The αἰτέω / αἰτέομαι Distinction in the New Testament: A proposal PAUL DANOVE This article investigates the seventy New Testament occurrences of αἰτέω to determine the motivation for and distinctive implications of the verb’s active and middle forms. The introductory discussion specifies the semantic and syntactic characteristics of αἰτέω and develops two features that have implications for distinguishing verbal usages. The discussion then proposes the distinction between active and middle forms and demonstrates this distinction in occurrences of the verb. Keywords: active, affectedness, communication, emphasis, middle, se- mantic, verb. 1. Introduction This discussion specifies the semantic and syntactic characteristics of αἰτέω and develops two features of the conceptualization of the action that permit a resolution of four distinct usages of the verb. In all occurrences, αἰτέω requires completion by three arguments that function as a semantic Agent (the entity that actively instigates an ac- tion and/or is the ultimate cause of a change in another entity), Content (the content of a sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity), and Experiencer (the animate entity that undergoes a sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity).1 The Agent produces the communication, the Content is the communication that is produced, and the Experiencer is the interpreter of the communication. The verb’s syntactic first complement (subject) consistently refer- ences the Agent. The syntactic second complement (the typical subject when the verb is passivized) and third complement (the atypical subject when the verb is passivized) vary. The following examples illustrate the licensing of a second complement Content and of a second complement 1 The definitions of semantic functions are developed from those proposed in J.I. Saeed, Semantics (Oxford 1997) 139-71, and P.L. Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSS 218; SNTG 10; Sheffield 2002) 31-45. Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XXV - 2012, pp. 101-118 Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)