legend for New Testament Deponency by Principal Part

a particular principal part of a verb
—
does not occur in the NT
N normal
© deponent
Table 51: New Testament Deponency by Principal Part

Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal
dycoviôum ® ©
oda0dvo|j.oa — ®
dv0ouo?ioyeoum ®
dvT0C7toKpivoum ® ©
drteKSTJOum — ®
d7toKptvou.ca N N ©
da7td£o|jm ®
® ©
oruMôuxxi ©
d(|)iKveo|iai —
©
298

pSetajaaoum @ — — — @ —
pid^co/pidôum © — — — — —
yivoum © © © N N N
yivcoaKCO N © N N N N
SiaPePouoouoa © — — — — —
8iaKaxeÊyxo(j,ai © — — — — —
SiodeYOum @ — N — — N
SuKveopou © — — — — —
8ua%'upi£o(j,ou © _ _ _ _ _ _
8pdaaopoa © _ _ _ _ _ _
8i3vapat © © —2 — — ©
8copeouai — — © — © —
eiui N © — — — —
£KXav0&vop.ou — — — — © —
epPpipdopoa © — © — — ©
evayKaA-iôpoa — — © — — —
evdp%oum — — © — — —
ev9'U|a.£0|jm © — — — — ©
evxeXXv) © © © — © —
£vvnvmt,o\iai © — — — — ©
8vcoxiô|a.ai © — — — — —
£^dMx>um © — — — — —
Ercoaaxwoum © — — — — ©
£7taKpodopai © — — — — —
£7tava7tocuop.oa © — — — — ©3
2
The aorist form of 8-uva|iai can also be parsed as imperfect (see n 60 on p. 124). Accordance
has tagged these forms in the NT as imperfects, which is the reason the third principal part is listed as not
having any occurences. They are deponent if interpreted as aorist forms.
299

