REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

PATRICK A. TILLER
The purpose of this study is to answer two basic questions concerning reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the New Testament: (1)
What are the syntactic constraints on reflexives, that determine when
they may be used? (2) What are the semantic constraints that determine when in fact they are used? In answering the first question the
author considers both reflexives and reciprocals and discuss the whole
NT; for the second, the author attempts to suggest answers for third
person reflexives and based only on the Pauline Epistles commonly recognized as authentic.

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to answer two basic questions concerning
reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the New Testament. (1) What are
the syntactic constraints on reflexives, that determine when they may be
used? (2) What are the semantic constraints that determine when in fact
they are used? In answering the first question, I will consider both reflexives and reciprocals and discuss the whole NT. The answer to the second
question differs depending on (1) whether the pronoun is third person or
one of the first two persons; (2) whether it is a reflexive or reciprocal that
is being used; and (3) who the author is. Therefore, I will only attempt
to suggest answers to the second question for third person reflexives and
based only on the Pauline Epistles commonly recognized as authentic 1.
This has the advantage that it gives a body of literature with a single
author (and therefore a single ideolect) and minimal interference from
Semitic syntax.
In this study I will assume a crude, undemonstrated transformational
model of grammar 2. I will not argue for or even explain the model
assumed except where necessary for the argument. In addition, for convenience, I will use the language of more traditional grammars to refer to
the various parts of speech.

1
The epistles that I will include are Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon.
2
The following abbreviations will be used: NP for noun phrase, VP for verb phrase,
and PP for prepositional phrase. In addition, I will use the term matrix clause to refer
to a main clause and embedded clause to refer to a subordinate clause.

Filologa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XIV - 2001, pp. 43-63

Facultad de Filosofa y Letras de Crdoba (Espaa)

Patrick A. Tiller

44

The Problem Defined

The following words function as reflexives: eJautou' (himself ), i[dio~
(ones own), ajllhvlwn (each other), and ei|" to;n e{na (one the other).
eJautou' is the normal reflexive form. i[dio" is a possessive adjective
(eJautou' which has other functions as well) ajllhvlwn is a reciprocal and
stresses the mutual relations involved. ei|" to;n e{na may be more properly called a distributive but functions something like a reciprocal.
Occasionally eJautou` is reciprocal as well, but Phil 2:3 (see p. 53, below)
shows that the two (ajllhvlwn and eJautou' may retain their distinctive
uses. A question that I will not try to answer is under what conditions
eJautou` may be used as a reciprocal.
eJautou` has separate forms for the first and second persons singular
(ejmautou` and seautou\ but all three persons have a common plural
(eJautw'n). Occasionally the third person singular form may be used for
the second person (manuscripts of Mark 12:31; John 18:34; Gal 5:14;
and Rom 13:9) but probably never in the oldest available text 3.
It has been claimed that the first and second person personal pronouns
together with aujtov" may also be reflexive pronouns but normally in that
combination aujtov" is intensive. The only certain cases are 1 Cor 5:13
which is a quotation and 1 Cor 11:13. In Acts 20:30, where the phrase is
also used, a reflexive would be out of place, and uJmw'n aujtw'n probably
means you yourselves. th;n yuchvn (the soul) occasionally seems to function as a reflexive under the influence of Semitic use of nephesh (soul) for
self. In Acts 2:12 a[llo~ pro;~ a[llon seems to be a reciprocal. For the purposes of this study I will only consider the pronouns eJautou` and ajllhvlwn.
An additional problem, which I am not able to discuss, is the question
whether aujtou` in the NT should not sometimes be read as auJtou`, i.e. the
reflexive (eJautou'. For the present, I will assume that the answer is no.
According to Gignac,
When aujtov~ is used in reference to the subject of the phrase or sentence, it probably represents the personal pronoun (with a smooth breathing) rather than the Attic contracted form of the reflexive pronoun
(auJtou` for eJautou` with a rough breathing) even when used reflexively in
the attributive position, or in contexts in which a form of eJautou` is
used elsewhere The contracted forms do not seem to have survived
elsewhere in the Koine 4.

3
See Roger D. Woodard, On Interpreting Morphological Change: The Greek Reflexive
Pronoun (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1990), for a detailed account of the evolving morphology of the reflexive pronoun.
4
Francis Thomas Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine
Periods, vol. 2 Morphology, (Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell Antichita, LV - 2;
Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica, 1981) 170.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

45

Moulton agrees that These statistics suffice to show that auJt. was
very near extinction before A.D. But he also insists that Against Blasss
denial, we must leave room for the possibility of very occasional retention
of the dissyllabic form 5.
There are two points of view from which one must consider the syntax
of reflexives: the syntax of the antecedent or trigger and the syntax of the
reflexive itself. The trigger is the NP that is co-referent with the reflexive
and triggers the pronoun to be a reflexive rather than the simple personal pronoun. By the syntax of the trigger, I mean the syntactic and semantic relation of the trigger to the reflexive. By the syntax of the reflexive, I
mean the syntactic and semantic relation of the reflexive to the trigger.
The Syntax of the Trigger
There are two kinds of reflexives, depending on whether the trigger is
in the same clause as the reflexive or in a higher clause which governs
the reflexives clause. In the first case, the reflexive is said to be a direct
reflexive and in the second, an indirect reflexive. According to Smyth,
The reflexive pronouns are used directly when they refer to the chief
word (usually the subject) of the sentence or clause in which they stand.
And The reflexive pronouns are used indirectly when, in a dependent
clause, they refer to the subject of the main clause 6.
Unfortunately, the matter is not quite as simple as that. Turner seems
to define a direct reflexive as a direct complement of the verb referring back to the subject, and an indirect reflexive as the use of the
reflexive pronoun where there is little or no dependence on the verb,
because of the intervention of a noun or a phrase 7 As his examples
make clear, he means that an indirect reflexive is one that is governed by
a NP which is in turn governed by the VP. Turner has made a useful distinction but he has confused the issue by using terminology that is normally used for something else altogether.
Robertson does not define the indirect reflexive but his examples show
that he understands it much like Smyth. All of his examples (except one)
are pronouns occurring in an infinitive clause and referring to the subject
of the main clause 8. The exception is:
5
James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament
Greek, vol. 2, Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929) 181.
6
Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (revised by Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1920, 1956) 304.
7
Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, vol. 3,
Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 41, 43
8
Archibald Thomas Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light
of Historical Research (4th ed.; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914, 1923) 688

