[B-Greek] Complimentary Infinitive + Direct Object?

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jun 2 06:58:55 EDT 2009


On Jun 1, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Matthew Hauck wrote:
>
>> I am studying Ephesians 1:10 and trying to figure out the use of the
>> aorist
>> infinitive ANAKAFALAIWSASQAI. It seems to either be 1) epexegetical /
>> appositional; 2) purpose; or 3) complimentary. My first read was to
>> take it
>> as a complimentary of the verb PROEQETO, completing the idea: "God
>> purposed
>> ... to sum up all things in Christ". Hoehner also seems to take this
>> view.
>>
>> However, my question is whether or not it is possible to have a
>> complimentary infinitive of a verb that has a direct object already.
>> I can't
>> seem to get it to make much sense in my mind. "He purposed / planned
>> his
>> good pleasure to sum up all things", that makes it a purpose I
>> suppose.
>>
>> Thoughts? Should I rule out the complimentary use?
>
> Eph. 1:9 γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον  
> τοῦ
> θελήματος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν
> αὐτοῦ ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ  10 εἰς
> οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν
> καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα
> ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
> καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν αὐτῷ.
>
> EPH. 1:9 GNWRISAS hHMIN TO MUSTHRION TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU, KATA THN
> EUDOKIAN AUTOU hHN PROEQETO EN AUTWi  10 EIS OIKONOMIAN TOU PLHRWMATOS
> TWN KAIRWN, ANAKEFALAIWSASQAI TA PANTA EN TWi CRISTWi, TA EPI TOIS
> OURANOIS KAI TA EPI THS GHS EN AUTWi.
>
> This is not a simple question and I will not pretend to give a
> definitive answer. According to Alford,  ANAKEFALAIWSASQAI belongs to
> and specifies THN EUDOKIAN but Meyer disagrees, connecting it with
> OIKONOMIAN.
>
>> my question is whether or not it is possible to have a
>> complimentary infinitive of a verb that has a direct object already.
>
> The short answer is yes. But is that what is going on in Ephesians  
> 1:10?
>
> One aspect of the question which I find interesting is the semantic
> framework established by TO MUSTHRION TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU and KATA THN
> EUDOKIAN AUTOU hHN PROEQETO EN AUTWi. It seems to me that at least
> some notion of purpose would be suitable in this context for
> ANAKEFALAIWSASQAI.
>
> In light of the current critique of the analytical approach to reading
> NT Greek, it might be worthwhile to note that forcing this infinitive
> ANAKEFALAIWSASQAI into one of the suggested categories of your
> metalanguage could result in a misunderstanding what what the text is
> saying.

I honestly think it is difficult to affirm anything in a definitive  
manner about how the sub-units of Ephesians 1:3-14 construe in  
relationship to each other. I've remarked on this many times in this  
forum over the years. Here's something from May of 1995: "It has  
always seemed to me that the opening of Ephesians (1:3-14) is  
something of a scandal and a minefield in the Greek (I use it to  
illustrate the versatility of participles in Greek, although here that  
versatility does not seem to be exploited in the prettiest fashion).  
The links between clauses are unwieldy and the flow of thought seems  
best understood in terms of liturgical composition rather than  
exposition." I do wish that the author of this passage (I can't really  
think it's Paul, but that's outside the discussion) had expended more  
effort to make clear "the mystery of his (own) intent" (TO MUSTHRION  
TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU) in this rambling discourse. I have tried many  
times to diagram this sentence in order to clarify the relationship of  
the parts to each other, but I have never found a single one of those  
diagrams to be wholly convincing.


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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list