[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
Mark Lightman
lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 6 21:46:46 EST 2011
Hi, Carl,
I'll admit that Ι had forgotten the fact that in the NT the infinitive always
takes the article when it is an object of a preposition. That is an important
fact to know, and sort of answers 75% of Adrian's question. But note
Dana/Mantey 192
"...the anarthous infinitive with a preposition occurs elsewhere in Biblical
Greek, and also in the literary Koine...hence the absence of this construction
from the New Testament must be regarded as incidental."
I might also note, for what it is worth, that twice (1 Thes 3:2 and 2 Thes 2:2)
in the Thessalonian letters the article is not repeated the second time when a
preposition is used with a pair of infinitives.
But on Adrian's fourth example (1 Thes 4:6) I cannot agree with you. I don't
see how TO MH hUPERBAINEIN differs in any way as a construction from APECESQAI
in verse 3. Both can be called substantives in apposition to hO hAGIASMOS
hUMWN. hUMAS is the accusative subject of both, though it is only expressed in
the first verse.
And even if you could convince Adrian that these are two different
constructions, you would still have to explain what difference in meaning the
article has.
Mark L
Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:07:50 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> Hi, Carl,
>
> I did not assume that the presence or absence of the article with the
>infinitive
>
> made no difference. On the contrary, I assumed that it did, since the grammars
>
> seem to make a big deal out of stuff like this.
Sorry, Mark, I guess I was thrown for a loop by your phrasing, "hard-wired to
take it or leave it."
> But in reading actual Greek, I
> notice again and again that the generalizations from the grammars work when
>they
>
> work and often they just don't. Maybe this is what Funk is saying here
>
> <8310. There is no clear line of demarcation between the functions of the
> anarthrous infinitive and those of the articular infinitive, except that the
> anarthrous infinitive never occurs in p-clusters as the object of a
>preposition,
>
> and the articular infinitive does not occur in verb chains of Group I
> (§§567-573).>
>
> although he lost me a little on the last bit.
>
> But again, go back to Adrian's question. Check out 1 Thes 4:3-6 and tell me
>why
>
> the article is used with TO MH hUPERBAINEIN in verse 6 and not with APECESQAI
> in v. 3 or EIDENAI in v.4. I think it just did sound better that way. It's
>not
>
> flipping a coin, but some language is not as conscious as the analysis of it
> would assume. Again, it's not a matter of
>
> <of which formulations were suitable in particular constructions>
>
> because in these two epistles you find the article there or not there in the
> same constructions.
First, let's look at 1 Thess 4:3-6:
1Th. 4:3 Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς
ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, 4 εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ
καὶ τιμῇ, 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 6
τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι
ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα.
1Th. 4:3 TOUTO GAR ESTIN QELHMA TOU QEOU, hO hAGIASMOS hUMWN, APECESQAI
hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS, 4 EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI EN
hAGIASMWi KAI TIMHi, 5 MH EN PAQEI EPIQUMIAS KAQAPER KAI TA EQNH TA MH EIDOTA
TON QEON, 6 TO MH hUPERBAINEIN KAI PLEONEKTEIN EN TWi PRAGMATI TON ADELFON
AUTOU, DIOTI EKDIKOS KURIOS PERI PANTWN TOUTWN, KAQWS KAI PROEIPAMEN hUMIN KAI
DIEMARTURAMEQA.
Here we have (1) APECESQAI hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS -- standard usage of
subject-accusative + infinitive, (2) APECESQAI hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS -- another
of the same construction, (3) EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI
EN hAGIASMWi KAI TIMHi ... (where KTASQAI functions as complementary to EIDENAI
and certainly would not have an article) -- yet another of the same
construction. I don't think that an article governing the whole construction of
a subject-accusative, infinitive, and its adjuncts and complements is common in
Biblical Koine. On the other hand, as you note, verse 6 has TO MH hUPERBAINEIN
KAI PLEONEKTEIN EN TWi PRAGMATI TON ADELFON AUTOU. As I see it, this is a
different construction from those three previous ones; it's not a clause but a
substantive -- what we'd normally express in English, I think, with a gerund:
"not cheating and/or taking advantage of one's brother." Granted that each of
these constructions can be converted into a clause in English, "that you refrain
from immorality, that each of you know how to get ... ", there's no subject
expressed in the articular infinitive construction in verse 6 and I think it
really is different in kind from the others.
And if we look at the texts originally cited by Adrian, the TO could not have
been omitted in the three instances where the infinitive functions as the object
of the preposition EIS; as for TO MH hUPERBAINEIN, I've just discussed that
above.
>> I keep coming across a construction using TO + infinitive, and I am not
>> sure what difference the article makes to the meaning compared to using
>> the infinitive on its own. Some examples would be:
>>
>> TO MH hUPERBAINEIN.... (1Thess4:6)
>> ....EIS TO AGAPAN ALLHLOUS (1Thess4:9)
>> ENDEIGMA THS DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU, EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI....
>> (2Thess1:5)
>> EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI.... (2Thess2:2)
On the other hand, I think that an infinitive can be a subject of a nominal
sentence with or without the article:
PANTES ANQRWPOI hAMARTANOUSIN
hAMARTANEIN ANQRWPEION ESTIN.
or ANQRWPEION ESTIN TO hAMARTANEIN (although I think the latter is somewhat more
"natural.")
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list