Re: Accusative + Infinitive

From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 12:03:44 EDT

Micheal Palmer wrote:

>>At 10:50 PM -0500 9/17/97, Eric Weiss wrote:
>>>Is there a semantic or stylistic significance to using the accusative
>>>case + infinitive as opposed to the more usual nominative case +
>>>indicative or subjunctive? I'm looking specifically at Romans 4:13 - ...
>>>TO KLHRONOMON AUTON EINAI KOSMOU (as opposed to, I guess, hOTI
>>>(nominative case here identical in form to accusative case in the verse)
>>>DOXAZOUSI (or DOXAZEI) TON QEON)? This does not seem to be Paul's usual
>>>style, at least in Romans, so I was wondering why he uses this syntax
>At 5:58 AM -0500 9/18/97, Carl W. Conrad responded:
>>There may be and probably are studies of this sort of thing; I would only
>>state a "gut" feeling here that this acc. + inf. construction is more
>>formal and rhetorical than either an expository indicative or the (more
>>colloquial?) hINA + subjunctive subordinate substantive clause. If Paul
>>ever wrote a work that is as much a "treatise" as a real letter, I think it
>>would be agreed that Romans falls in that category, especially inasmuch as
>>it's a letter addressed to a congregation he hasn't founded or ever met.
>>Parts of 1 Corinthians (esp. chaps. 1-4) seem to me to have much of this
>>same powerful rhetorical presentation where the style pretty clearly rises
>>to a level above that of ordinary epistolary communication.
>Now I finally get around to responding...
>While I agree in general terms with Carl's comments, I would like to add
>that the infinitival construction here happens to have an accusative case
>subject not because infinitives always do (they don't), but because one or
>both of two crucial conditions for the subject being nominative are not
>met. If the subject of an infinitive is stated explicitly, it will be
>assigned accusative case if either (or both) of the following two
>conditions are NOT met:
> 1) The subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of
> governing (usually finite) verb.
> 2) The infinitival clause functions as a complement (object)
>of the
> governing (usually finite) verb.
>If the subject of the infinitive is NOT the same as the subject of the main
>verb, or if the infinitival clause does NOT function as a complement of the
>main verb, then the subject of the infinitive will be accusative case. If
>the subject of the infinitive IS the same as the subject of the main verb
>AND the infinitive DOES function as a complement of the main verb, then the
>subject of the infinitive will almost never be stated explicitly, but if it
>is, it will be assigned NOMINATIVE case, and any modifiers of it (say,
>predicate adjectives, participial modifiers, etc.) will be assigned
>NOMINATIVE case even if the subject is not stated explicitly.
>You will not find a clear discussion of this topic in any of the grammars.
>I am currently writing a paper on the subject and have collected about 20
>pages of examples from the New Testament and other Hellenistic Greek
>literature. I have chosen these examples from the hundreds of others
>available because they illustrate almost every conceivable configuration of
>infinitival clauses with explicit subjects.
>I've taken several days to answer Eric's note because I am pretty swamped
>with work right now. When things lighten up a little I will address the
>issue again and would be glad to share some of the examples at that time.
>Infinitives with explit subjects are really fairly common in the New
>Testament. Virtually every NT author used them. They were also quite common
>outside the NT both in other early Christian literature and in the
>contemporary works of non-Christian authors.


You are certainly correct about the fact that such a discussion is not to
be found in any grammars (as I was reading your criteria, I was thinking
to myself, "Did I miss something when I read Robertson, BDF, etc. ?").
If you are correct, then its a great discovery !!

I think I understand what you are saying, but I'm not 100% sure, since I
think there are examples to the contrary (which, of course, doesn't make
the general observation invalid). Perhaps you could comment on the
following verse:

Luke 2:4 (DIA TO EINAI AUTON...), which seems to have the same subject
as the main (indicative) verb.


Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT