debating deponency: its past, present, and future in new testament greek studies

Debating Deponency: Its Past, Present, and Future in New Testament Greek Studies

Seth BrownIND 6930 Studies in New Testament Greek Grammar

David Alan Black13 May 2013

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

II. Deponency in the Grammars

A. A. T. Robertson

B. Blass, Debrunner, Funk

C. Stanley Porter

D. Daniel Wallace

E. David Alan Black

F. William Mounce

III. Deponency according to Pennington and Ladewig

A. Jonathan Pennington

B. Stratton Ladewig

IV. Deponency in the Future

A. Remaining Questions: Pennington

B. Remaining Questions: Ladewig

V. Conclusion

Introduction

It seems odd to begin a discussion of Greek grammar with a Latin word. Still, that is

where the work begins. The word depono means “to lay aside” and a derivation of it has come to

describe a whole host of Greek verbs. Traditionally, the term deponency identifies those Greek

verbs which occur with a mismatched form and function. In other words, the verb occurs in the

middle or passive form but functions with an active meaning. One may wonder what exactly was

laid aside? No one seems to be sure whether the label is meant to convey the laying aside of the

active form or the middle/passive meaning. In any case, the label stuck despite attempts to

deconstruct it.1

The history of this categorical description of Greek verbs is troubled at best. So much so,

that almost all grammars exhibit hesitation and uncertainty when discussing the topic. Recently,

though, the discussion has swelled into an outright debate over more than just the accuracy of the

label. Rather, the very existence of the category is under question. This debate is clarifying the

discussion of deponency to a great degree; yet, there are questions that remain to be addressed

before the issue is settled.

Many students, like myself, find these waters hard to navigate. After all, when the Greek

grammar books are not certain about a topic, a student’s misgivings are exaggerated. So, some

clarity on this issue would benefit both scholars and students alike. Toward that end, this work

seeks to outline the major grammars in order to show the need for serious inquiry regarding the

topic. Next, the work will dialogue with two primary contenders to distill the strengths and

weaknesses within the current debate. Finally, the remaining questions in the debate are

1

1 A. T. Robertson famously called it “very unsatisfactory” A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 811.

discerned and put forth as a catalyst to facilitate scholarly work that will bring consensus to the

issue.

Deponency in the Grammars

A. T. Robertson

Robertson includes one of the most detailed discussions of the topic (second only to

Wallace). One does not find it difficult to discover his opinion on the matter. He labels the

section “The So-Called ‘Deponent’ Verbs” and does not think the name should be used at all;

instead, he prefers the label “defective.”2 Robertson admits there are diachronic changes in

regard to voice, and Greek is no exception to this phenomenon. However, one major obstacle

prevents him from accepting that the active form was laid aside. According to him, some verbs

never had an active form; therefore, nothing existed for them to lay aside.

Robertson introduces another term regarding the topic, the “Dynamic (Deponent)

Middle.”3 He makes an allusion to discussions among scholars about the dynamic middle but

does not cite the material directly.4 The apparent discussion centers on the distinction between

dynamic verbs and deponent verbs. Robertson goes on to define dynamic verbs as those whose

“distinctive force” of the voice is difficult to discern.5 The pertinence of such a discussion

becomes rather apparent. In fact, it could imply that debates over the validity of deponency

versus the nature of the middle voice had already begun. Nevertheless, Robertson spurns both

dynamic and deponent as unhelpful descriptors for these verbs.

2

2 A. T. Robertson, Grammar, 332–3.

3 Ibid., 811.

4 The only reference he gives is a footnote that cites a quotation from Gildersleeve (Ibid., 811n4); however, it is not clear whether Gildersleeve included the discussion among scholars or if the interaction occurs elsewhere.

5 Ibid., 812.

In the end, Robertson suspects “it is possible that the Greeks were more sensitive to the

exact force of [the middle voice] than we are.” The middle may be used to intensify the

involvement of the subject in the verb, such as those of mental action. He writes, “I imagine that

the personal interest of the subject is not so difficult to recognize in such verbs.”6

Robertson exhibits two attitudes toward the topic of deponency. First, he rejects the label

because it is unhelpful in describing verbs which never had an active form. Secondly, he is open

to the idea that a fuller understanding of the middle voice is yet discovered (or, a modesty about

current knowledge of the middle is appropriate). At the least, he is hesitant to use an inexact

label.

Blass, Debrunner, Funk

Surprisingly, Blass, Debrunner, and Funk’s Greek Grammar (BDF) says relatively little

about deponent verbs. Furthermore, the few comments that arise remain descriptive and do not

provide much evaluation of deponency. In §77, BDF gives a list of future verbs for which “no

active sigma-aorist exists.”7 Similarly, in §78, BDF is content to say little more than later

language preferred the deponent form in the aorist.8

One finds the most substantive information on deponency in §307 where BDF notes the

use of middle forms in active function to show “a more or less loose participation of the subject

in the action of the verb.” Also, the trend for intransitive verbs to become deponent is

highlighted.9 Interestingly, after having affirmed the category of deponency, the term is not used

3

6 Ibid.

7 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §77.

8 Ibid., §78.

9 Ibid., §307.

in this section. What is highlighted, rather, is the participation of the subject in the action of the

verb.

Stanley Porter

Porter introduces the topic with a broad definition of deponency. He writes,

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.10

He goes on to discuss semi-deponency by noting the variance of forms (i.e., active, middle,

passive, and middle/passive) among the tenses (especially, present and aorist) of some verbs.

Lastly, he narrows the question of deponency to the field of semantics. For some verbs,

he says, “it is difficult to determine why the verb has a middle form unless it is middle in

sense.”11 He adds a warning saying, “One must be cautious before abandoning too quickly the

semantic feature usually grammaticalized by a particular voice form.”12 For other verbs, the

meaning of a deponent verb is simply ambiguous and one must decide whether it conveys an

active, middle, or passive sense.13

Porter’s work is helpful and well-written. He provides a clear discussion of the topic in a

relatively small amount of space. However, Porter falls short of uncovering any new insights into

the problem. The only difference between Robertson’s work, for instance, and Porter’s is the

4

10 Stanley Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 70.

11 Ibid., 72.

12 Porter’s phrase “semantic feature . . . grammaticalized” is what Stratton Ladewig (Ladewig, “Defining Deponency,” 146) refers to as lexical intrusion (i.e., the meaning of the word affected its morphological form). It is unclear whether such a characteristic assumes the presence of a previous active form of the verb. The active form could have been laid aside due to lexical intrusion or the word could have begun with its morphology matching its meaning. In the latter case, though, the meaning would not have, technically, intruded on the on the verb. Ibid.

13 Ibid.

latter’s methodology for determining deponency is more developed. He provides a clear, logical

outworking of the information already available via older grammars.

Daniel Wallace

Of the New Testament (NT) Greek grammars, Wallace’s provides the fullest discussion of

deponent verbs. He begins like many others by defining deponent verbs as those which have no

active form but are active in meaning.14

However, Wallace tempers his definition by saying “Just because a verb has no active

form in the New Testament is not reason enough to label it deponent.”15 While many active forms

may be absent from the New Testament, they often show up in other Greek literature, thus,

excluding the verb from the category of deponency. However, Wallace offers his own rejoinder

to the previous statement in a footnote,

As with lexical stock, the morphological stock of various writers at a given period cannot be presumed to be identical. Much work needs to be done in this area. For the most part, NT exegetes have been content to cite lexical entries as though the NT usage in toto fairly represented the pool of idioms available to its authors. Such an approach, though convenient, is hardly adequate.16

In essence, Wallace is suggesting that various lexical corpora (namely, Hellenistic and Classical

lexicons) need to be exhausted then subdivided for the consideration of geography and

chronology in determining the deponency (or non-deponency) of a verb.17

5

14 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 428.

15 Ibid. Emphasis original.

16 Ibid., 429.

17 This consideration is quite insightful; yet, the current state of Greek lexicography makes this level of analysis highly unlikely. In fact, one cannot be sure what particular resources Wallace may be alluding to that might permit this sort of lexical study. Furthermore, if the resources were available, how exactly should one go about determining what range of vocabulary a particular author had at his or her disposal? It seems the closest one could approximate this sort of study would be to narrow the lexical corpora down to the extant literature at the time of the author. Even then, one could never be sure exactly what literature had influenced the author in his or her choice of verb morphology.

Wallace then offers a helpful (and seemingly original) methodological note. He writes,

“There are some verbs that never had an active form, but the true middle force is clearly

seen. . . . 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.”18 This is an important step

in the process of determining deponency; yet, many grammarians either do not practice it or do

not articulate it in their work.19

Wallace goes on to sum up his own work by outlining two possible approaches to

determining deponency. First is the “Rough and Ready Rule” which “consider[s] a middle (or

passive) to be deponent if the lexical form of the word in BAGD is middle (or passive), not

active.”20 As noted above, this method is insufficient because it is restricted to a limited corpus

and does not take into account the force of the middle voice. Second is the “Ideal Approach”

which, according to Wallace, “investigate[s] the form of the word in Koine (conveniently, via

Moulton-Milligan) and classical Greek (Liddell-Scott-Jones) before you declare a verb

deponent.”21 He adds, “Even then, you should not be able to see a middle force in the verb.”22

No one treats deponency quite like Wallace. One can discern at least two characteristics

of his work that arise from this discussion. First, he introduces a careful hesitancy when

classifying a verb as deponent. There is much to consider when determining which category a

6

18 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 429. Emphasis original.

19 The primary reason this sort of methodological articulation is missing from discussions of deponency is that such discussions lack consensus and are generally in disarray. It is incumbent upon grammarians on all sides of the argument to not only argue negatively against a verb’s categorical exclusion (either middle or deponent) but also to argue positively for a verb’s inclusion (either middle or deponent).

20 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 429.

21 Ibid., 429–30.

22 Ibid.

verb falls into, such as relevant lexical corpora, geo-temporal occurrences of verb form, and the

force of the middle voice. Secondly, he articulates a methodology (albeit limited) for the study of

the topic.

David Alan Black

Black offers a succinct and balanced discussion of deponency. Not only does he validate

the category of deponency, but he also allows for real consideration of the force of the middle

voice. Interestingly though, his discussion in his beginning grammar, Learn to Read New

Testament Greek, is more nuanced than the coverage deponency receives in his intermediate text,

It’s Still Greek to Me. In the former, he writes:

A number of Greek verbs have middle or passive forms without any corresponding active forms. These verbs are called deponent verbs . . . It is thought that somewhere in the development of the language the active forms of these verbs were “laid aside” out of preference for the middle forms. . . . Some deponent verbs can be explained as true middles in which the subject is being emphasized in some manner.23

These comments are short but helpful. The category of deponency is introduced, but he leaves

room for the middle voice to affect the meaning of the verb.

