Paul Danove, «The 'aiteo' / 'aiteomai' Distinction in the New Testament: A Proposal.», Vol. 25 (2012) 101-118
This article investigates the seventy New Testament occurrences of aiteo 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 aiteo 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.
The αἰτέω / αἰτέομαι Distinction in the New Testament: A proposal 105
reflects the perspective of the character or of the Agent or of both.7
Frequently the character makes the statement about the Agent’s action
in order to inform the Agent of unfulfilled constraints; and, especially
in charged rhetorical contexts, the character alternates his/her own per-
spective with that of the Agent in order to drive home the implications
of failing to recognize and fulfill the constraints. The context generally
provides clear guidance concerning the perspective of recognition.
These considerations permit the following statement of the active/mid-
dle distinction with αἰτέω:
Middle forms signal the recognition that the Agent’s action of asking is
characterized by unfulfilled constraints that exceed those assumed by the
particular conceptualization of the verb, and active forms signal no recogni-
tion of unfulfilled constraints.
The following investigations of the verbal occurrences illustrate this
statement and further specify its application first with occurrences of
usages ACE-Act/ACE-Mid and then with occurrences of usages AEC-
Act/AEC-Mid.
3. αἰτέω with Usages ACE-Act/ACE-Mid
Αἰτέω presents eight occurrences with usage ACE-Act and six occur-
rences with usage ACE-Mid. Five of these fourteen occurrences appear
in isolation from other occurrences of the verb with Usages ACE-Act/
ACE-Mid. In two of these, only the recognition of the Agent applies. In
Acts 3:2 the context introduces no constraints on the Agent’s action, and
the verb form is active.
7
The discussion of perspectives requires a distinction between characters and the nar-
rator, the textually immanent construct attributed with speaking the content of the work:
cf. S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY
1978) 147-51. The narrator does not offer a perspective for recognizing constraints unless
it is associated with a character. The narrators of Matthew, Mark, Luke, all of John except
20:30-31 and 21:24-25, and all of Acts except the “We” sections (16:10-17; 20:5-8, 13-15;
21:1-18; 27:1-28:16) are not associated with specific characters and so offer no perspective.
The narrators in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25, the “We” sections of Acts, and the remaining
NT books also function as characters and are able to provide a perspective for recognizing
constraints. The latter character-narrators are apparent in the use of first person verbal
endings and pronouns and receive identification in the opening verses of letters.