ἀπεκρίθη – separated or answered? – Real Bible Translation Project

In earlier and more refined Greek writings, such as those of Plato, ἀπεκρίθη (apekrithē) and ἀποκριθήσομαι (apokrithēsomai) in the passive sense aren’t typically used to convey the sense of “he answered.” Instead, ἀποκριθῆναι (apokrithēnai) and ἀποκρίνασθαι (apokrinasthai) are used interchangeably.

A New Testament Passive Form

In the New Testament, there is a peculiar use the passive form ἀπεκρίθη (apekrithē). The aorist middle form, ἀπεκρίνατο (apekrinato), appears only in a few instances, such as in Matthew 27:12, Mark 14:61, Luke 3:16, Luke 23:9, John 5:17, 19, John 12:23, and Acts 3:12.

What makes this word so important is the fact that it appears in conjunction with “he said” many times, i.e. “he was separated and said” thus to translate it as “he answered and said” is certainly redundant and unnecessary.

This phrase parallels the Hebrew ויען ויאמר “and he turned and said” which is also traditionally translated “he answered and said.”
(cf. Fürst pp. 1070 and 1071)

So, while earlier Greek writings preferred different forms for “he answered,” the New Testament authors did not rely on them, but chose to use a passive form ἀπεκρίθη.

ἀποκρίνω (apokrinō) occurs 232 times in the New Testament (cf. Strong’s #611). In classical Greek, it means “to separate” or “to choose out/distinguish.”

According to LSJ (Liddell, Scott, Jones), “set apart” or “to be parted or separated,” ἀποκρίνω (apokrinō) has various uses:

Set apart: This usage is suggested in works such as Plato’s “Plutarch” and other sources like Pherecrates and Aelian’s “Varia Historia.”
To be parted or separated: In its passive form, ἀποκρίνθη (apokrinthē), it indicates being separated or parted. For instance, in Homer’s “Iliad,” it describes two champions being separated from the throng. It’s also seen in other contexts, such as describing the separation of elements in cosmogony or the separation of different nations.

The term encompasses both physical separation, as in the case of combatants separated without a decisive result, and conceptual separation, as when disparate elements are brought under one name.

On ἀπεκρίθη and the Dative of Interest. — While the conventional translation of ἀπεκρίθη as “he/it answered” treats the form as a deponent verb pointing to a verbal reply, a rigorous structural reading allows ἀπεκρίθη to retain its literal, original passive voice value: “was separated” or “was set apart.” When this passive morphology is paired with the dative (i.e. αὐτοῖς), the syntax can be elegantly and natively explained as a Dative of Interest (Reference or Advantage/Disadvantage) under Smyth §1474.

Rather than denoting an indirect object of speech, αὐτοῖς functions as the personal locus with respect to whom or for whose benefit the separation is enacted. In Classical Attic prose, when property, territory, or collective groups are divided or apportioned, the entity receiving the allocation or being impacted by the boundary is placed in the bare dative (Smyth §1481). The literal spatial-material value of ἀποκρίνω (“to part, separate, isolate”) naturally yields an administrative or relational meaning when combined with this case function.

Crucially, this syntax resolves the classic prepositional dilemma: if the text intended to convey a physical movement away from a group, it would require a Genitive of Separation (ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, Smyth §1392). The deliberate choice of the dative αὐτοῖς shifts the directional orientation of the verb entirely. The action is not a separation from them, but an isolation, allocation, or manifestation to them or for them.

Accordingly, the construction ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς stands as a perfectly valid, classical idiom meaning “was separated to them,” “was set apart for them,” or “was distinguished with respect to them.” This reading bypasses the later Koine semantic shift toward verbal response, grounding the phrase entirely within the strict boundaries of Classical Greek passive morphology and relational case syntax.