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 113
they did try to ask.15 Thus the verb form is middle. The occurrence in
v. 3a, which appears in a statement that some community members do
ask, adopts the perspective of the members of the community who ask
without a recognition of unfulfilled constraints to God, and the verb form
is active. The occurrence in v. 3b, which appears in the statement that
the same members ask in an evil way, acknowledges that they fulfill their
selfish constraint but not the necessary constraints from the perspective
of James; and the verb form is middle. This alternation highlights the
contrasting perspectives of James and his community members.
οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε διότι
κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε (Jas 4:2-3).
You do not have because you [with affect] do not ask; you ask and do not
receive because you [with affect] ask evilly.
4.2 Implicit Constraints: Group A
Fifteen occurrences of αἰτέω with usage AEC-Mid appear in contexts
without explicit constraints. The following discussion accounts for this
by proposing a specific means for introducing constraints implicitly. The
discussion incorporates two occurrences of αἰτέω with usage AEC-Act
and uses these occurrences to demonstrate the manner in which the im-
plicit constraints may be fulfilled, permitting the use of active verb forms.
The fifteen middle occurrences have an official of the Roman govern-
ment as referent of the Experiencer: Herod (Matt 14:7; Mark 6:24, 25;
Acts 12:20), Pilate (Matt 27:20, 58; Mark 15:8, 43; Luke 23:23, 25, 52;
Acts 3:14; 13:28), and Festus (Acts 25:3,15).16 This discussion recognizes
that, in dealings with provincials, Roman officials typically had the ex-
pectation that a successful petitioner would recognize the official’s “favor”
through the offer of a commensurate gift, which might include public
acknowledgement, offers of hospitality, or money.17 This discussion pro-
poses that, in every NT request to an official of the Roman government,
the Agent recognizes the expectation for a subsequent gift as an implicit
unfulfilled constraint on the action.18
15
Note the contrast to the interpretation of the unasked request in John 16:24a.
16
This restriction conforms to the observation of G. Stählin, “αἰτέω”, TDNT 1, 192,
that the middle forms seem to be preferred in commercial and official relationships.
17
Such gifts not only were expected but were recognized by Roman law: cf. R. Saller,
Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982) 164-65.
18
That this expectation also extended to requests by Roman citizens to Roman of-
ficials is indicated in Acts 24:26, where Felix continues to meet with Paul in the hope of
being given possessions (χρήματα), apparently in response to granting a possible request
for Paul’s release: cf. L.T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SPS 5; Collegeville, MN 1992),
419, who interprets the possessions as a bribe.