[B-Greek] Articular infinitives: distinguishing subjects fromobjects

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Nov 28 07:57:39 EST 2008


On Nov 28, 2008, at 12:16 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Litwak" <javajedi2 at yahoo.com>
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 27. november 2008 06:32
> Subject: [B-Greek] Articular infinitives: distinguishing subjects  
> fromobjects
>
>
>>  Articular infinitives, like all infinitives, of course take  
>> subjects in the accusative case.
>> For example, we have Matt 13;4 with a "circumstantial" articular  
>> infinitive:
>> EN TW SPEIREIN AUTON ("while he sows/was sowing*")
>>
>> My question is whether every accusative that immediately follows an  
>> articular infinitive must be
>> the subject and if not, how does know that it is the direct object  
>> instead?  For example, Heb 8:3
>> would seem to follow the articular infinitive with a direct object:
>> PAS GAR ARCIEREUS EIS TO PROSFEREIN DWA TE KAI QUSIAS ("every high  
>> priest in order that he might
>> offer gifts and sacrifices")
>> Are there any rules that can be applied to determine whether what I  
>> find is a subject or an
>> objectg?  This case _seems_ easy because I think I know that gifts  
>> and sacrifices would not make
>> sense as the subject of the articular infinitive. Is that the only  
>> rule, that the sentence only
>> makes sense if one takes the accusative as the subject or the  
>> direct object?  I'd like a better
>> guideline than that because one person's "that makes sense" is  
>> another person's "what were
>> thinking?" as anyone can tell by comparing any two commentaries.   
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ken
>
> The example that comes to my mind is Php 1:7
> DIA TO ECEIN ME EN THi KARDIAi hUMAS
>
> "Because you have me in the (your) heart"
>
> Which of the two accusatives ME and hUMAS is subject and which is  
> object? There is no simple rule,
> so you have to let the context decide, and people do have different  
> takes on how to interpret
> something in context as evidenced in the different interpretations  
> of this verse:
>
> NRSV: "because you hold me in your heart" - correct.
> RSV: "because I hold you in my heart" - wrong because it does not  
> fit the context. The order of
> words was taken over literally.
>
> The order of the accusatives is a matter of emphasis and pragmatics.  
> Note that KARDIA connected to a
> plural possessive pronoun can be either singular or plural, it makes  
> no difference to the meaning.

I would quite agree with Iver: there are no "tell-tale marks"  
indicating when an accusative that is clearly construed with an  
articular infinitive is a subject or when it is an object; context has  
to be the sole determining factor. Note two instances of ME following  
upon and clearly construed with an articular infinitive in closely  
adjacent verses:

Matt. 26:12 βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον  
τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου πρὸς τὸ  
ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐποίησεν. [BALOUSA GAR hAUTH TO  
MURON TOUTO EPI TOU SWMATOS MOU PROS TO ENTAFIASAI ME EPOIHSEN]: ME is  
here the accusative OBJECT of ENTAFIASAI.

Matt. 26:32 μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με  
προάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. [META DE  
TO EGERQHNAI ME PROAXW hUMAS EIS THN GALILAIAN]: ME is here the  
accusative SUBJECT of EGERQHNAI.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list