e.Kibiaxaaao[iai ® —
e7nA.av9&vo|j-oa ® — © N4
£Ki[i£Xeo\xai — ® ©
eTuaKeTCTOum ® ® ©
eTtiaxa|j.ai © —
Epyaôum ® — © N5
epeuyoum — ®
epr|}i6co ® — © N
ep/opm ® © N N
eaaooum — — ©
etiXaPeouoa — — ©
E\>xo\iai ® — ©
e<âkXo\xai — — ©
e<t)iKV£0|j.ai ® — ©
fyyeoum © — © ©
9ajj,(3£co ® — — N
9eaoum — — © © N
iaoum ® © © N N
iA&GKOum ® — — ©
Ka9££oum ® —
K&9r|um ® ©
3
e7iava7iai)onai is found only once in the NT in the sixth principal part, which only has seven
occurrences in TLG in the Koine period. In Luke 10:6, it is a future passive form with an active function.
Despite the fact that five actives of the third principal part exist in the Koine period, because there are no
actives of the second principal part in TLG, the future passive of ETiavaTtccuoum was deemed deponent in
the NT (but not the aorist passive which occurs in extra-biblical literature).
4
Although £7nAav0&vouou is typically deponent in the fifth principal part, in its only
occurrence in the NT (Luke 12:6), it is a part of a passive periphrastic construction.
5
Although epYocôiiai is typically deponent in the fifth principal part (e.g., Deut 21:3 LXX), in
its only occurrence in the NT (John 3:21), it is a part of a passive periphrastic construction.
KOUCO N ®
KaiaPorivcD N © N N - -
KaTOCYCoviôum — - © - - -
KOCTapdouai ® - © - N6 -
KaT8pxo(a.ai ® - N - - -
Kp£[ldvVUUX/
Kpejxd^co ® - N - - N
Xoyiôum N*7 - © - - N
ûumvco ®
Tanpoco ® - © - - N
umvouai ®
\iavxevonai ®
|a,apxijpo|j.ai ®
|a.d%ojj.ai ®
ueuôum ®
|XlU.vf|CTKOU,ai ® - - ® ®
fruicdou.ai ®
(icojidoum — ® - - N
6p.eipo|j,ai ®
07tTdvo)j,ai ®
opdco N © N N - N
opyi^co ® - - - - N
opêoum — ©
7rapa|3id£oum — ©
7iapaiTeo(a.ai ® - © - N -
6
The only use of Kociap&ouat in the fifth principal part is passive (Matt 25:41).
'Althoughta>YiC°umin the first principal part occasionally functions passively (e.g., Rom
4:5), it also functions occasionally actively (e.g., Rom 2:3). Thus, ôyiCouai is syncretistic in the first
principal part.
TtocpaXeyoum © — — — — —
7tocpcqru8eoum © — © — — —
7uocpoi%o(j.oa _ _ _ _ © _
rcappriaidôuxxi © — © — — —
7tepi?L8i7i:op.ai © — — — — —
7reTO(xai © — — — — —
TtiTcxco N © N N — —
KOllT£X>0\iai N — — — © —
,
7tope uco/7iop8'uo|a.ai © © — — © ©
7tpayu.ai;eoo|j,oa _ _ © _ _ _
7tpoamdouoa _ _ © _ _ _
7ipoeDayyeXiô)xai _ _ © _ _ _
Ttt)v6dvop.ai © — © — — —
7TUp6cQ © _ — _ © _
p-uoum @ © © — — N
aepdcôuoa _ _ _ _ _ ©
ce^nvidôum © _ _ _ _ _
a7iây%viô|j,ai © — — — — ©
OV\JL\l£pit,0)/ .~
ov>mj.Ept£oum
owaycoviôum _ _ © _ _ _
ouvava7iaiJ0|a.av _ _ © _ _ _
O\)V87t0U,ai © _ _ _ _ _
auvr|8ou.ai © _ _ _ _ _
rix|)6GL)/ru(|)6o|j,ai — — — — © N
imoKpivoum @ . — — — — —
(|)£i8oum © © © — — —
())e\)yco N © N — — —
<))0eyyoum © — © — — —
302

())iÔT:i|j.eo|j,ai ®
%ocpt£ou.ca ® ® © - ® N
Xpaoum, ® - ® - ® -
XpnaTS'uou.oa ®
cbveoum — ®
cbpuouoa ®
BIBLIOGRAPHY
304
Accordance, ver. 8.2.3. Programmed by Roy Brown. Altamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree
Software, May 2009.
Allan, Rutger J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam
Studies in Classical Philology, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Irene de Jong, and Harm
Pinkster, vol. 11. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2003.
Andersen, Paul Kent. "Remarks on Dionysios Thrax's Concept of 'Diathesis'."

Historiographia linguistica 21, no. 1/2 (1994): 1-37.
Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.
Baerman, Matthew. "The Location of Deponency." Essex Research Reports in

Linguistics 47 (2006): 1-19.
Baerman, Matthew. "Morphological Typology of Deponency." In Deponency and

Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett,
Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 1-19. Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, eds.
Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Proceedings of the British Academy,
vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Baldi, Philip. "Deponent and Middle in Latin." Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester,
1973.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Berschin, Walter. Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicholas of
Cusa. Rev. and expanded ed. Translated by Jerold C. Frakes. Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 1988.
Bertalot, Ludwig. Studien zum italienischen und deutschen Humanismus. Edited by Paul
Oskar Kristeller. Vol. 1. Storia e letteratura: Raccolta di studi e testi, vol. 129.
Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975.
Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic
Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Black, David Alan. "The Study of New Testament Greek in the Light of Ancient and
Modern Linguistics." In Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and
Issues. Rev. ed., edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 230-52.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Blank, David. "The Organization of Grammar in Ancient Greece." In History of the

Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of
Language from the Beginnings to the Present, edited by Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K.
Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, and Kees Versteegh, 400-17. 3 vols. Handbook
of Linguistics and Communication Science, ed. Armin Burkhardt, Hugo Steger,
and Herbert Ernst Wiegand, vol. 18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Blank, David, and Catherine Atherton. "The Stoic Contribution to Traditional Grammar."
In The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood, 310-27.
Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and translated by Robert W. Funk.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch.

