EIS TO with infinitive (rev. version)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 22 12:47:16 EDT 2000


After sending my message this morning, I realized that it was a truncated
version omitting my comments on the last six examples of EIS TO +
Infinitive clauses which I argue are purpose clauses although they include
subject accusatives. Here's the whole of what I'd prepared.

At 4:45 PM +0100 6/19/00, L. Tichy wrote:
>Norbert Baumert, in a German article "EIS TO mit Infinitiv", in:
>*Filología neotestamentaria* I (1998), pp. 7-24, advances the thesis
>that, in the New Testament, EIS TO with infinitive has always a final
>meaning, but EIS TO with accusative and infinitive always expresses a
>consequence. He makes his assertion purposely contrary to the Grammars
>(cf. Blass-Debrunner etc. § 402.2) that give either meaning for both
>constructions. I must confess I am not convinced by his argumentation,
>in particular by the methodology itself,  by his one-sided
>interpretation of singular New Testament texts and by the fact that
>texts having accusative with infinitive can be found, e. g. in the
>Septuagint 1Mac 6:55 (EKQREYAI ANTIOCON TON UhION AUTOU EIS TO
>BASILEUSAI AUTON), that have clearly a consequent meaning.
>What would the B-Greekers, especially those experienced among them,
>as e. g. Carl Conrad, say to the this matter?

Although my immediate gut feeling upon reading this was that Baumert cannot
be right about this, I wanted to do some checking. I was able quickly
enough. using AcCordance, to compile a file of all the GNT texts using EIS
TO + infinitive, but I had to do some careful analysis of each instance
before I could feel confident about replying (and a rainy morning in the
mountains proved to be a KAIROS for that!)

a. I must say first of all that I haven't found any CLEAR examples of EIS
TO without acc. & infinitive that must be interpreted as having consequent
(result) meaning; and 'consequently' I would affirm: (1) most of the
instances of EIS TO + infinitive in the GNT really are best explained as
purpose constructions; and (2) I think it most likely that EIS TO +
infinitive originally functioned to express purpose following upon some
other verb or assertion, and that extension of the construction to express
result was a secondary development; I think this would be parallel to the
extension of hWSTE + infinitive constructions from expressing only result
to expressing purpose as well as result. Quite simply put, what seems to be
in play here is a formal assimilation of purpose and result constructions
to each other in view of the affinity of the ideas, "I do X in order to
achieve Y" and "I do X and Y results."

b. I have found several examples of EIS TO with accusative and infinitive
that (to me, at least) pretty clearly seem to have final (purpose) meaning:

Acts 3:19 METANOHSATE OUN KAI EPISTREYATE EIS TO EXALEIFQHNAI hUMWN TAS
hAMARTIAS. "Repent then and turn about so that your sins may be wiped
away." TAS hAMARTIAS must be the subject here, and while there may be some
question whether the wiping away of the sins is simply a consequence, it
really appears to be the INTENTION of repentance and turning about that
they should be wiped away.

Rom  1:11 EPIPOQW GAR IDEIN hUMAS, hINA TI METADW CARISMA hUMIN PNEUMATIKON
EIS TO STHRICQHNAI hUMAS. Here hUMAS is the subject again of a passive
infinitive STHRICQHNAI, and since the governing construction is one of
purpose, it seems to me we ought to understand the infinitive phrase as one
of purpose also: "I yearn to see you in order to impart to you some
spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened."

Rom 8:29 hOTI hOUS PROEGNW, KAI PROWRISEN SUMMORFOUS THS EIKONOS TOU hUIOU
AUTOU, EIS TO EINAI AUTON PRWTOTOKON EN POLLOIS ADELFOIS ... "For those
whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformant to the image of his
son, so that He would be firstborn among many brothers and sisters." One
could, I suppose, argue that EIS TO EINAI AUTON PRWTOTOKON KTL. indicates a
consequence of God's foreknowledge and foreordination rather than a
purpose, but in a sentence the fundamental sense of which is the working
out of God's purposes, it makes more sense to me to view every aspect of it
as involving purpose and deliberate intent.

Rom 12:2 KAI MH SUSCHMATIZESQE TWi AIWNI TOUTWi, ALLA METAMORFOUSQE THi
ANAKAINWSEI TOU NOOS EIS TO DOKIMAZEIN hUMAS TI TO QELHMA TOU QEOU, TO
AGAQON KAI EUARESTON KAI TELEION. Here hUMAS is the subject of DOKIMAZEIN,
and if this "putting to the proof" is a 'result' of transformation and
remaking of the mind, it seems to me it is the INTENDED result,and so I'd
say this is a purpose construction.

Rom 15:13 hO DE QEOS THS ELPIDOS PLHRWSAI hUMAS PASHS CARAS KAI EIRHNHS EN
TWi PISTEUEIN, EIS TO PERISSEUEIN hUMAS EN THi ELPIDI EN DUNAMEI PNEUMATOS
hAGIOU. Here hUMAS is the subject of PERISSEUEIN, and since PLHRWSAI here
is one of the (relatively) few authentic optatives in the GNT expressing a
fervent wish, I think that PERISSEUEIN here is indeed an INTENDED result,
wherefore here too I vote this to be a purpose construction.

1 Cor 10:6 TAUTA DE TUPOI hHMWN EGENHQHSAN, EIS TO MH EINAI hHMAS
EPIQUMHTAS KAKWN, KAQWS KA'KEINOI EPEQUMHSAN. I don't see how this could be
consecutive: paradigms of what to shun are offered for an INTENDED result.

1 Th 2:12 PARAKALOUNTES hUMAS KAI PARAMUQOUMENOI KAI MARTUROMENOI EIS TO
PERIPATEIN hUMAS AXIWS TOU QEOU TOU KALOUNTOS hUMAS EIS THN hEAUTOU
BASILEAN KAI DOXAN. Here an argument could be made that PERIPATEIN hUMAS
AXIWS TOU QEOU KTL. is result of the exhortation, but I can't see that
there's any signficant difference from a purpose.

2 Th 2:10 KAI EN PASHi APATHi ADIKIAS TOIS APOLLUMENOIS, ANQ' hWN THN
AGAPHN THS ALHQEIAS OUK EDEXANTO EIS TO SWQHNAI AUTOUS. 11 KAI DIA TOUTO
PEMPEI AUTOIS hO QEOS ENERGEIAN PLANHS EIS TO PISTEUSAI AUTOUS TWi YEUDEI.
Here I have to believe that EIS TO SWQHNAI AUTOUS and EIS TO PISTEUSAI
AUTOUS TWi YEUDEI are negative and positive purpose constructions,
respectively: they wouldn't accept love of truth in order to be saved; God
visited them with efficacious Error to make them believe falsehood.

James 3:3 EI DE TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS EIS TA STOMATA BALLOMEN EIS TO
PEIQESQAI AUTOUS hHMIN ... Surely the obedience of the horses to us is the
very intent and purpose of our putting bits in their mouths.

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000622/9976f258/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list