Patrick A. Tiller

46

1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; le;gw oujci; th;n eJautou` ajlla; th;n tou` eJtevrou.
conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.
Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

However the problem with this sentence is not that the antecedent is
in a governing clause but that the antecedent is not in the sentence at all.
This verse is a special case that must be dealt with only after some general rules have been demonstrated.
Direct Reflexives
After I have established some general principles, I will return to the
attempt to define indirect reflexives in a way that is useful for the NT. The
question now is whether the trigger is best defined as the subject of the
clause (syntactic constraint) or as the agent of the action which the reflexive receives (semantic constraint) or as something else.
The trigger of the direct reflexive (or reciprocal) is nearly always both the
subject of the clause (whether expressed or implied in the verbal inflection)
in which the reflexive is found and the agent of the action of the clause.
Word order is not decisive; the reflexive may follow or precede its trigger.
Gal 2:12

uJpevstellen kai; ajfwvrizen eJauto;n

(he)-withdrew and separated himself

Rom 14:7

oujdei;~ ga;r hJmw'n eJautw'/

zh`
no-one for of-us to-himself lives
For none of us lives to himself.

2 Cor 13:5

eJautou;~ peiravzete
yourselves test (imperative)

Rom 5:8

sunivsthsin de; th;n eJautou` ajgavphn eij~ hJma`~ oJ qeov~

demonstrates but the of-himself love
for us [the] God
But God demonstrates his love for us.

But the trigger is not always directly the agent of the action, especially in the case of passive verbs.
Gal 5:15

blevpete mh; uJp ajllhvlwn ajnalwqh`te.

See
lest by one-another you-be-consumed.

Matt 12:25 pa`sa basileiva merisqei`sa kaq eJauth`~ ejrhmou`tai ...

every kingdom divided against itself is-depopulated ...9
9
Some would consider this to be an example of an indirect reflexive. I have included it here because of the amazing scarcity of reflexives with a passive verb. My discussion
of indirect reflexives will show that I am correct in listing it here as a direct reflexive.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

47

But in both of these cases, it turns out that in fact although the verb is
truly passive, the object and agent of the action are the same.
In the following examples the trigger is the subject of the verb, but not
the agent of the action.
1 Cor 6:19

oujk ejste; eJautw'n.

not you-are of-yourselves.
You are not your own.

Heb 12:3

ajnalogivsasqe ga;r to;n

toiauvthn uJpomemenhkovta
consider
for the (masc. acc.) such (fem. acc.) one-who-endured
(masc. acc.)
uJpo; tw'n aJmartwlw'n eij~ eJauto;n ajntilogivan.
by the sinners
against himself hostility (fem. acc.).
For consider the one who endured such hostility by sinners
against himself. 10

In this last example the semantic agent of action upon the reflexive is
not the trigger of the reflexive. Rather the trigger is the surface structure
subject of the clause. We may therefore provisionally conclude that the
trigger of a reflexive pronoun must be the surface structure subject of the
clause regardless of the agent.
Reciprocal pronouns behave slightly differently. In most cases their
trigger is the subject of their clause. But in one case the trigger of the
reciprocal is the direct object of the clause in sentence initial position and
semantically the agent of the action reciprocated.
1 Thess 3:12 uJma`~ de; oJ kuvrio~ pleonavsai kai; perisseuvsai th'/ ajgavph
you but the Lord cause-to-increase and cause-to-abound in-the
love
eij~ ajllhvlou~ kai; eij~ pavnta~ ...
for one-another and for all ...
But may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for
one another and for all.

This seems to suggest that being the agent may increase the capacity of a NP to trigger a reciprocal. In this context uJma`~ (you) seems to
be fronted because it is mildly contrasted with hJmw'n (of us) in the
preceding sentence. Paul has stated a wish for himself, and here he
states a wish for the Thessalonians. Therefore, the trigger is also the
topic of the sentence. Once, the genitive pronoun is the trigger of a
reciprocal.

10
This example might also be called an indirect reflexive. Again my later discussion
will show that this is not the case.

Patrick A. Tiller

48

2 Thess 1:3 pleonavzei hJ agavph eJno;~ eJkavstou pavntwn uJmw'n eij~ ajllhvlou~
increases the love of-one of-each of-all of-you toward one-another
The love of each and every one of you is increasing toward one
another.

