gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post Reply
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

The first three samples show gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, the others τοῦ + infinitive (no genitive). What's the difference?

Smyth 2032e; ATR 512, 1068; Conybeare/Stock p58; Moult. Proleg, 216ff;
Protevangelium Jacobi
2,2
Ἀπέκλεισεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τὴν
μήτ[ε]ραν σου, τοῦ μὴ δοῦναί σοι
καρπὸν ἐν Ἰσραήλ.

Protevangelium Jacobi 2,4

Ἄννα σφόδρα, καὶ περιείλατο τὰ
ἱμάτια αὐτῆς τὰ πενθικὰ καὶ
ἀπεσμήξατο τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐ-
τῆς καὶ ἐνεδύσατο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῆς
τὰ νυμφικά. Καὶ περὶ ὥραν θʹ κατέ-
βη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον αὐτῆς τοῦ
περιπατῆσαι·
καὶ εἶδεν δαφνιδέ-
αν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ὑποκάτω αὐτῆς,
καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναπαῆναι ἐλιτάνευσεν



Protevangelium Jacobi 18,2

Καὶ εἶδον ἐλαυνόμενα πρόβατα, καὶ τὰ
πρόβατα ἑστήκει· καὶ ἐπῆρεν ὁ ποιμὴν τὴν
χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατάξαι αὐτά, καὶ ἡ χεὶρ

Protevangelium Jacobi 21,1
Σαλώμη, <μὴ> ἀναγγείλῃς ὅσα εἶδες πα-
ράδοξα ἕως ἔρθῃ ὁ παῖς εἰς Ἱε-
ροσάλημα.» Καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰωσὴφ ἡτοι-
μάσθη τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν ἐν τῇ Ἰου-
δαίᾳ, καὶ θόρυβος ἐγένετο μέγας
ἐν Βηθλὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας.

Protevangelium Jacobi 24,1

Καὶ ἔστησαν
οἱ ἱερεῖς προσδοκῶντες τὸν
Ζαχαρίαν τοῦ ἀσπάσαςθαι
αὐτὸν ἐν εὐχῇ καὶ δοξά-
σαι τὸν <Ὕ>ψιστον Θεόν. Χρονί-
σαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐφοβήθη

Protevangelium Jacobi 24,1

Δοξάσω δὲ τὸν Δεσπό-
την τὸν δόντα μοι τὴν σο-
φίαν τοῦ γράψαι τὴν ἱστορί-
αν ταύτην.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:The first three samples show gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, the others τοῦ + infinitive (no genitive). What's the difference?
Perhaps the difference is that another person is introduced or the same person is referred to again. The infinitive basically goes with the verb...
  • καταβαίνειν εἰς τόπον τοῦ περιπατῆσαι·
  • ἐπαίρειν τίς τὴν χεῖρα αὑτοῦ τοῦ πατάξαι τι
  • ἑτοιμάζειν τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν
  • προσδοκεῖν τίνα τοῦ ἀσπάσασθαι τίνα καὶ δοξάσαι τίνα
  • δοῦναι τινὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ γράψαι τι.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:The first three samples show gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, the others τοῦ + infinitive (no genitive). What's the difference?
Perhaps the difference is that another person is introduced or the same person is referred to again. The infinitive basically goes with the verb...
  • καταβαίνειν εἰς τόπον τοῦ περιπατῆσαι·
  • ἐπαίρειν τίς τὴν χεῖρα αὑτοῦ τοῦ πατάξαι τι
  • ἑτοιμάζειν τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν
  • προσδοκεῖν τίνα τοῦ ἀσπάσασθαι τίνα καὶ δοξάσαι τίνα
  • δοῦναι τινὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ γράψαι τι.

This morning this question looks different. The presence or lack of a preceding genitive isn't really the issue. Moulton Proleg. p116 talks about the idiom. Are these all designations of purpose?
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:This morning this question looks different.
I think you are trying to ask whether the genitive article is always needed to express purpose, and if it is not there or if the article is in the accusative with the meaning of purpose, then what is the difference?
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Are these all designations of purpose?
Well, there are a few types of purpose, and I think it depends on the situation that you are trying to compose about. I don't understand the nuances, but I think that εἰς is the logical even if not planned outcome
Romans 1:20 wrote:Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους·
πρὸς seems to denote a general purpose
Ephesians 4:12 wrote:Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, 12 πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων, εἰς ἔργον διακονίας

and your articular infinitive the direct, immediate and planned purpose as you have in the Infancy Gospel quotes.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by cwconrad »

It seems to me that a number of expressions are coming to be used almost interchangeably in our period for purpose, result, epexegesis (is that the proper noun?): εἰς + inf., τοῦ + infinitive (probably originally with a postpositive ἕνεκα understood, ὥστε + infinitive ἵνα + subjunctive. The usage for result may not quite be interchangeable with usage for purpose, but I think there's a lot of coalescence around the idea of "so that ... "
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: gen -> τοῦ + infinitive, Protevangelium Jacobi

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

cwconrad wrote:It seems to me that a number of expressions are coming to be used almost interchangeably in our period for purpose, result, epexegesis (is that the proper noun?): εἰς + inf., τοῦ + infinitive (probably originally with a postpositive ἕνεκα understood, ὥστε + infinitive ἵνα + subjunctive. The usage for result may not quite be interchangeable with usage for purpose, but I think there's a lot of coalescence around the idea of "so that ... "
Thanks Carl, well expressed and I totally agree. The reference grammars get bogged down in fussing over fine distinctions in the semantics which are often times confusing as you move from one grammar to another. If I had just read these passages the meaning wouldn't have been in doubt. But something about the style of Protevangelium Jacobi prompted me to take a tour of the standard grammars which raised questions that I wasn't asking. I should resist the temptation to open grammars.

I don't know what to call it but Protevangelium Jacobi has almost a student workbook sort of syntax. Reminds me of comments quoted from Albert Pietersma with regard to the LXX.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”