However, in the latter work, his minor comment on methodology belies the nuance

previously established. Black writes, “The only way you can tell whether or not a verb is

deponent is from the Greek lexicon. Deponent verbs will end in -mai.”24 How, then, should one

discern true middles from deponent verbs? The answer is not given.

The purpose of such critical analysis is not for its own sake. Rather, close inspection

shows a hesitancy on the part of Black. It seems he is aware of careful discussions on the topic

7

23 David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993), 88–89.

24 David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 95.

and does not want to label verbs as deponent too quickly. Even though his work lacks sufficient

articulation of methodology, he seeks to incorporate serious consideration of the middle voice. In

this, he corroborates evidence from other grammarians that a growing hesitation exists regarding

deponency. Scholars are aware of the critical issues but do not feel comfortable making dogmatic

claims about the topic. Likely, this hesitation continues due to the lack of scholarly consensus.

William Mounce

Mounce seems to be an exception to the trend of hesitancy regarding deponency among

NT Greek grammarians. His remarks are quite dogmatic, which may be why Pennington singles

Mounce out as an example of misconstruing the middle voice.25

Mounce is straightforward about his view on deponency. He says a deponent verb is one

that is “middle or passive in form but active in meaning.”26 According to Mounce, “Its form is

always middle or passive, but its meaning is always active. It can never have a passive

meaning.”27 Here one finds clear lines of categorical distinction. The traditional definition of

mismatched form and function is expected. However, the remarks “meaning is always active”

and “never . . . passive” are overstated. After all, are there any rules of Greek grammar that fit

into such clean categories with no exceptions?

To his credit, Mounce implicitly acknowledges a (relatively) nuanced view of deponency

later in the book in his remarks about tense forms. He writes, “If a verb is deponent in a tense,

that tense stem is listed in its middle or passive form.”28 Again he states, “Because a verb is

8

25 Jonathan Pennington, “Setting Aside ‘Deponency’: Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New Testament Studies,” in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 189.

26 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 150.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid., 157.

deponent in the present does not mean that it will be deponent in the future (or any other

tense).”29 While he does not offer any latitude on the meaning of deponent verbs (i.e., no room

for middle or passive meaning), he does offer semi-deponency as a category.

Mounce may not hesitate to state a clear definition of deponency. However, his firm

statements about meaning and his implied allowance of semi-deponency leave readers with a

stunted understanding of deponency in general. So, while Mounce’s work does not follow the

trend of hesitancy among grammarians, it also fails to further the study of the topic.

Deponency according to Pennington and Ladewig

Now, the present work will dialogue with the two primary contenders in the current

debate. Jonathan Pennington takes the view that deponency an invalid categorization and opts in

favor of an expanded understanding of the middle voice. On the other hand, Stratton Ladewig

argues in favor of a redefined (yet valid) category of deponency.

Each of these authors’ contributions will be analyzed and compared in order to discover

their strengths and weaknesses. This process reveals unaddressed issues that will be discussed in

the final section. This researcher hopes this assessment will aid future grammarians in narrowing

and furthering the discussion of deponency, while contributing to the overall understanding of

NT Greek.

Jonathan Pennington

Pedagogy is of central concern in Pennington’s discussion on deponency. He is attentive

to the impact his work has on exegesis and with teaching Greek grammar in general. The

9

29 Ibid., 161.

removal of an unnecessary category (namely, deponency) coupled with a deeper understanding

of the middle voice could serve students and teachers alike.

He introduces the topic much like all other grammarians. Pennington notes the mismatch

in form and function, the irregular lexical form, and the Latin term deponere.30 His goal is to

show

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.31

Pennington recounts, then, the history of the middle voice, showing its priority (over

passive) and the subsequent encroachment of the passive voice. However, the Koine literature

finds itself in the middle of this process; thus, readers will notice both the presence of distinct

passive forms in the aorist and distinct middle forms as well. Moving on, Pennington notes the

growing awareness of nuance in the middle voice from various grammarians and linguists.

The definition of deponency that he provides is as follows: “the class of verbs which

appear in the middle form but apparently have instead an active meaning.”32 The previous

definition is footnoted with comments about the distinct passive in future and aorist forms and

what he views as inconsistent usage of the term deponency when its applied to both middle and

passive forms. Pennington ends his exposition of deponency by referring to the work of Wallace

10

30 Pennington, “Setting Aside ‘Deponency’,” 181.

31 Ibid., 182.

32 Ibid., 186.

and Porter and how they not only considered the lack of an active form but also the possibility of

“true middle meaning” when trying to determine deponency.33

Next, he is right to point out the growing qualification of the category signals the need for

further work on the topic. As is obvious, Pennington intends to challenge the validity of the

category altogether. The influence of Latin grammar is the first point he engages. Simply put,

Pennington believes the transference of the Latin category of deponency into Koine Greek is

superficial and invalid.

Furthermore, the outright unfamiliarity of English, German, or French speakers with the

middle voice (due to its non-existence in each respective language) forced translators to gloss the

Greek, thus, compounding the problem. The full meaning of the middle is lost. Semantic nuances

intruded on the form of words like devcomai.34 The meaning (i.e., I take, receive) necessarily

includes the subject’s participation and naturally led authors to use the middle form.

He goes on to offer a positive explanation of these verbs by appealing to Neva Miller’s

middle voice classifications.35 The following table represents the classifications that Neva Miller

offers for middle voice verbs.36

Class 1: Reciprocity Class 4: Self-Interest

Class 2: Positive Interaction Class 5: Receptivity

Class 3: Self-Involvement Class 6: Passivity

Figure 1. Neva Miller’s Middle Voice ClassificationsFigure 1. Neva Miller’s Middle Voice Classifications

11

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., 189. This phenomenon is what Ladewig calls “lexical intrusion.”