Here the genitive uJmw'n (of you) is semantically the agent of the reciprocated action, love, but not of the main verb, (increases). It is thus possible that the subjective genitive may function as the trigger for the reflexive, even though in surface structure it is not the subject of a VP. In another illuminating case, the trigger for the reciprocal is neither agent nor subject but the object of the action reciprocated.
Matt 25:32 ajforivsei
aujtou;~ ajp ajllhvlwn
he-will-separate them from one-another

Possibly the phrase them from one another is thought of as semantically an embedded clause.
Since all of the exceptions are with the reciprocal pronoun, it seems that
the rules for triggers of both reflexives and reciprocals are basically syntactic but that the rules for reciprocals are more sensitive to the semantics of
the reciprocating agent or object. That is, the trigger of the reciprocal is
usually the subject of the clause, but it may be any clause-mate NP that
either affects or is affected by the reciprocated action. In the few examples
where the trigger of the reciprocal is not the subject, it precedes the reciprocal in surface structure (word order), but there does not seem to be any
other common syntactic relationship. On the other hand, the trigger of the
reflexive is always the subject of the clause. Since in the vast majority of
cases, the trigger of reflexives also seems to be the agent, and if not, at least
the experiencer, of the action, it may be that reflexives are also somewhat
sensitive to the same semantic constraints as reciprocals, but not enough to
violate the syntactic rule that the trigger must be the subject of the clause.
We may now set forth the following rules for the syntactic and semantic constraints on reflexives and reciprocals.
Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3
Rule 4

The trigger of a reflexive pronoun must be the subject of

the clause in which the reflexive appears.
The trigger of a reciprocal pronoun is usually the subject
of the clause in which the reciprocal appears.
The trigger of a reflexive pronoun should also be either
the agent or the experiencer of the action of the clause.
This should never violate Rule 1.
The trigger of a reciprocal pronoun must be the agent or
experiencer of the reciprocated action, even if that means
that Rule 2 will be violated.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

49

We may now return to the problem above (p. 46) with the reflexive
whose trigger is not even in the same sentence as the reflexive. In order to
understand this sentence, the previous context must be cited.
1 Cor 10:28 ejan; dev ti~ uJmi`n ei]ph/ tou`to iJerovqutovn
ejstin, mh;
if but someone to-you says, This sacrificed-to-a-divinity is, not
ejsqivete di
ejkei`non to;n mhnuvsanta
kai; th;n
eat
on-account-of that-one the one-who-informed and the
suneivdhsin.
conscience;
1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; le;gw oujci; th;n eJautou` ajlla; th;n tou` eJtevrou.
conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.
Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

What is happening here is that what follows levgw (I mean) parrots

the previous sentence and even assumes its syntax. So that the reflexive in
the parrotted clause has as its trigger the subject of the sentence being
parrotted. Therefore this sentence should be considered a special kind of
direct reflexive in which the trigger of the reflexive is elided.
Direct Reflexives in Subordinate Clauses
In the NT when reflexives are used in infinitival or participial clauses,
with one class of exceptions 11, the reflexive is co-referent with the unexpressed or underlying subject of the infinitive or participle 12. And as such
it behaves in exactly the same way as the reflexive in a main clause with a
finite verb. Frequently it will also be co-referent with the subject of the
matrix clause that governs the embedded clause. But this is not always so.
Especially in the case of participles, it is clear that the trigger is not the subject of the main clause but the underlying subject of the participial clause.
2 Cor 5:18

11

ta;
de; pavnta
ejk tou` qeou` tou`
the (nom.) but all-things (nom.) from the God the
katallavxanto~
one-who-reconciles
hJma`~ eJautw'/
dia; Cristou` ...
us
to-himself through Christ ...
But all things are from God who reconciles us to himself
through Christ ....

See below under Indirect reflexives, pp. 51-56.

I am assuming that all infinitival clauses and participial clauses had a subject in
deep structure. In the case of participles this has been deleted in surface structure (except
for genitive absolutes) and in the case of infinitives the subject has either been deleted or
put into the accusative case.
12

Patrick A. Tiller

50

Here, the trigger for the reflexive is God, the underlying subject of the
participle and agent of the action of the participle. The syntax of the
matrix clause is irrelevant. Even when a participle is the subject of the
matrix clause, the trigger of the reflexive is the underlying subject of the
participle, not the participle itself.
Gal 6:8

oJ speivrwn eij~ th;n savrka eJautou` ejk th`~ sarko;~ qerivsei

the one-who-sows to the flesh of-himself from the flesh he-shall-reap
fqoravn, ...
corruption, ...
He who sows to his flesh shall reap corruption from the flesh, ....

Similar examples can be given for infinitives. In each of the following

examples, the trigger is the subject of the infinitive but not the subject of
the matrix clause.
Matt 8:22
Acts 26:1
Jn 5:26
Acts 15:39

a[fe~ tou;~ nekrou;~ qavyai tou;~ eJautw'n

nekrouv~.
let
the dead
bury the of-themselves dead.
ejpitrevpetaiv soi peri; seautou` levgein.
it-is-permitted to-you about yourself to-speak.
ou{tw~ kai; tw'/ uJiw'/ e[dwken zwh;n e[cein ejn eJautw'/.
so
also to-the son he-gave life to-have in himself.
ejgevneto de; paroxusmo;~ w{ste ajpocwrisqh`nai aujtou;~ ajp
there-was but a-sharp-dispute so-that to-be-divided them from
ajllhvlwn ...
one-another ...
But there arose a sharp dispute, so that they were divided from
one another ...

Especially in the last example, it is clear that the trigger is the subject
of the infinitive and not anything in the matrix clause since there is nothing in the matrix clause to correspond to the referent of the reflexive.
There is one example of a reflexive in an embedded clause with no
antecedent in its clause but which for special reasons must be considered
a direct reflexive.
Rom 1:12

tou`to dev ejstin sumparaklhqh`nai ejn uJmi`n dia; th`~ ejn

this but is to-be-encouraged-together among you through the in
ajllhvloi~ pivstew~ uJmw'n te kai; ejmou`.
each-other faith
of-you both and of-me.
But that is for me to be encouraged while among you through
the faith that is in each other both yours and mine.

