[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive

Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Fri Jan 7 21:58:24 EST 2011


Forgive me for replying late. As it happens, Carl picked the only  
examples of εἰς+ anarthrous infinitive in the entire  
Septuagint(according Rahlfs), namely, 2 Esdras 22:24 (Neh 12:24) and  
Sir 38:27. For the first of the these we have extant Hebrew, for the  
second we do not.

More common in the LXX is εἰς+ arthrous infinitive, though rather  
unevenly distributed. I count 40 instances. Where we have extant  
Hebrew, these regularly reflect ל+ infinitive in the source text.

Hebrew ל+ infinitive is rendered very often by the so-called  
anarthrous) purpose infinitive. Most often, especially in the more  
"literal" [isomorphic] translations, ל+ infinitive (expressing  
purpose) is rendered by an arthrous infinitive τοῦ+infinitive,  
τοῦ reflecting ל.

As for the difference between εἰς τὸ+ infinitive and τοῦ+  
infinitive, given the fact that everywhere εἰς τὸ+ infinitive is  
a minority usage (i.e. non-default/marked), this construction attracts  
attention. Whether the difference is a question of style or of  
semantics is difficult to decide. But since the LXX does not  
typically  indulge in stylistic felicity, semantic nuance may be at  
issue. On the other hand, τοῦ+ infinitive is a case of what Gideon  
Toury would call positive transfer, i.e. a usage that accords with  
Greek linguistic code but whose frequency is influenced by the source  
language (i.e,. isomorphic pairing with Hebrew  ל).

As for εἰς+ infinitive (in distinction from εἰς τὸ+  
infinitive), until we find other instances of this construction, we  
might best regard it as an instance of what Toury would call negative  
transfer, i.e. a usage that does not accord with Greek linguistic code 
———which does not necessarily mean that 2 Esdras 22:24 or Sir  
38:27 are unintelligible. All one needs to do is to recall that (a)  
the infinitive is a verbal noun and (b) instances of εἰς+verbal  
noun to express aim/purpose/result are a dime a dozen within the LXX  
and well-known outside of it.
Al






On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:

>
> 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)
>
>
>
>

—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm




More information about the B-Greek mailing list