[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jan 7 13:01:31 EST 2011


On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:

> Thanks Dr. Conrad,
>  
> Since the grammar could go either way, the reason why I thought the simple 
> infinitive was being used as a purpose infinitive in verse 20 was because of the 
> context. The context of the section, beginning in I Cor. 11:2, seems to indicate 
> they were following the traditions Paul left with them, one of them being to 
> assemble together in order to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The problem, however, 
> was the way they were doing it. 
> 
>  
> Also the context of verses 18 and 19 indicate Paul is chastising the Corinthians 
> for their divisiveness and class distinctions. The Lord’s Supper was supposed to 
> be showing the complete opposite – oneness and equality. Therefore, it seems 
> Paul is telling them, *Hey, you guys the purpose of your getting together into 
> one place is to eat the Lord’s Supper, demonstrating your oneness and equality, 
> and yet when you get together you are doing the complete opposite! Don’t forget 
> the purpose of your coming together is to eat the *Lord’s* Supper,  not 
> your *own* supper. 
> 
>  
> Thus my conclusion that  FAGEIN should be understood as a purpose infinitive in 
> verse 20.
>  
> On the other hand, if the only purpose infinitive of FAGEIN in the section is 
> found in verse 33, then it seems the understanding of the RSV and the NET would 
> be correct for then it would explain why Paul would change the simple infinitive 
>  FAGEIN  of verse 20 into a clear purpose infinitive in verse 33 with the 
> addition of EIS TO, thereby showing your conclusion, that the infinitive in 
> verse 20 was a *substantive in a nominal clause with OUK ESTI.*
>  
> As George S. always says, *Context is king.* The problem, however, is that 
> sometimes context can lead us into two different directions, each equally legit, 
> (as seems to be the case here), that is, unless there is a specific grammatical 
> rule that would prohibit one of the directions…thus my enquiry into the reason 
> for the change to the articular infinitive.
>  
> Thanks again, for your observation and your recollection  of the *Homeric 
> formula BH D' IENAI – "he strode to go."*

One last remark, after which I hope to bid a final farewell to this thread. I
responded to Mark's comment originally because it seemed to me that he was
implying that whether or not a Greek author used the article with the infinitive 
or not was altogether arbitrary rather than a matter of (more or less) standard
usage. I would want to affirm neither that usage with respect to the infinitive
in Koine Greek was rigidly conformable to a clearly-understood set of
grammatical rules nor that it was altogether arbitrary. With regard to 1 Cor
11:20 I'm still inclined to think that it's not an infinitive of purpose, but
it may be that it is -- and that's why I added the note about the Homeric
formula.

I still believe that a discussion of infinitive usage such as found in Funk's
BIGHG, to which I referred previously, is helpful for orientation. Some might
prefer the fuller and lengthier discussion in Wallace's GGBB. I have a mind
myself to re-read A. T. Robertson's Chapter on the Infinitive in his big grammar,
pp. 1049ff., precisely because I find Robertson's historical survey of the 
developing usage of particular items of form and usage informative; I suspect
that his approach may drive some others up the walls, if what they're looking
for is a "quick and dirty" answer to the question they're raising. But I'm not
so sure that there are very many "quick and dirty" answers to the serious
grammatical questions about Greek.

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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list