The subject of the infinitive sumparaklhqh`nai is an underlying mev

(me); otherwise ejn uJmi`n (among you) would make little sense. The
trigger of ajllhvloi~ should be hJma`~ (us) which is nowhere in the con-

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

51

text at all. Again the trigger is more semantically than syntactically

determined. The trigger is a combination of the underlying subject mev
and the clause-mate uJmi`n (you). Presumably the fact that there is no real
trigger explains the strange addition of uJmw'n te kai; ejmou` at the end of
the sentence. It seems to be an attempt to clarify the meaning of a garbled sentence.
We may therefore conclude that, apart from the main class of exceptions that will be discussed below, reflexives have clause-mate triggers even
if those triggers are not expressed. There is normally no distinction
between reflexives in matrix clauses and reflexives in embedded clauses.
Definition 1

A direct reflexive has a co-referent trigger in its own

clause.

Indirect Reflexives
In the NT when the subject of an infinitive is co-referent with the
subject of the matrix clause, is may either be expressed or not
expressed. If expressed it will be in the accusative case; if not, its modifiers will be in the nominative case. According to Blass, The construction [with the accusative subject] is more striking in the case of an
articular infinitive, where it is not the reflexive, but the simple personal pronoun that is inserted 13. In other words, when the infinitive has
an article, its subject is a personal pronoun and otherwise it is a reflexive pronoun. This is almost true as far as it goes, but there is a better,
more general explanation.
A pronoun in an embedded clause may be reflexive when it is co-referent with the subject of the matrix clause even if it is not co-referent with
the subject of its own clause. This includes reflexives that are themselves
the accusative subject of an infinitive and whose antecedents are in a
matrix clause 14. This will be dealt with explicitly in doubtful cases. This
is especially true of the accusative subject of an infinitive but is also true
of other kinds of pronouns within an embedded clause. It also occurs
once in a participial clause (Phil 2:3, see p. 53, below).
Definition 2

An indirect reflexive occurs in an embedded clause

and does not have a co-referent trigger in its own
clause, but in a matrix clause.

13
F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (translated and revised from the ninth-tenth German edition by
Robert W. Funk; Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 209.
14
The problem with this definition is that it is sometimes difficult to know whether
an accusative is the subject of the infinitive or the direct object of the matrix verb.

Patrick A. Tiller

52

The following is, as far as I know, an almost complete list of indirect

reflexives in the NT, with the exception of doubtful cases, which will be
dealt with below.
Luke 23:2

kai; levgonta eJauto;n cristo;n basileva ei\nai.

and saying
himself Christ king
to-be.
... and saying that he is Christ the king.

Acts 5:36

pro; ga;r touvtwn tw'n hJmerw'n anevsth Qeuda`~, levgwn ei\naiv

before for these the days
arose Theudas, saying to-be
tina
eJauto;n.
someone himself.
For before these days Theudas arose saying that he was someone great.

Rev 2:2

kai; ejpeivrasa~ tou;~ levgonta~ eJautou;~ ajpostovlou~ ...

and you-have-tested the ones-who-say themselves apostles ...
And you have tested those who say that they are apostles ...
(In this example the verb ei\nai [to be] is omitted.)

Rev 2:9

oi\dav ... th;n blasfhmivan ejk tw'n legovntwn Ioudaivou~ ei\nai

I-know ... the blasphemy from the ones-who-say Jews to-be
eJautou;~ ...
themselves ...
I know ... the blasphemy of those who say that they are Jews ...

Rev 2:20

hJ
levgousa
eJauth;n profh`tin ...
the (fem.) one-who-says herself a-prophetess ...
... who says that she is a prophetess ...

Rev 3:9

tw'n legovntwn
eJautou;~ Ioudaivou~ ei\nai, ...
of-the ones-who-say themselves Jews
to-be, ...

Acts 25:4

oJ me;n
ou\n fh`sto~ ajpekrivqh threi`sqai to;n pau`lon
the (untranslatable) therefore Festus answered to-be-kept the Paul
eij~ kaisavreian, eJauto;n de; mevllein ejn tavcei ejkporeuvesqai:
in Caesarea, himself but to-be-about quickly to-depart;
Therefore Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Caesarea
but that he was going to depart soon; ...

Rom 6:11

ou{tw~ kai; uJmei`~ logivzesqe eJautou;~ ei\nai nekrou;~ me;n

so also you consider yourselves to-be dead (untranslatable)
th'/ aJmartiva zw'nta~ de; tw'/ qew'/ ejn Cristw'/ Ihsou`.
to-the sin
living but to-the God in Christ Jesus.

Phil 3:13

ejgw; ejmauto;n ouj logivzomai kateilhfevnai

I
myself not consider to-have-attained
I do not consider myself to have attained it.

Heb 10:34

ginwvskonte~ e]cein eJautou;~ kreivttona u{parxin kai; mevnousan.

knowing to-have yourselves (a)-better possession and abiding.
... knowing that you have a better and abiding possession.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

53

Luke 20:20 kai; parathrhvsante~ ajpevsteilan ejgkaqevtou~ uJpokrinomevnou~

and lying-in-wait
they-sent spies
pretending
eJautou;~ dikaivou~ ei\nai ...
themselves righteous to-be ...
Rom 2:19 pepoiqav~
te seauto;n oJdhgo;n ei\nai tuflw'n, ...
you-are-certain and yourself a-guide to-be of-blind-ones
Phil 2:3
ajlla; th'/ tapeinofrosuvnh/ ajllhvlou~ hJgouvmenoi uJperevconta~
but in-the humility
considering being-better-than
eJautw'n
yourselves
But in humility consider one another to be better than you are.