35 Ibid., 190–91.

36 Neva F. Miller, “A Theory of Deponent Verbs,” Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 427–29. These categories describe in detail the phenomenon of lexical intrusion.

Noting these helpful categories, Pennington lauds her classifications as “striking” and

“comprehensive” work on middle verbs.37 He uses this framework to show the benefit of doing

away with deponency and approaching these verbs as true middles.

Pennington expects objections to his proposition and lists two potential obstacles. First,

he considers the phenomenon of a verb that has an active present and a future middle, that is,

semi-deponents. He begins by suggesting that scholars approach these as future middles instead

of future deponents because the the latter title begs the question. Pennington then suggests that

an explanation for the occurrence of these verbs may be unobtainable. Rather, he defends the

aforementioned theory by saying, “The proposed theory above does not require the middle in

these cases.”38 In essence, Miller’s middle voice classifications are descriptive. He finishes his

explanation by delving further into linguistic studies of the middle voice. Future events only

exist in the mind of the author; therefore, this sense of the verb finds expression in its

morphology.39

The second obstacle that Pennington tackles is passive deponents. Passive deponents are

middle verbs in the present form (traditionally deponent) that occur in the passive voice in the

aorist form while apparently retaining the active meaning. He claims this subset of verbs

(approximately 85 in number) can already be categorized as true middles; thus, the occurrence of

the passive is attributed to the erosion of the middle.40

12


38 Ibid., 194. Emphasis original.

39 This is a nuanced form of lexical intrusion.


Pennington concludes his work by returning to the topic of pedagogy. He notes that

teachers may simplify their content by throwing off the hindrance of the category of deponency.

Furthermore, students and teachers alike may bring the newfound expressions of the middle

voice to bear on exegesis and interpretation, thus enhancing the overall understanding of the NT.

Stratton Ladewig

Ladewig’s goal in his work accords well with the title; that is, he sets out to define

deponency. To achieve a definition that fills what is lacking in NT Greek grammar, he follows

this methodology: (1) to examine the historical treatment of deponency diachronically, (2) to

examine the validity of the category and offer a refined definition, (3) to critique those that deny

the validity of the grammatical category of deponency, and (4) to apply the refined definition of

deponency to select passages.41 The first three of these emphases are the most relevant to this

discussion because it is within these areas that the critical issues are brought to light.

Ladewig’s historical inquiry is significant for at least two reasons. First, it seems his work

in examining the ancient Greek grammars is somewhat unique. It is common among

grammarians to suppose the imposition of Latin grammar on the study of Greek when speaking

of deponency; however, it is quite uncommon (maybe even nonexistent) for grammarians to

consult the ancient grammars to test this supposition. Secondly, due to his unique effort, Ladewig

turns up valuable information from the ancient grammarians, namely, Dionysius Thrax,

Applonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius. Moving on, the Latin definition of deponency is examined

for the purpose of extracting the basic principles and applying them to Koine Greek to test

whether or not deponency is applicable to the Greek language. He follows this path in order to

13

41 Stratton L. Ladewig, “Defining Deponency: An Investigation into Greek Deponency of the Middle and Passive Voices in the Koine Period” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010), iii.

determine the validity or invalidity of the category. Furthermore, Ladewig then constructs a

refined definition based on usage in the literature. Lastly, he takes to task four interlocutors who

deny the validity of deponency. Here one finds the critical issues exposed. The major objections

to the category arise and find themselves examined in the light of the definition Ladewig

constructs in the second section.

The purpose of the analysis that follows is to discern the opposing propositions of

Ladewig and his interlocutors in order to discover any issues that remain to be settled. The

historical inquiry begins with Dionysius Thrax. Ladewig translates and studies a portion of his

grammar, Tevcnh Grammatikhv (Technē Grammatikē). In it, Ladewig finds Dionysius struggling

to neatly categorize verbs whose morphology do not match their function, namely, active or

passive form verbs with middle function.42 Next, Apollonius Dyscolus’ work contains a

treatment of middle verbs in which he finds it difficult to determine activity or passivity. Once

again, Ladewig finds a mismatch of form and function. In the third ancient witness, Macrobius,

one finds an explicit comparison of Greek and Latin grammar. With regard to mismatched form

and function, Macrobius follows Dionysius and Apollonius. He does, however, make a note

about function that is unique. Ladewig recounts Macrobius’ words when he describes, “a

situation in which the use of the middle voice is recognized as possessing fluidity. . . . Its

function is not strictly controlled by its form.”43 In other words, the middle voice is not static; it

functions in variable ways. To summarize the work of the ancient witnesses, Ladewig writes,

“Their understandings of voice recognized situations, sometimes affected by context or lexeme,

14

42 This particular mismatch of form and function is quite the opposite of what most grammarians label as deponent. Nevertheless, it illustrates the occurrence and validity of a category for verbs with mismatched form and function.

