Rom 8:26 -- article

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Aug 19 11:32:48 EDT 2002


Dear B-greekers,

My memorization of Rom 8 in Greek continues. But vs 26 puzzles me.

Rom 8:26 -- ...TO GAR TI PROSEUXWMEQA KAQO DEI OUK OIDAMEN...

The function of TO, of course, is to substantivize the clause following
it which then becomes the direct object of OIDAMEN. This much is clear.
But I have never seen the article used to substantivize the subordinate
clause of (not "in" which is something else altogether) O.O. Paul could
have just as well omitted TO, right? If there's a difference in nuance, I
don't see it.

Consider the following:

1) OUK OIDA hO TI EIPW.
2) OUK OIDA TO hO TI EIPW.

Don't these mean the same thing, "I don't know what to say"? Is 2 really
possible?

I checked Wallace on this. He merely references the vs on p. 238. RWP is
no help either. Are there other places in the NT where a clause of O.O.
is substantivized by TO following an introductory verb of any kind?

Yours in His grace,

Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
New Haven, CT USA




More information about the B-Greek mailing list