What distinguishes these examples from others where the reflexive is

not used in the embedded clause is that these verbs all indicate either the
thought or the expression of the subject. Such verbs may be called
logophoric. We may therefore provisionally propose that when a complement clause of a logophoric verb contains a pronoun which is co-referent with the subject of the logophoric verb, the pronoun will be reflexive even if it is not co-referent with anything in its own clause. Such pronouns may be also called logophoric.
Definition 3

(provisional) A logophoric verb is a verb of saying or

thinking that takes a complement clause, which contains the thought or expression of the subject.
Definition 4
A logophoric pronoun is one that occurs in the complement clause of a logophoric verb and is co-referent
with the subject of the logophoric verb but not co-referent with anything in its own clause.
Rule 5 A logophoric pronoun will be reflexive in form.
Rule 6 All indirect reflexives in the NT are logophoric.
This explains Phil 2:3. The reflexive (eJautw'n) is the genitive direct
object of a participle, which in turn serves as the VP of the complement
clause of the logophoric verb hJgouvmenoi (considering) 15. The participle
represents the thought of the subject of the logophoric verb, and because
the pronoun in the embedded clause is co-referent with the subject of
logophoric verb, the pronoun is reflexive.
The rule does not state that logophoric verbs will always have
logophoric pronouns in their complement clauses but only that if they do
have a pronoun, the pronoun will be reflexive. In the following example
the logophoric pronoun has been omitted.
15

Blass-Debrunner, 215. See the discussion of double accusatives below.

Patrick A. Tiller

54

2 Cor 11:5

Logivzomai ga;r mhde;n uJsterhkevnai tw'n uJperlivan ajpostovlwn.

I-consider for nothing to-have-been-inferior to-the super apostles.
For I do not consider that I have been at all inferior to the
greatest apostles.

It is now necessary to define the rule for logophoric pronouns more

precisely. As the following examples show, the concept of logophors must
be defined rather narrowly. In the first place, not all complement infinitives are logophoric 16.
1 Th 4:9

peri; de; th`~ filadelfiva~ ouj creivan e]cete gravfein uJmi`n:

concerning but the brotherly-love not need you-have to-write to-you;
But concerning brotherly love, you have no need for anyone to
write to you.

Not even pronouns that are co-referent with the objects of logophoric
verbs or the subjects of verbs of hearing are logophoric.
Eph 4:21-22

21

ei] ge aujto;n hjkouvsate

kai; ejn aujtw'/ ejdidavcqhte
If indeed him you-have-heard and in him you-were-taught ...
22
ajpoqevsqai uJma`~ ... to;n palaio;n a]nqrwpon ...
to-put-off you ... the old
person ...
If indeed you have heard him and have been taught in him (for
you) to put off the old person

The meaning is not entirely clear, but it is clear that uJma`~ (you) is the
subject of the infinitive and co-referent with subject of the matrix verb. If
the matrix verb had been a verb of saying or thinking (instead of a verb
of hearing), the pronoun would have been reflexive.
Secondly, logophoric verbs do not include verbs that indicate what is
in the mind of the subject as a potentiality. Verbs such as hope for, ask
for, and command are not logophoric. In the next example the accusative subject of the complement infinitive is a personal pronoun
although it is co-referent with the subject of the matrix verb of saying
or thinking.
Acts 25:21

tou` de; Pauvlou ejpikalesamevnou thrhqh`nai aujto;n eij~ th;n tou`

the but Paul having-appealed to-be-kept him for the of-the
Sebastou` diavgnwsin, ...
Emperor decision, ...
But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the Emperors decision ...

16
It is precisely at this point that Blasss observations fail to adequately distinguish
between the use of personal and reflexive pronouns in infinitival clauses.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

55

The next example is similar.

Acts 26:3

dio;
devomai makroquvmw~ ajkou`saiv mou.
Wherefore I-ask patiently
to-hear me.
Wherefore I ask you to listen to me patiently.

Finally, a logophoric verb must portray the thought as consciously

present to the mind of the thinker. In other words, the verb must refer not
to physical perception, but intellectual perception.
Luke 8:46

ejgw; ga;r e]gnwn duvnamin ejxelhluqui`an ajp ejmou`.

I
for perceived power having-gone-out from me.

In this example, although the participle is complementary, it is not

logophoric because it represents not the thought of the subject but his
feeling. The sentence does not mean, I consider it to be a fact that power
has gone out from me, but, I felt power going out from me.
The above examples show that the verbal complement must contain a
thought that the speaker or thinker (not the hearer) holds to be an actuality and not merely a potentiality. Further the thought must be presented as actually present to the mind of the speaker/thinker as opposed to
something felt or understood by him. Luke 20:20 above can now be
explained on this basis.
Luke 20:20 kai; parathrhvsante~ ajpevsteilan ejgkaqevtou~ uJpokrinomevnou~
and lying-in-wait
they-sent spies
pretending
eJautou;~ dikaivou~ ei\nai ...
themselves righteous to-be ...

In this example, the spies do not really think that they are righteous. They
are not, however, thinking of their righteousness as a potentiality but as a false
actuality or reality, which they wish to portray. Consequently, a logophoric
verb does not need to portray something that the subject holds to be true but
only what is claimed to be an actuality from his or her point of view.
Definition 3
(revised)

A logophoric verb is a verb of saying or thinking that

takes a complement clause which contains the
thought or expression of the subject. The complement clause must be either an infinitival or participial clause. The thought or expression must be something that the speaker or thinker holds or at least pretends to be an actuality and not merely a potentiality.

Blasss observation that only infinitives that lack the article take reflexive pronouns can now be explained. The reason that articular infinitives
never have a reflexive pronoun as subject is that they are never used as the
complement of a logophoric verb.

Patrick A. Tiller

56

There is one apparent exception to the logophoric rule that must be

discussed. The following verse has a verb that appears to be logophoric
but the pronoun in the embedded clause is not reflexive.
1 Cor 2:12

i{na ei]dwmen
ta; uJpo; tou` qeou` carisqevnta hJmi`n:
that we-might-know the by the God given
to-us;
... that we might know the things given to us by God.