43 Ladewig, “Defining Deponency,” 39.

in which there was a discrepancy between the form and function of the verb. Macrobius called

this phenomenon deponency.”44

Ladewig goes on to outline the history of deponency throughout the gothic, medieval,

and modern periods. Such a thorough survey is beneficial; yet, the consultation of the ancient

grammarians is a worthy effort in its own right. Further still, the impact that the affirmation of

the category of deponency in ancient Greek grammars makes on the debate of deponency’s

validity cannot be easily overstated. Ladewig brings new information to the table with this

section of his work that will, in turn, affect the future study of the topic.45

The examination of deponency in Latin and the subsequent redefinition of deponency in

Greek comes next. As many grammarians remark, “the term ‘deponent’ comes from the Latin

infinitive deponere, which means ‘to lay aside,’ or ‘to put down.’”46 The common use of this

label is to note the laying aside of either active form or passive function in Latin deponent verbs.

If the term applies to Greek verbs, it will be through the extension of features of the category

rather than the simple transference of the label. Ladewig follows the line of thought set forth by

Matthew Baerman in this regard.47

In summarizing Baerman, Ladewig provides this paragraph to show the relevant features

of deponency that arise in Koine Greek,

15

44 Ibid., 41.

45 Others have done similar historical work but none addresses deponency in the grammars. Instead, they analyze deponent verbs diachronically as they occur in the primary source literature. Lavidas and Papangeli write, “We thus believe that the diachronic data of Greek accord with the idea that deponency is a morphological phenomenon; or else, deponency requires the existence of morphology in the design of grammar” (Nikolaos Lavidas and Dimitra Papangeli, “Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek,” in Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, eds. Matthew Baerman, et al., Proceedings from the British Academy, 145 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 97–126).


47 Ibid., 104.

Deponency is 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).48

Here he finds the basic characteristics of deponency that come to bear on Koine Greek. It is

important to notice that the list of characteristics is significantly more developed than what one

finds in the grammars of the past. Second only to Ladewig’s historical inquiry, the level of

methodological development he brings to the study of deponency is quite invaluable.

Ladewig works through the six characteristics evaluating and providing examples of their

presence in Koine literature. In the end, by his analysis of the occurrences in the literature, he

offers the following definition for deponency in Koine Greek:

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 voice function while simultaneously lacking active morphology for a particular principal part in Koine literature and lacking a beneficiary/recipient-subject.49

This refined definition allows him, then, to approach those within the field who are attempting to

do away with deponency as a valid category. In the next section, he defends his view that

deponency is “a legitimate expression of voice in Koine Greek” against Neva F. Miller, Bernard

A. Taylor, Rutger J. Allan, and Jonathan T. Pennington.50 For the purposes of this article,

16

48 Matthew Baerman, “Morphological Typology of Deponency,” in Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, eds. Matthew Baerman, et al., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 2, quoted in Stratton L. Ladewig, “Defining Deponency,” 112. Emphasis original.


50 Ibid., 164.

Ladewig’s critique of Miller and Pennington will receive attention.51 As it happens, Pennington

utilizes Miller’s work on the middle voice; so, Pennington receives the primary focus.

Ladewig begins by highlighting a few major mistakes in Miller’s work. First, Miller

claims that deponent verbs never had an active form. Ladewig appeals to the work of Lavidas

and Papangeli to refute this idea. Many verbs did, in fact, lose their active forms while others

gained an active form. Next, Ladewig accuses Miller of conflating transitivity with voice; thus,

confusing her definition of deponency. Also, Ladewig takes issue with Miller’s prescriptive

approach to the language. She cannot allow that such a refined language could have a large

number of defective verbs. So, in her estimation, there must be another explanation for their

function. Ladewig rebuffs her approach to the language in favor of a descriptive approach.

Lastly, he points out Miller’s narrow focus on middle deponents while neglecting passive

deponents. Even if her previous arguments were sound, there would still be passive deponent

verbs to bring into account. Ladewig’s critique of Miller finds several points of contact; however,

it seems he neglects the fruitfulness of her major contribution –– her middle voice classifications.

Now, he moves on to Pennington where he finds “the most assertive articulation of the

denial of deponency.”52 To start, he notices a missing piece in the definition of deponency that

Pennington provides. The definition lacks any mention of the passive voice. Instead, Pennington

offers, “the class of verbs which appear in the middle form but apparently have instead an active

17

51 While Ladewig’s critique of Taylor and Allan do not fit within the schema of this paper, it is worth noting that both arguments are essentially the same. They, like Miller and Pennington, reject a skewed view of deponency. That is, their definitions of deponency are lacking; therefore, their arguments against that definition land on a straw-man. The specifics of Ladewig’s critique against Taylor and Allan vary accordingly but the core is the same. His refined definition of deponency affords him a significant vantage point.


meaning.”53 Now, after learning of Ladewig’s thoroughly developed definition of deponency, one

can easily infer the numerous problems Ladewig may have with Pennington’s definition.

However, he seems to overlook its insufficiency in order to move on to larger critiques.

The first critique addresses Pennington’s suggestion that Latin grammar has unduly

influenced the study of Greek. As is obvious, Ladewig’s work in the ancient Greek grammars

precludes this argument. The study of Greek grammar included deponency before medieval Latin

grammarians had a chance to intervene. Secondly, Ladewig subverts Pennington’s suggestion

that English has inappropriately influenced the study of the middle voice due its non-existence in

English. To this, he replies, “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; Kühner-

Blass/Kühner-Gerth; Hoffman-von Siebenthal; Georg Benedikt Winer).”54 After addressing some

pedagogical issues that Pennington raises in favor of his argument, Ladewig finds that

Pennington’s argument is quite unpersuasive. Once again, Ladewig’s developed definition of

deponency allows him to identify and critique misguided and missing characteristics of others’

discussions of deponency.

