I have read through the Porter and O’Donnell article in Filología Neotestamentaria hoping for some illumination that did not come. I found the discussion of analysis of verbal voice particularly unhelpful, as it focuses on “causality” (you’ve give a typo, “casuality”) which seems to me not at all what the alternative voice forms are concerned with (Active and Passive are not really the fundamental alternatives of the ancient Greek voice system).

It certainly does seem that the more recent (academic Linguistic) approaches to analysis of Biblical Greek usage have been preempted by some inadequately-examined assumptions about how the language works — not to mention the narrow constrictions (Cubs fans would call them “friendly confines”) of one little literary corpus within the sizable extant body of Hellenistic Greek literature.