In this case the pronoun is not truly logophoric. The participle does
not represent a part of the thought of the subject of the matrix clause (...
that we might know that certain things have been given to us by God.).
Rather it supplies additional information that limits the scope of what
we may know. This is different from Phil 2:3 above where the participle represents the thought of the subject.
These observations help us to understand the following text more
precisely.
John 17:13

kai; tau`ta lalw' ejn tw'/ kovsmw i{na e]cwsin th;n xara`n
and these-things I-speak in the world in-order-that they-mighthave the joy
th;n ejmh;n peplhrwmevnhn ejn eJautoi`~.
the of-me made-full
in themselves.

Since ejcwsin (have) is clearly not logophoric, one must understand

the prepositional phrase ejn eJautoi`~ (in themselves) to be governed not
by the participle but by the matrix verb e[cwsin. And I say these things
in the world in order that they might have in themselves my joy made
full. Other manuscripts (P66 a D L Q 054 f1.(13) M) have the personal
pronoun which then becomes part of the participial clause: And I say
these things in the world in order that they might have my joy made full
in them.
Doubtful Cases
Verbs meaning call, make, consider, and show take a double accusative object. The first is the direct object and the second is a predicate to
the first.
Matt 4:19

poihvsw uJma`~ aJliei`~ ajnqrwvpwn.

I-will-make you fishers of-people.

This is different from the syntax of Rev 2:2 (repeated below for convenience) in which the first accusative (eJautou;~) is not the direct object
but the subject of an omitted infinitive.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

Rev 2:2

57

kai; ejpeivrasa~ tou;~ levgonta~ eJautou;~ ajpostovlou~ ...

and you-have-tested the ones-who-say themselves apostles ...
And you have tested those who say that they are apostles ...

It is possible to confuse these two constructions, either when a complementary infinitival clause lacks its infinitive or when a double infinitive construction has the infinitive ei\nai (to be). Presumably, in the case of a real
double accusative, the underlying structure would be something like I will
make you that you will be fishers of people. There is at least one verifiable
syntactic difference in surface structure. The primary direct object in a double accusative may not be omitted but the accusative subject of a logophoric
complementary infinitive may. In the following examples, then, the reflexives
are normal direct reflexives, co-referent with the subject of their own clauses.
1 Tim 5:22 seauto;n aJgno;n thvrei.
yourself pure keep (imperative).
Keep yourself pure.
2 Cor 4:5
Ouj ga;r eJautou;~ khruvssomen ajlla; Ihsou`n Cristo;n kuvrion,
Not for ourselves we-proclaim but Jesus Christ Lord,

Ihsou`n.
eJautou;~ de; douvlou~ uJmw'n dia;
ourselves but servants of-you because-of Jesus.
For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord and
ourselves as your servants for Jesus sake.

The following examples are probably double accusatives, but could

possible be understood as complement clauses of logophoric verbs in
which the infinitive ei\nai (to be) must be supplied. If so, verbs which
are not normally logophoric have been used as if they were.
John 19:7
Tit 2:7
Gal 2:18

uiJon; qeou` eJauto;n ejpoivhsen.

son of-God himself he-made.
He made himself the Son of God.
seauto;n parecovmeno~ tuvpon kalw'n e[rgwn ...
yourself showing
example of-good works ...
Showing yourself as an example of good works ...
parabavthn ejmauto;n sunistavnw.
transgressor myself I-demonstrate.
I demonstrate myself as a transgressor

According to Blass, the infinitive in the next verse is harsh 17.

2 Cor 7:11

17

ejn pavnti sunesthvsate eJautou;~ aJgnou;~ ei\nai tw'/ pravgmati.

In everything you-demonstrated yourselves holy to-be (in)-the
matter.

Blass-Debrunner, 106.

Patrick A. Tiller

58

It should be a simple double accusative in which the underlying infinitive is not omitted. In this context, however, Paul means to say that they
demonstrated something that they consciously wished to communicate.
The verb, then, in this context is logophoric.
The reflexive in the next example is peculiar.
1 Cor 7:7

qevlw de; pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~ ei\nai wJ~ kai; ejmauto;n:

I-want but all
people
to-be as also myself;

wJ~ kai; ejmautovn is an abbreviated clause meaning as I am. Since the

reflexive is in the accusative case, it must be grammatically either a direct
object or the accusative subject of an infinitive. Since there is no transitive verb that could be supplied, it must be the subject of an implied
infinitive ei\nai (to be). On the other hand, the phrase should not be
understood to be derived from an underlying wJ~ kai; qevlw ejmauto;n
ei\nai (as also I want myself to be) because that is not what Paul means
here. The next verse is exactly parallel, except that the pronoun in question remains nominative and not reflexive.
1 Cor 7:8

kalo;n aujtoi`~ ejan; meivnwsin wJ~ kagwv:

(It is ) good for-them if they-remain as also-I (am)

In vs. 7, an underlying wJ~ kagwv (kaiv [also] + ejgwv [I]) has become
wJ~ kai; ejmautovn because of its association with the complement clause of
qevlw (I want). qevlw is not a logophoric verb and it does not trigger indirect or logophoric reflexives because it represents the subjects thought of
what is potential only. But here wJ~ kai; ejmautovn is not a potentiality in
Pauls mind but an actuality. It is therefore a logophoric pronoun without
a true logophoric verb. It may be possible to make sense of this by supposing that there is an implied verb (to say) that controls the clause and
triggers the pronoun to be logophoric: But I want all people to be as also
(I say that) I am.
We have now examined all of the true indirect reflexives in the NT.
Every one of them can be explained as logophoric pronouns. Since there
does not seem to be any other principle that can satisfactorily explain the
use and non-use of indirect reflexives, we must conclude that this is the
correct explanation.
The syntax of the reflexive
Now that we know what can trigger a reflexive we must consider what
pronouns can be triggered. For this discussion I will limit myself to the genuine Pauline epistles and to third person reflexives, not reciprocals. In order
to further simplify the problem I will consider only direct reflexives. The
question is, when a pronoun is co-referent with its clausemate subject, under