18th ed. Edited by Friedrich Rehkopf. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
2001.
Burton, Ernest De Witt. Notes on New Testament Grammar. Rev. ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1904.
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology,
Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, ed. Jorg Frey. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Reprint,
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Caragounis, Chrys C. E-mail message to author. May 9,2008.
Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Christopher, Gregory T. "Determining the Voice of New Testament Verbs whose Middle
and Passive Forms Are Identical: A Consideration of the Perfect Middle/Passive
Forms." Th.M. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1985.
Ciccolella, Federica. Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance. Columbia

Studies in the Classical Tradition, ed. William V. Harris, Eugene F. Rice Jr., Alan
Cameron, Suzanne Said, Kathy H. Eden, and Gareth D. Williams, vol. 32. Leiden:
Brill, 2008.
306
Conrad, Carl W. "Propositions Concerning Ancient Greek Voice." Web page, revised
October 13, 2005. http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ (accessed September 25,
2007).
Conrad, Carl W. "Observations on Ancient Greek Voice (LONG!)." BGreek. Web page,
May 27,1997. http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-
05/19077.html (accessed April 26, 2007).
Conrad, Carl W. "New Observations on Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb." PDF.
November 19,2002. http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/
NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007), 1-21.
Conrad, Carl W. "Active, Middle, and Passive: Understanding Ancient Greek Voice."
PDF. December 16,2003. http://www.ioa.com/%7Ecwconrad/Docs/
UndAncGrkVc.pdf (accessed April 26,2007), 1-9.
Corbett, Greville G. "Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between." In Deponency

and Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman, Greville G.
Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 21—43. Proceedings of the
British Academy, vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
New York: Macmillan, 1955.
Danker, Frederick W. Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. Rev. and expanded ed.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Davidson, Thomas. Introduction in The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, by Dionysios

Thrax, translated by Thomas Davidson, 3. St. Louis: R. P. Studley, 1874.
de Paolis, Paolo. Macrobii Theodosii: De verborum Graeci et Latini dijferentiis vel

societatibus excerpta. Testi grammaticali latini, vol. 1. Urbino: QuattroVenti,
1990.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. Cours de linguistique generale. Edited by Charles Bally, Albert

Sechehaye, and Albert Riedlinger. Paris: Payot, 1916.
Di Benedetto, Vincenzo. "Dionysius Thrax and the Tekne GrammatikS." In History of the
Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of
Language from the Beginnings to the Present, edited by Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K.
Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, and Kees Versteegh, 394^-00. 3 vols. Handbook
of Linguistics and Communication Science, ed. Armin Burkhardt, Hugo Steger,
and Herbert Ernst Wiegand, vol. 18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Donaldson, John William. A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Learners. London:
John W.Parker, 1848.
307
Donaldson, John William. A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Students. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1859.
Dyscoli, Apollonii. "De constructione." In Grammatici Graeci, edited by Gustavus

Uhlig, 1-497. Vol. 2.2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1965.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological

Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Fantin, Joseph D. "The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and
Communicative Approach." Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on
the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Fee, Gordon D. God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,

ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003.
Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau, and with the co-operation of Charles Emil Miller. Syntax of
Classical Greek: From Homer to Desmosthenes. Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis
B.V., 1980.
Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New Testament. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1965.
Goodwin, William Watson. Greek Grammar. 3rd ed. Revised by Charles Burton Gulick.
[Boston]: Ginn, 1930.
Grant, Michael. Greek and Latin Authors: 800 B.C.-A.D. 1000. The Wilson Authors
Series. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1980.
Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. Graeco-Roman Branch. Part 1 of The Hibeh
Papyri. Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Oxford University Press, 1906.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2002.
Hoffmann, Ernst G., and Heinrich von Siebenthal. Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen
Testament. 2nd examined and expanded ed. Riehen, Switzerland: Immanuel-
Verlag, 1990.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations.
Revised by Michael W. Holmes. Updated ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Houghton, Myron J. "A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13." Bibliotheca sacra

153, no. 611 (July-September 1996): 344-56.
Householder, Fred W. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Translated by Fred W.

