Rom 8:26 -- article

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Sep 7 15:39:03 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?
<snip>

The default position of the object or content clause with O.O. is following
it as in
Mt 26:70 OUK OIDA TI LEGEIS
There is no relative pronoun, since the indefinite pronoun is sufficient: I
don't know what(ever) you are saying.
If there is strong emphasis on the content clause, it may be moved forward
as in
1 Cor 14:16 TI LEGEIS OUK OIDEN -what(ever) you are saying, he doesn't
know/understand.

A relative is used when it needs to refer back to something known or already
mentioned, for instance:
Jn 4:32 EGW BRWSIN ECW FAGEIN hHN hUMEIS OUK OIDATE
In this case, the content for the knowing often precedes O.O. and there is
no indefinite pronoun.

For Rom 8:26 I guess Paul could have written
TI GAR PROSEUXWMEQA KAQO DEI OUK OIDAMEN "For we don't know what(ever) we
might pray as is needed" The TO may serve to emphasize the content, the
actual words, something like:
"For we don't know what(ever) things we might pray for as is needed."

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list