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

59

what conditions is it reflexive in form and under what conditions does it

remain a personal pronoun in form. Because of the limitations of space, I
will only be able to suggest a few patterns and explanations.
Syntactic Constraints on Reflexives
In the NT, virtually any clause-mate pronoun may be reflexive.
Occasionally, a full noun will be in a position where a pronoun is expected, especially in a very long sentence where the antecedent might be otherwise unclear. The reflexive may be directly governed by the VP or it may
be governed by an NP or PP. If governed by the VP or PP it will almost
never be the personal pronoun 18. Phil 2:23 and Phil 3:21 are the only
exceptions in Paul that I know of 19.
If the pronoun is governed directly by another NP (possessive genitive), it may be either reflexive or personal. But the comparative genitive
is always reflexive. Curiously, if the pronoun is governed by a PP that is
in turn governed by a NP, then it will always be reflexive in Paul. Thus, it
seems that the use of reflexives is normally subject to syntactic constraints
and that other considerations normally enter in only in the case of genitive NPs that are governed by other NPs.
Rule 7

In the Pauline letters, if a pronoun is co-referent with the

subject of its clause then it will be reflexive in form, unless
it is governed directly by a noun in which case it may be
either a reflexive or personal pronoun.

Non-syntactic Constraints on Reflexives

In order to test for patterns in the use or non-use of reflexives when
directly governed by another NP, I made a list of all such reflexives in Paul
and then made a less exhaustive list for non-reflexives. Features that occurred
in one list and not in the other, I assumed were relevant. Some of the fea18
The Gospel of Matthew especially violates this in that it frequently has a personal
pronoun where it should be reflexive (Matt 6:19; 17:27).
19
I cite them here for reference but will not discuss them.

Phil 2:23

wJ~ a]n afivdw ta; peri;

ejme; ...
when ever I-see the concerning me ...
Whenever I see how things are with me ...

Phil 3:21

tou` duvnasqai aujto;n kai; uJpotavxai aujtw'/ ta; pavnta.

(-) to-be-able him also to-subject to-him the all-things.
For him to be able to subject all things to himself.

Patrick A. Tiller

60

tures that I considered were impossible to test for. For example, all of the triggers of both lists were either human or God (except for one reflexive whose
trigger was love, personified) so that it is impossible to know whether
humanness has any effect. Since I was testing only for third person reflexives
I could not consider the relation of the speaker to the referent of the trigger,
though it seems that reflexives are more frequent in the third person.
Other features that I tested for (the definiteness of the trigger, word
order) seemed irrelevant. Verbs that expressed the feeling of the referent
of the trigger toward the NP that governs the reflexive never had a simple
personal pronoun but in each case the reflexive could be adequately
explained by other means.
There were three features that seemed to result in the use of the reflexive. The first is that in every case where there was a contrast between the
referent of the pronoun and something else, the reflexive was used.
1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; levgw ouci; th;n eJautou` ajlla; th;n tou` eJtevrou.
conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.
Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

The syntax of this was explained above. What is important to see here
is that what determines the use of the reflexive is that it is contrasted with
tou` eJtevrou (the other). A frequent example of this is with the phrase ta;
eJautw'n (ones own things).
Phil 2:21

oiJ pavnte~ ga;r ta;

eJautw'n zhtou`sin, ouj ta; Ihsou`
the all for the-things of-themselves seek, not the-things of-Jesus
Cristou`.
Christ.
For everyone seeks his own interests and not those of Jesus Christ.

In this case the general issue seems to be focus. Contrast necessarily

puts the focus on the items being contrasted.
The second and third factors are not, by themselves, sufficient reasons
to use the reflexive, but only when used in combination. The second factor that seems to affect the choice of reflexive is that if the trigger is also
the agent of the action that is received by the pronoun, then the pronoun
is more likely to be reflexive. The third factor is that if the referent of the
NP that governs the pronoun is part of the body or family of the referent
of the trigger, then the reflexive is likely to be used 20. Neither the second
nor the third factor is sufficient in itself to trigger a reflexive. In each of
the following examples, both of these factors are present.
20
Possibly one should add that the referent of the trigger should be aware of his or
her relation to the referent of the NP that governs the pronoun or that the statement
must be made from the point of view of the referent of the trigger.

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

61

1 Thess 2:7 wJ~ ejan; trofo;~ qavlph/ ta; eJauth`~ tevkna, ...
as when a-nurse cherishes the of-herself children, ...
Rom 16:4 oi{tine~ uJpe;r th`~ yuch`~ mou to;n eJautw'n travchlon uJpevqhkan...
who for the life of-me the of-themselves neck risked ...
... who risked their own necks for my life ...

Rule 8

When a pronoun is optionally reflexive according to Rule

7, then it will be reflexive if and only if one of the following conditions is true:
1. the referent of the pronoun is contrasted with something else;
2. the trigger is the agent of the action that is received by
the pronoun, and the NP that governs the pronoun is
either part of the body or of the family of the referent of
the trigger.

