From: Paul Zellmer (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 11 1997 - 01:22:08 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 03:27 PM 1/10/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >You've gotten very good answers already on this (and a good lesson on uses
> >of the articular infinitive!); I would only add one little detail:
> Indeed, the messages from Donald and James were useful! (Is Donald new here?
> I don't remember him, but I'm not good with faces...) I've made it through
> participles, but I still need to work my way through infinitives. Time to
> hit the books again.
> Am I right in assuming that TOU PLEUSAI is being used in the same way (tou +
> inf. with hENEKA omitted) in the following?
> Jonah 1:3 KAI ANESTH IWNAS <TOU FUGEIN> EIS QARSIS EK PROSWPOU KURIOU KAI
> KATEBH EIS IOPPHN KAI hEUREN PLOION BADIZON EIS QARSIS KAI EDWKEN TO NAULON
> AUTOU KAI ENEBH EIS AUTO <TOU PLEUSAI> MET AUTWN EIS QARSIS EK PROSWPOU KURIOU.
One quick note about both of the infinitive forms you note here,
Jonathan. Normally I know that we resist discussion here of hebraic
influence, but we are clearly working with a translation of hebrew
material. I do not think that it is incidental that the both the hebrew
and the greek use forms of the infinitive in both of the cases you just
mentioned. Rather, I suspect the LXX translators were influenced by the
form in the hebrew, and that greek just happened to have a parallel form
that fit. The question is, would they have chosen the
genitive-article+infinitive if this were an original greek document?
Perhaps they might have put in some of the particles that you feel are
omitted had that been the case.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:02 EDT