Householder. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science: Series III—Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. E. F. Konrad
Koerner, vol. 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981.
Howatson, M. C , ed. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989.
Jannaris, Antonius N. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as

Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded
upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London:
Macmillan, 1897.
Johnston, J. William. The Use ofnaq in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek, ed.
D. A. Carson, vol. 11. New York: Peter Lang, 2004.
Kemmer, Suzanne. The Middle Voice. Typological Studies in Language, ed. T. Givon,
vol. 23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993.
Kremer, Jacob, "eyeipco." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by

Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 372-76. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.
Kiihner, Raphael. Grammar of the Greek Language: For the Use of High Schools and
Colleges. Translated by B. B. Edwards and Samuel H. Taylor. Boston: Mussey,
1849.
Kiihner, Raphael, and Friedrich Blass. Elementar- und Formenlehre, 3rd ed. Part 1, vol. 2
of Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover; Leipzig, 1892.
Reprint, Hannover: Hahnsche, 1966.
Kiihner, Raphael, and Bernhard Gerth. Satzlehre, 3rd ed. Part 2, vol. 1 of Ausfuhrliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover; Leipzig, 1898. Reprint,
Munchen: Max Hueber, 1963.
Lavidas, Nikolaos, and Dimitra Papangeli. "Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek." In

Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman,
Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 97-126. Proceedings
of the British Academy, vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
309
Law, Vivien, and Ineke Sluiter. "Introduction." In Dionysius Thrax and the Techne
Grammatike, edited by Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter, 7-12. The Henry Sweet
Society Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. John Flood, Werner Hiillen,
Vivien Law, Michael K. C. MacMahon, and Robert Robins, vol. 1. Miinster:
Nodus, 1995.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Revised and
augmented by Henry Stuart Jones with Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon,
1940. Reprint with a' revised supplement, 1996.
Louw, J. P. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia

Studies, ed. Dan O. Via Jr. and William A. Beardslee. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1982.
Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
Matthews, P. H. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford

Paperback Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
McDougall, Donald G. "Cessationism in 1 Cor 13:8-12." The Master's Seminary Journal

14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 177-213.
McKay, K. L. Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with
Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb. Canberra: Dept. of Classics at Australian
National University, 1974.
McKay, K. L. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual

Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 5. New York: Peter
Lang,1994.
McKean, Erin, ed. The New Oxford American Dictionary. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Miller, Neva F. "Appendix 2: A Theory of Deponent Verbs." In Analytical Lexicon of the

Greek New Testament, by Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, and Neva F. Miller,
423-30. Baker's Greek New Testament Library, ed. Barbara Friberg and Timothy
Friberg. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University
Press, 1959.
Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. Vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3rd
ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, [1908].
Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1997.
310
Mounce, William D. The Morphology of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009.
Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A
Study in Bilingualism. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 27. Leiden:
Brill, 1971.
Nestle-Aland, after Eberhard Nestle, and Erwin Nestle. Novum Testamentum Graece.
27th rev. ed. Edited by Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos,
Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1993.
Pennington, Jonathan T. "Setting Aside 'Deponency': Rediscovering the Greek Middle