Deponency in the Future

Pennington and Ladewig each provide valuable insights; yet, questions still remain to be

answered before the issue is settled. In what follows, these insights and remaining questions are

brought to light in order to narrow discussions in future debates on the topic.

18



Remaining Questions: Pennington

Pennington bookends the topic with pedagogical concerns. He sets the stage with an

overview of deponency then makes both negative and positive arguments, noting objections and

explanations in the end. He begins with a short history of the Greek middle voice then introduces

deponency. Pennington questions the validity of the category by noting the influence of Latin

grammar and general unfamiliarity with the Greek middle voice. He then appeals to Neva

Miller’s classifications of middle verbs to explain the occurrence of the middle voice in verbs

traditionally categorized as deponent. Finally, he considers two objections to his work and

attempts to offer an explanation for each.

Likely, the incorporation of Neva Miller’s classifications into the discussion of

deponency is the most helpful thing Pennington offers. The various classifications, though not

without need of further revision, offer a fuller understanding of the middle voice.55 If one is to

distinguish between true middles and deponent verbs, then clear and accurate categories must be

established. Miller and Pennington provide that clarification for the middle voice.

How, if At All, Can Pennington Incorporate Ladewig’s Definition into His Work on the Middle Voice?

If Pennington is to further the discussion, though, a few things need redressing. First, his

atrophied definition of deponency proves inadequate for a substantial treatment of the topic. It

would be helpful to see him incorporate Ladewig’s definition of deponency into his work. Then,

one could see each category, namely, deponent and true middle, in the their fullest expressions

side-by-side.

19

55 Pennington himself admits of the need for some revision (Pennington, “Setting Aside ‘Deponency’,” 191–2). Some classifications could serve to further complicate the issues like “Class 6: Passivity.” Many note the existing difficulty of teaching students the distinction between middles, passives, and deponents; so, suggesting a label like “Middle Voice of Passivity” seems to exaggerate the problem.

Does the Presence of Deponency in the Ancient Greek Grammars Preclude the claim that Latin Grammar Encroached on the Study of Greek?

The next issue that needs to be addressed is the largest. Pennington’s primary claim that

deponency as a category is invalid seems to be soundly refuted by Ladewig’s work. Pennington’s

foundational claim that Latin grammar imposed upon Greek grammar is contradicted by

Ladewig’s evidence from the ancient Greek grammars. If the ancient Greek’s recognized

deponency (even if in kernel form), how could Latin grammarians have introduced the category?

Furthermore, could it have been the other way around? Could the ancient Greek language have

introduced deponency into Latin?

Does Evidence from Diachronic Analysis of Particular Passive Deponent Verbs Support Pennington’s Claim that Their Occurrence is Due to the Erosion of the Middle Voice? Another issue needing attention is Pennington’s response to the second obstacle he

proposes, namely, that the incorporation of Miller’s classifications for middle verbs does nothing

to address passive deponents. However, Pennington writes, “all of the ‘passive deponents’ are

verbs which we have already shown to be truly middle verbs. That is, they are a subset of the

85+ verbs which can easily be shelved into different middle semantic categories.”56 Now, it

seems Pennington simply pushes the problem down a level because there is still no explanation

why these verbs occur in the passive voice instead of the middle –– even if their present tense

form is truly middle. He offers this in return. This phenomenon is a prime example of the erosion

of the middle as the passive voice begins to take over the usage of these verbs. Given the

relatively small size of this category of verbs (less than 85 according to Pennington), it seems the

best way forward on this issue is to identify these verbs and analyze their usages diachronically

20


to determine if this phenomenon is, in fact, due to the erosion of the middle voice in Koine

literature.

Remaining Questions: Ladewig

Ladewig has argued positively on two major fronts. First, he discovered valuable

evidence for the presence of deponency in ancient Greek grammars, namely, Dionysius Thrax,

Applonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius. Secondly, he evaluated deponency in Latin to distill the

major components and then examined those components in the light of Koine literature to

develop a refined definition of deponency for Koine Greek.

Furthermore, Ladewig has critiqued the major scholars who deny the validity of

deponency. Of those, Neva F. Miller and Jonathan T. Pennington have made the most beneficial

contributions, yet, do not escape unscathed from Ladewig’s critique.

Likely, the two major lines of argument in Ladewig’s work are the most substantial

contributions to the issue of deponency since its initial questioning. His work in the ancient

grammars provides an insight by which to evaluate Latin grammar’s influence (or lack thereof)

on Greek. It seems like a simple thing to consult the primary sources; yet, grammarians for years

have appealed to Latin grammar’s inappropriate influence over Greek in order to doubt the

validity of deponency while never actually consulting the sources. Others should mimic his work

and continue the close analysis of Dionysius Thrax, Applonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius for two

reasons. First, Ladewig’s work needs to be tested by others. This much is true for any scholar.

Secondly, there may be more critical information that is yet to be discovered.

Ladewig’s thorough work in refining the definition of deponency is invaluable as well.

Previously, Wallace had provided the most thorough method for determining deponency. Now,

21

grammarians have a more powerful and accurate tool by which to examine the Koine literature.

By utilizing the work of linguists on the middle voice and deponency in other languages,

Ladewig was able to distill several characteristics of deponency. Afterward, a set of criteria were

outlined by which to determine which verbs are deponent and which are not. These are:

1. Mismatch of Form and Function –– the verb must be middle, passive, or

middle-passive in form while functioning as an active.

