[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 7 10:03:43 EST 2011


Mark L. wrote:
 
>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<
 
And Carl Conrad responded:
 
>We might quibble about this (about this too!), but I don't think it's so much a 
>difference
of meaning as it is a recognized and (more or less) customary) difference in 
construction.
EIS TO STHRIXAI, hINA STHRIXHi, hWSTE STHRIXAI, hWS STHRIXWN -- these
are common ways of indicating purpose in ancient Greek. Do they really have 
different
meanings? Is one more likely to be employed in some contexts than others? Or 
were
ancient Greek speakers "hard-wired to take it or leave it"?<
 
Hi Mark and Carl,
 
Carl – Do you then think it was also just a matter of stylistic preference when 
Paul added EIS TO to the same infinitive FAGEIN  in I Cor. 11:33 when he used a 
anarthrous FAGEIN in I Cor. 11:20? George S. concluded such was probably the 
case. Do you concur?
 
You mentioned *these are common ways of indicating purpose in ancient Greek.* 
But if the simple infinitive in I Cor. 11:20 was already being used as a purpose 
infinitive according to the context, why would there be a need to add EIS TO to 
the same infinitive in verse 33 when the context already established it as a 
purpose infinitive? Could it simply be Paul giving more emphasis to purpose 
within the context?
 
Or to put it another way – by understanding the reason why EIS TO was added to 
the same infinitive a few verses later might help us decide whether I Cor. 11:20 
should be understood as the RSV, or the NET gives it:  
 
1 Corinthians 11:20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you 
eat. RSV
 
1 Corinthians 11:20 Now when you come together at the same place, you are not 
really eating the Lord's Supper. NET
 
Or if it should be understood as the NASB and other translations give it:
 
            1 Corinthians 11:20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to 
eat the Lord's Supper, NASB
 
Sincerely, 
Blue Harris


________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
Cc: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 3:48:15 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive


On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:

> 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."

Forgive me for being skeptical -- it may be so, but I'm from Missouri.
Are instances cited of infinitives as objects of preposition without an article?
I've found a couple in the LXX: Neh. 12:24 (EIS hUMNEIN KAI AINEIN 
and Sir. 38:27 EIS hOMOIWSAI. But I'd guess that these result from 
translated Hebrew. What does Al Pietersma have to say about these?
If I read Smyth correctly(§1968) we don't find it thus in older Greek. If
it really does occur in literary Koine and elsewhere in Biblical Greek, I'd
like to know where.

> 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.

1Th. 3:2 καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ 
εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως 
ὑμῶν 

[1Th. 3:2 KAI EPEMYAMEN TIMOQEON, TON ADELFON hHMWN KAI SUNERGON TOU QEOU EN TWi 
EUAGGELIWi TOU CRISTOU, EIS TO STHRIXAI hUMAS KAI PARAKALESAI hUPER THS PISTEWS 
hUMWN ]
2Th. 2:2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτε διὰ 
πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾿ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ 
ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου· 

[2Th. 2:2 EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI hUMAS APO TOU NOOS MHDE QROEISQAI, MHTE 
DIA PNEUMATOS MHTE DIA LOGOU MHTE DI᾿ EPISTOLHS hWS DI᾿ hHMWN, hWS hOTI 
ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU· ]

In both these instances I would understand the TO as substantivizing the entire 
construction of the two infinitives with their adjuncts rather than just the 
infinitive immediately following it: (a) EIS TO STHRIXAI hUMAS KAI PARAKALESAI 
hUPER THS PISTEWS hUMWN, (b) EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI hUMAS APO TOU NOOS MHDE 
QROEISQAI. Certainly STHRIXAI and PARAKALESAI are kindred expressions and so are 
SALEUQHNAI and QROEISQAI.

> 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.

We might quibble about this (about this too!), but I don't think it's so much a 
difference
of meaning as it is a recognized and (more or less) customary) difference in 
construction.
EIS TO STHRIXAI, hINA STHRIXHi, hWSTE STHRIXAI, hWS STHRIXWN -- these
are common ways of indicating purpose in ancient Greek. Do they really have 
different
meanings? Is one more likely to be employed in some contexts than others? Or 
were
ancient Greek speakers "hard-wired to take it or leave it"?

> ________________________________
> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


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



---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list