Voice in New Testament Studies." In Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the
Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, edited by Stanley
E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnel, 181-203. New Testament Monographs,
ed. Stanley E. Porter, vol. 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009.
Pennington, Jonathan T. E-mail message to author. October 19,2009.
Pennington, Jonathan T. "Deponency in Koine Greek: The Grammatical Question and the
Lexicographal Dilemma." Trinity Journal 24NS, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 55-76.
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:
Greek. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Porter, Stanley E. "Studying Ancient Languages from a Modern Linguistic Perspective:

Essential Terms and Terminology." Filologia neotestamentaria 2, no. 4
(November 1989): 147-72.
Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece
iuxta LXX interpretes. 2nd revised ed. 'H naXaia 8ia0f|Kr| Kaxa TOVC,
£p8ouriKovT;a (O'), ed. Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. 2 vols, in 1. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Rijksbaron, Albert. "The Treatment of the Greek Middle Voice by the Ancient
Grammarians." In Philosophic du langage et grammaire dans I'antiquite, A21-AA.
Cahiers de philosophie ancienne, vol. 5. Editions Ousia: Grenoble, 1986.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.
311
Robins, R. H. Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular

Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine. London: Bell & Sons, 1951.
Robins, R. H. The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History. Trends in

Linguistics; Studies and Monographs, vol. 70. New York; Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 1993.
Schneider, Gerhard. "7100100." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by

Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 62, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Signes-Codoner, Juan. "The Definitions of the Greek Middle Voice between Apollonius
Dyscolus and Constantinus Lascaris." Historiographia linguistica 32, no. 1-2
(2005): 1-33.
Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1956.
Spicq, Ceslas. aya-eXn. Vol. 1 of Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and
trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Spicq, Ceslas. nai-y/ev. Vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and
trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Stump, Gregory T. "A Non-Canonical Pattern of Deponency and Its Implications." In

Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman,
Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 71-95. Proceedings
of the British Academy, vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Taylor, Bernard A. "Deponency and Greek Lexicography." In Biblical Greek Language

and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, edited by Bernard
A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker, 167-76.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Thracis, Dionysii. "Ars Grammatica." In Grammatici Graeci, edited by Gustavus Uhlig,

5-100. Vol. 1.1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1965.
Thrax, Dionysios. The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax. Translated by Thomas Davidson.

St. Louis: R. P. Studley, 1874.
Thesaurus linguae graecae. http://www.tlg.uci.edu/.
Toussaint, Stanley D. "Symposium on the Tongues Movement: First Corinthians Thirteen

and the Tongues Question." Bibliotheca sacra 120, no. 480 (October-December
1963): 311-16.
312
Trask, R. L. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. New York: Routledge,

1993.
Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope
Moulton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance.
Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 14. New York: Peter Lang, 2009.
Wallace, Daniel B. "The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kod in the
New Testament: Semantics and Significance." Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1995.
Whaley, Lindsay. "A Unified Explanation of Deponent Verbs in Ancient Greek." In

ESCOL '90: 7th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics: Selected Papers, 307-
19. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, vol. 7.
Columbus: Ohio State University, 1991.
Wheeler, Benjamin I. Review of Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica qualem exemplaria

vetustissima exhibent subscriptis discrepantiis et testimoniis quae in codicibus
recentioribus scholiis erotematis apud alios scriptores interpretem Armenium
reperiuntur, ed. Gustavus Uhlig. American Journal of Philology 6, no. 2 (1885):
225-27.
Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure

Basis for New Testament Exegesis. 3rd ed. Translated by W. F. Moulton.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882.
Winer, Georg Benedikt. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a
Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament. 7th ed. Revised by
Gottlieb Liinemann. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1869.
Wouters, Alfons. The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt: Contributions to

the Study of the 'Ars Grammatica' in Antiquity. Verhandelingen van de
Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van
Belgie: Klasse der Letteren, vol. 41, no. 92. Brussel: Paleis der Academien, 1979.
Wouters, Alfons. "The Grammatical Papyri and the Techne Grammatike of Dionysius
Thrax." In Dionysius Thrax and the Techne Grammatike, edited by Vivien Law
and Ineke Sluiter, 95-109. The Henry Sweet Society Studies in the History of
Linguistics, ed. John Flood, Werner Hiillen, Vivien Law, Michael K. C.
MacMahon, and Robert Robins, vol. 1. Minister: Nodus, 1995.
313
Xu, Zheng, Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen. "Deponency in Latin." In Deponency and
Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett,
Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 127-43. Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. English ed. Adapted from
the fourth Latin ed. by Joseph Smith. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114.
n.p., 1963. Reprint, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1994.