2. No Active Form –– the verb must lack an active counterpart.

3. Absence of Lexical Intrusion –– the verb does not possess a

“beneficiary/recipient-subject.”57

How Can Miller’s Middle Voice Classifications Supplement Ladewig’s Redefinition of Deponency?

Though Ladewig’s contributions are tremendous, there is a glaring absence in his work

that leaves room for revision. Carefully, he critiques Miller’s work and takes her to task for her

mistakes; yet, he neglects the benefit of her contribution. After all, her classifications of middle

verbs complement the criteria for determining deponency that Ladewig outlines. Criteria number

three (listed above) calls for the examination of the meaning of the verb in order to discern

whether or not there exists a subject who is involved or benefiting from the action of the verb.

Miller’s classifications are very helpful in this process; in fact, they describe lexical intrusion.

One could check each of the seven classes to determine if the verb fits into one of them. If the

verb matches the class, then lexical intrusion is present and the verb is not deponent (truly

middle). If the verb does not match one of the classes (and meets the other two criteria), then the

verb is deponent. Due to the exhaustive nature of Ladewig’s work, it seems out of place that he

22

57 Ladewig, “Defining Deponency,” 146. In other words, there is no sufficient subject involvement or benefit that would cause the verb to be truly middle.

would neglect such a benefit to his method. Further discussions of the methodology for

determining deponency cannot overlook this step.58

If the Category of Deponency is Valid, then What Form Should the Headwords of Deponent Verbs Take in the Lexicons? Furthermore, What is the Best Process for Utilizing Lexicons in Determining Deponency?

The second issue that evades consideration in Ladewig’s work is its effect on

lexicography. Now, to be sure, this is a secondary issue. However, given the exhaustive nature of

Ladewig’s work, the issue needs attention. Two aspects of Ladewig’s process for determining

deponency concern lexicography. The third criterion he lists, absence of lexical intrusion,

requires the consultation of a lexicon(s) to determine whether or not the semantic nature of the

verb is exerting influence on its morphology. The second criterion he lists, no active form,

theoretically requires the consultation of a lexicon(s) as well. One will need to determine which

principal parts (if any) occur in the active voice. Now, there may be other sources such as

grammars and other aids that list some verbs and their principal parts; yet, these do not usually

contain verb listings that rival the size of the corpus of standard lexicons. So, one can see, the use

of lexicons is important to Ladewig’s process for determining deponency.59

The methodology’s dependence on lexical information leads to the inheritance of

lexicographical problems outlined by both Bernard Taylor and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. Each

of these are worth considering for the furtherance of this discussion.

23

58 Scholars like Martin Culy welcome the expansion of the middle voice for the sake of exegesis; however, the expansion of the middle voice comes at the demise of deponency (Martin Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), xx–xxii). This need not be the case. If Miller’s middle voice classifications are considered within the process of determining deponency, then one can glean the exegetical benefits of middle voice categories without invalidating the category of deponency.

59 Nevertheless, he contends that deponency is a “syntactical designation.” Therefore, the final verdict on a given verb will rest in the analysis of the context of the verb in conjunction with lexical evidence. Ladewig, “Defining Deponency,” 162.

Taylor notes the problem of “selecting the appropriate lexical form for each verb.”60 As is

obvious, the present active form is the standard form for headwords in a lexicon. Yet, there are

two instances where the current standard may be misleading to those attempting to determine

whether a verb is deponent or not. First, verbs which lack the active form in a tense other than

the present will not be easily recognizable since the headword is in active form.

Furthermore, if there are no occurrences of the active form, then it is impossible to list

the active form of the verb as the headword. In these circumstances, the applicable middle or

passive form is listed. This is a good (though far from certain) indicator of deponency. There is

the problem, though, of corpus size. In other words, if a lexicon’s corpus is limited to the NT and

no active forms of a given verb occur, yet, the active form does occur in Koine literature outside

of the given corpus, what form should the headword take? The apparent answer is the form

available in the corpus. However, this will confuse those who take the lexical form as a major

contributor to determining deponency. One may find a middle or passive form as a headword in

one lexicon and feel led to categorize the verb as deponent only to find the verb listed in the

active form in another lexicon of a different corpus. The onus, here, is on lexicographers and not

Ladewig per se. Nevertheless, the issue is intricately connected with the process of determining

deponency and needs attention.

For now, it seems Ladewig could articulate a sub-process regarding various lexicons to

ensure the utilization of the largest possible corpus of Koine literature in determining deponency.

Long term solutions merit consideration, though. Taylor proposes the aorist tense as the standard

headword form in lexicons. He writes, “when it comes to deponency, there is a major advantage

24

60 Bernard A. Taylor, “Deponency and Greek Lexicography,” Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, eds. Bernard A. Taylor, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 168.

in beginning with the aorist: three unambiguous paradigms for voice are available. Consequently,

there is no doubt about whether a particular verb is middle or passive, contra the present

tense.”61 Taylor’s suggestion is useful; however, it is not intensely practical. It would necessitate

the revision of nearly all lexicons and grammars to accommodate such a change.