The next examples show that both parts of condition (2) must equally apply in order to cause the pronoun to be reflexive. In the first extended passage, the words parqevnon (virgin)21 and kardiva (heart) are body
parts or (extended) family members of the referent of the trigger.
1 Cor 7:36-37 36Eij dev ti~ ajschmonei`n ejpi; th;n parqevnon aujtou` nomivzei,
If but someone to-be-indecent toward the virgin of-him thinks,
ejan; h\/ uJpevrakmo~
kai; ou{tw~ ojfeivlei givnesqai,
if she-is past-marriageable-age and thus it-ought to-be,
oJ; qevlei
poieivtw, oujc aJmartavnei, gameivtwsan.
what he-wishes let-him-do, not he-sins, let-them-marry.
37
oJ~
de; e[sthken ejn th'/ kardiva/ aujtou`
Whoever but stands in the heart of-him
eJdrai`o~ mh; e[cwn ajnavgkhn, ejxousivan de; e[cei peri;
steadfast not having necessity, authority but he-has concerning
tou` ijdivou qelhvmato~ kai; tou`to kevkriken
ejn th'/ ijdiva/
the his-own will
and this he-has-judged in the his-own
kardiva,/ threi`n th;n eJautou` parqevnon, kalw'~ poihvsei.
heart, to-keep the of-himself virgin,
well he-will-do.
But if someone thinks that he is acting indecently toward his
virgin, if she is past the age of marriage and it must be so, let
him do what he wishes he does not sin; let them be married.
But whoever stands steadfast in his heart, without necessity,
and if he has control over his own will and has determined in
his own heart to keep his own virgin, he will do well.

21
What the word refers to in this passage is problematic. Probably, The reference is
to women in the community who have agreed to set up house with a man in order that
they may achieve the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Gerhard
Delling, parqevno~, TDNT 5 (1968) 836.

Patrick A. Tiller

62

This passage demonstrates both the application of the rule and the problems with it. Clearly, when one stands steadfast in his heart, one is not the
agent of action that is received by the heart, and so the reflexive is not used.
It is equally clear that the virgin who is kept does directly receive the action
of the keeper. And so the reflexive is used. But in the case of acting indecently toward ones virgin, the virgin does not seem to be entirely outside of
the line of action; one would expect the reflexive. In the light of the next
counter-example, it may be that the indefiniteness of the subject may have
some influence on the choice of the non-reflexive in marginal cases.
1 Cor 11:4

pa`~ ajnh;r proseucovmeno~ h\ profhteuvwn kata; kefalh`~ e[cwn

every man praying
or prophesying on head having
kataiscuvnei th;n kefalh;n aujtou`.
shames
the head
of-him.
Every man who has something on his head while praying or
prophesying shames his head.

According to rule (8), this should be reflexive. Perhaps the fact that the
trigger is as indefinite as possible influences the choice of the personal
pronoun. But this is not consistent. Other examples that seem equally
indefinite have the reflexive. More likely it is because the verb expresses
the point of view of the speaker and not that of the trigger.
In the next verse ajdelfovn (brother) is used metaphorically of fellow
members of the church. It may be that the reflexive was not used because
brother is used metaphorically. It does seem that the brother (the NP
that governs the pronoun) directly receives the action of which the potential trigger is the agent.
1 Thess 4:6 to; mh; uJperbaivnein kai; pleonektei`n ejn tw'/ pravgmati
the not to-transgress and defraud
in the matter
to;n ajdelfo;n aujtou` ...
the brother of-him ...
Not to transgress and defraud his brother in this matter ...

It is possible that the reflexive is not used here because the transgression and fraud are expressed from the point of view of the writer and not
that of the subject of the sentence.
These conclusions have some significance for ones understanding of
the next verse, which uses the reflexive according to rule (8,2).
Gal 6:8

oJ speivrwn
eij~ th;n savrka eJautou` ejk th;~ sarko;~
the one-who-sows to the flesh of-himself, from the flesh
qerivsei
fqoravn ...
he-shall-reap corruption ...

According to Eduard Schweizer,

Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament

63

Mans building on the flesh is sinful. This is called sowing to the flesh
in Gl. 6:8. If the savrx brings fqorav, it is in the first instance a comprehensive expression for all that in which man puts his trust. In antithetical
parallelism to pneu`ma, however, savrx approximates to the idea of a [nonmythological] power which works on man and determines his destiny
even beyond life on earth 22.

Schweizer interprets the use of the reflexive with savrc and not with
pneu`ma as follows: This shows that the norm of the Spirit by which a
man directs his life is not his own possibility but an alien possibility
granted to him 23.
However, according to my rule (8), the reason for the reflexive with
savrx is not because flesh, unlike spirit, is not an alien possibility. Rather
it is because savrx (flesh) is the recipient of the action of which the trigger is the agent (it receives the sowing) and because it is a body part of the
referent of the trigger. This means that savrx cannot be all that in which
man puts his trust nor a power which works on man and determines his
destiny. This is consistent with the understanding of Galatians as
polemicizing against rituals of bodily purity such as circumcision, kosher
foods, and the keeping of the Sabbath and other holy days.
Conclusions
In this paper I have investigated that syntactic and semantic constraints on the use of reflexives. I have certainly not solved all of the problems, but I have discovered a few basic principles that determine under
what conditions a reflexive pronoun will be used. I will not summarize
my conclusions since they can be easily reviewed by looking over my eight
rules and three definitions. Instead I will merely mention a few noteworthy observations that deserve further consideration.
1. Almost all generalizations that one might make concerning reflexives are wrong.
2. One must distinguish between reflexives and reciprocals; between
first, second, and third person pronouns; and between various authors.
3. On the other hand, the NT authors seem to be surprisingly consistent in their constraints on triggers.
4. Point of view and focus seem to be important semantic constraints
when the use of the reflexive form is syntantically optional.

22
23

Eduard Schweizer, savrx, TDNT 7 (1971) 132.

Eduard Schweizer, pneu`ma, pneumatikov~, TDNT 6 (1968) 430.