[B-Greek] John 4:7 DOS MOI PEIN

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Sat Aug 11 13:48:59 EDT 2007


David and all,

I would actually understand the construction differently, and rather than taking the infinitive PEIN as complementary,  I would take it as the direct object of DIDWMI and MOI as the indirect object (pace BDAG, s.v. DIDWMI, who understand an ellision in instances like this as does Carl ). I think this is simply an idiomatic way of speaking in which someone  is said to give the action of another, which ultimately  means to enable the other to do the action or to give them the opportunity  to do it. Of course, in the context of such a  statement as this,  DOS MOI PEIN, it is implied that something would be given to the person. But I tend to think that most  technically what is seen as being given is the action of drinking. This goes along with other actions said to be given by one to another, e.g.,  the notion of  "giving to sit" (Mt 20:23; Mk 10:40; cf. BDF, 399 and 
Zerwick/Grosvenor, who regard <to kathisai> as an explicit object in Matt 20:23 ),  which seems not to mean  giving someone something to sit down on or with, but enabling  them to sit, giving them the opportunity and privilege of sitting. Of course construing Mt 20:23/Mk. 10:40 in this way does not demand taking Jn 4:7 similarly. It just provides a similar type of idea with DIDWMI of one giving another an action that the other performs, and that such can be conceived as the giving of ability/opportunity, etc. for doing the sction (which, in the case of food or drink, would include first and foremost, the giving of "something" to eat or drink). Obviously, in Mt 20:23 the article substantivizes the infinitive, making it clearer it is conceived of as an object whereas the article is lacking in Jn 4:7. But according to BDF, 399, when there is no "anaphoric reference, an infinitive as subject or object is usually anarthrous." While my view implies something would be  given to drink, this implied "something" is not meant to be taken as an ellided direct object, but is implied by the action of giving the ability to eat or drink. To me, this is a simpler and more straightforward way to take the construction.

God bless,

Brian Abasciano

*****
Replying to:

Message: 18
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:45:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: David McCoy <davidmcy at io.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 4:7 DOS MOI PEIN
To: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <cierpke at prodigy.net>, Biblical Greek List
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <20070811104340.R97761 at tempest.prismnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"

Kevin:

Carl Conrad wrote:
I would understand this as an ellipsis DOS is imperative, there's an
implicit object TI ('something') and PEIN  is an epexegetic or
explanatory infinitive: "Give me something to drink" = "Give me
something for drinking." I would not, in any case, ever try to
explain MOI as subject of PEIN.

You contributed:
PEIN is a complementary infinitive to the the verb DIDWMI
MOI is the direct object of the verb DIDWMI

Now, I ask:
Isn't MOI the indirect (not direct) object of the verb DIDWMI (and the 
implicit object TI ('something') the direct object)?

Sincerely,
David McCoy



More information about the B-Greek mailing list