O’Donnell calls for a change in lexicographical standards from a slightly different

perspective, although deponency is still in view. O’Donnell starts by showing the problems of

current Hellenistic Greek Lexicography using two examples, ejgeivrw and ajnivsthmi. Essentially,

he shows how the semantics of English and the influence of theology severely affect the

lexicographical information provided for these words. Often, basic grammatical features such as

voice are over-ridden in translation by these other concerns. Furthermore, current lexicography

does not offer a way out of this confusion. Likewise, grammars often muddle the issue further by

introducing deponency into the discussion when the evidence clearly shows these words are not

deponent.62 His solution for this issue in lexicography may also solve the issue of deponency in

lexicography as well. His proposition involves the semantic clustering one finds in lexicons like

Louw & Nida’s coupled with analytical digital annotation that links lexical and contextual

information.63 Essentially, this work merges lexical and contextual information into one

accessible source and facilitates the processes of analyzing a particular text (i.e., determining

25

61 Ibid., 172.

62 O’Donnell’s work on this issue embodies a fascinating intersection of grammar, morphology, exegesis, lexicography, and linguistics. O’Donnell wrestles with these issues in: Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Lexicography,” in Corpus Linguistics & the Greek New Testament, New Testament Monographs, 6, ed. Stanley Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005), 315–94. Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep,” in Resurrection, eds. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 136–163.

63 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Nida, The Greek-English Lexicon (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989). O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 315–94.

deponency).64 It seems clear, then, that if Ladewig’s work is to finish the debate over deponency,

there are a few things left to resolve. Hopefully, the issues outlined above will help narrow that

effort.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a few summary comments are offered. The work of several major

grammars has been outlined to show how deponency was treated in the past. Robertson rejected

the label outright because of its inaccuracy. He opted for a hesitation that seemed to expect that

a fuller understanding of the middle voice would enlighten the current knowledge of the topic.

BDF contains only brief comments; yet, there is an emphasis on the function of these verbs in

showing the participation of the subject in the action. Porter essentially restates the existing

concerns found in previous grammars but pays special attention to the method for identifying

deponent verbs. As helpful as Porter’s comments are, they still leave much work undone. Black

deals with the issue with careful hesitancy and, in so doing, he implies the need for a more

detailed inquiry into the topic. Mounce, however, does not exhibit much hesitancy, but he leaves

readers with more questions than answers.

Two primary contenders in the current debate were brought into dialogue in order to

distill the strengths and weaknesses of each. Pennington’s strengths lie in his great concern for an

expanded understanding of the middle voice for the sake of pedagogy and exegesis.

Unfortunately though, he denies the validity of deponency prematurely, thus undermining the

entire endeavor. Ladewig’s strengths lie in his historical analyses of the ancient Greek grammars

26

64 This type of work is an exciting addition to NT Greek study. Ideally, this work combined with other efforts such as that of the Greek Lexicon Project at the University of Cambridge will provide an exhaustive lexicon of the Greek language that is conducive to combining both contextual and lexical evidence in the study of a particular text. Greek Lexicon Project, University of Cambridge Faculty of Classics, http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/faculty/research-groups_and_societies/greek_lexicon (accessed 15 April 2013).

and his nuanced definition of deponency. Even so, he neglects to include beneficial information

(i.e., Miller’s middle voice classifications) about the middle voice at a key juncture of his

methodology for determining deponency.

Lastly, all of this work was analyzed for the sake of discerning any remaining questions

that hinder the progress of achieving scholarly consensus on the topic of deponency in New

Testament Greek studies. Here are the the questions that were identified from Pennington’s work:

1. How, if at all, can Pennington incorporate Ladewig’s definition into his work on the

middle voice?

2. Does the presence of deponency in the ancient Greek grammars preclude the claim that

Latin grammar encroached on the study of Greek?

3. Does evidence from diachronic analysis of particular passive deponent verbs support

Pennington’s claim that their occurrence is due to the erosion of the middle voice?

Here are the questions that were identified from Ladewig’s work:

1. How can Miller’s middle voice classifications supplement Ladewig’s redefinition of

deponency?

2. If the category of deponency is valid, then what form should the headwords

of deponent verbs take in the lexicons? Furthermore, what is the best process for

utilizing lexicons in determining deponency?

It is the goal of all NT scholars to contribute substantial, original work to the field. The

grammatical category of deponency has given several scholars the opportunity to do just that.

Even still, the opportunity remains to fill what is lacking in exhausting this topic. This debate is

27

clarifying the discussion of deponency to a great degree; yet, there are questions that remain to

be addressed before the issue is settled. It is my hope that outlining the past discussion of

deponency in the grammars shows the great need for scholars to continue this work. Likewise,

the dialogue with Pennington and Ladewig distills the strengths and weaknesses of the current

debate. Lastly, the discernment of the remaining questions will serve as a catalyst to other

scholarly work that brings a consensus regarding the grammatical category of deponency in

Koine Greek.

28

Bibliography

Baerman, Matthew. “Morphological Typology of Deponency.” In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, edited by Matthew Baerman, et al., 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Black, David Alan. Learn to Read New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993.

–––. It’s Still Greek to Me. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Culy, Martin M. I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004.

Ladewig, Stratton L. “Defining Deponency: An Investigation into Greek Deponency of the Middle and Passive Voices in the Koine Period.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010.

Lavidas, Nikolaos and Dimitra Papangeli. “Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek.” In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Edited by Matthew Baerman, et al., 97–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. “Lexicography.” In Corpus Linguistics & the Greek New Testament, New Testament Monographs, Number 6, edited by Stanley Porter, 314–396. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005.

–––. “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep.” In Resurrection, edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, 136–163. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Pennington, Jonathan T. “Setting Aside ‘Deponency’: Rediscovering the Greek Middle Voice in New Testament Studies.” In The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, 181–203. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Taylor, Bernard A. “Deponency and Greek Lexicography.” In Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, edited by Bernard Taylor, et al., 167–176. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

debating deponency: its past, present, and future in new testament greek studies

Documents