Defining Deponency An Investi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining Deponency An Investi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFINING DEPONENCY:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO GREEK DEPONENCY

OF THE MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICES IN THE KOINE PERIOD

the Faculty of the Department of New Testament Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Stratton L. Lade wig

Readers: Daniel B. Wallace, Joseph D. Fantin, Richard A. Taylor

Deponency has been treated with great inconsistency in studies of Greek

deponency to exegetically significant passages.

The historical treatment makes four contributions to the whole. First, it

Deponency is validated by analyzing it in Greek against its Latin counterpart.

voice. A refined definition of deponency is offered. Based on this definition, application

Appendix E: New Testament Deponent and Semi-Deponent Verbs.

A critique of the dissenting view is an evaluation of the perspective that

considered: Neva F. Miller, Bernard A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T.

deponency form the basis for the critique.

Five potentially deponent verbs in four passages are investigated to

demonstrate the significance of recognizing the phenomenon, the method of determining

deponency, and the accurate resulting interpretations: nopevQevxeq and EV£TEiA,aur|v in

3. DEPONENCY'S VALIDATION AND REDEFINITION 103

5. EXEGETICALLY SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES 196

A. AORIST PASSIVE INVESTIGATION 218

B. AORIST MIDDLE INVESTIGATION 232

C. BDAG'S "ONLY MIDDLE" AND "ONLY PASSIVE" VERBS 251

D. NEW TESTAMENT VERBS 253

E. NEW TESTAMENT DEPONENT AND SEMI-DEPONENT VERBS 295

1. Dionysus Thrax's Examples off] (xsaoxrn; Voice 28

2. Donaldson's Middle Deponents 53

3. Donaldson's Passive Deponents 54

4. Donaldson's Passive and Middle Aorist Deponents 54

5. Donaldson's Present and Imperfect Only Deponents 54

6. Donaldson's Future Middle Deponents 55

7. Kiihner-Blass's Passive Deponents 57

8. Kuhner' s Passive Deponents with Aorist Passive and Future Middle 58

9. Kiihner's Active Verbs with a Future Middle 59

10. Jannaris's Old Deponents 60

11. Jannaris's New Deponents 60

12. Jannaris's Middle Deponents 61

13. Jannaris's Passive Deponents 62

14. Jannaris's Future Middle Deponents 62

15. Middle Deponents Denoting Bodily or Mental Action 65

16. Smyth's Passive Deponents 65

17. Smyth's ui Verb Deponents 66

18. Winer's Deponents 69

19. Winer's Misidentified Deponents 71

20. Moulton's Future Middle Deponents 72

21. Dana and Mantey's Deponents 74

23. Robertson's Future Deponents 76

24. Robertson's Passive Deponents 76

25. Robertson's Aorist Passive Deponents 76

26. Robertson's Future Passive Deponents 76

27. Robertson's Transitive Passive Deponents 77

28. Wallace's Deponents 83

30. Actives and Middles with Distinct Meanings 108

31. Morphological Opposition Illustrated 117

32. Corbett's Canonical Inflection: The Criteria 122

33. Normal Indicative Inflection 123

34. Deponent Indicative Inflection of Suvaum 123

35. A Sample of NT Semi-deponent Verbs 133

36. Synonymous Active and Middle Voice Verbs 134