Rom 8:26 -- article

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Sat Sep 7 10:08:46 EDT 2002


Richard Ghilardi had written:

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?

Carlton Winbery replied:
> Richard, this seems to me to be the article used as a pronoun, in 
> this case a demonstrative. ATR has a section on the article used as 
> a pronoun I think in which he says that this is done in both Luke 
> and Paul. TO GAR TI PROSEUXWMEQA KAQO DE OUK OIDAMEN would be 
> roughly "For we do not know that for which we should pray as is 
> necessary." ATR also talks of the article used with the relative 
> clause and specifically with Rom 8:26 the article used with an 
> indirect question, p. 766. He said that it made clearer the 
> substantival idea of the indirect question.
> 

Carlton, I'm sorry for the long delay in my response. I think slowly. And
then sometimes incorrectly. This could be one of those times.

It pains me to say that I must disagree with you on this one. Though upon
considerable reflection I don't think our differences are so very great.

Your analysis is founded, as it seems to me, upon two assumptions, the
second weaker than the first:

1) The antecedent demonstrative IS EXPRESSED in this clause.
2) The article TO substitutes for the antecedent pronoun.

1) This is rather unusual in the NT. ATR says, "On the whole, however,
the demonstrative before the relative is not common in the NT." p. 703
And further he says, "It so often happens that the relative has no
antecedent that it calls for special consideration." p. 719 I see no
reason to think that an antecedent demonstrative is expressed here.

2) ATR indeed says, "hO, hH, TO. This was the simplest demonstrative." p.
693. On the next page he goes on to give examples from both pre-biblical
and post-biblical Greek. But on that same page he admits that the
demonstrative use of the article IN THE OBLIQUE CASES is quite rare in
the NT (TO, of couse, is accusative in Rm 8:26 as the object of the verb
OIDAMEN): "The oblique cases have only two examples in the NT, one a
quotation from Aratus, TOU KAI (Ac. 17:28), the other TOUS MEN, TOUS DE
(Eph 4:11), where constrast exists. It is possible indeed that TON in Ph
1:11 is demonstrative." p. 694. With a usage this rare I doubt ATR would
have failed to list a fourth example, even a fourth POSSIBLE example. In
the next couple of sentences he gives us 4 texts for comparison purposes,
none of which rise even to the level of possibility in his mind -- except
perhaps for Mt 14:2 (Mk 6:14) in which he says, "hAI is nearly equivalent
to 'these.'" I think we can safely dismiss the idea that the article is
being used for the demonstrative in the present text (Rm 8:26).

Then there's your reference to ATR p. 766.

Here's a fuller quotation:

<< In particular the article is fairly common in Luke and occurs a few
times in Paul with indirect questions.... Blass remarks that the article
makes no essential difference to the meaning of the question. It does
this at least: it makes clearer the substantival idea of the indirect
question and its relation to the principal clause. >>

I agree with Blass. And ATR does not disagree with him because ATR's
remarks are about syntax, not semantics. Blass' statement is about
semantics. But your translation above assumes a semantical difference, if
only a nuanced one. The rendering should be as in the NIV, e.g., "We do
not know what we ought to pray for" or something like this.

There is one point in the above quotation from ATR that I do disagree
with. Although the article does indeed make << clearer the substantival
idea of the indirect question >> (I have admitted this from the
beginning), it does NOT make the relation to the principal clause any
clearer. Consider again the two sentences I have given above arranged
slightly differently:

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

Trimmed down, the second sentence is structurally similar to Rom. 8:26.
Would anyone really want to claim that the subordinate clause of O.O. in
2 bears a clearer relation to its introductory verb than its counterpart
in 1? Isn't it equally clear in both sentences that the subordinate
clause is an indirect question introduced by a verb of knowing? How does
the article make this relationship (between clause of O.O. and
introductory verb) clearer? If TO does make the relationship clearer, why
is its use so rare? Most writers want to write as clearly as possible.
Why don't we see it more often? I ask again: Is there a semantical
difference between these two sentences, if only of nuance, or only a
syntactical one?

Yours in His grace,

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




More information about the B-Greek mailing list