From: L. Tichy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 07:45:57 EDT
C. Conrad wrote:
> After sending my message this morning, I realized that it was a truncated
> version omitting my comments on the last six examples of EIS TO + Infinitive
> clauses which I argue are purpose clauses although they include subject
> accusatives. Here's the whole of what I'd prepared.
> At 4:45 PM +0100 6/19/00, L. Tichy wrote:
> >Norbert Baumert, in a German article "EIS TO mit Infinitiv", in:
> >*Filologia neotestamentaria* I (1998), pp. 7-24, advances the thesis
> >that, in the New Testament, EIS TO with infinitive has always a final
> >meaning, but EIS TO with accusative and infinitive always expresses a
> >consequence. He makes his assertion purposely contrary to the Grammars (cf.
> >Blass-Debrunner etc. 402.2) that give either meaning for both
> >constructions. I must confess I am not convinced by his argumentation, in
> >particular by the methodology itself, by his one-sided interpretation of
> >singular New Testament texts and by the fact that texts having accusative
> >with infinitive can be found, e. g. in the Septuagint 1Mac 6:55 (EKQREYAI
> >ANTIOCON TON UhION AUTOU EIS TO BASILEUSAI AUTON), that have clearly a
> >consequent meaning. What would the B-Greekers, especially those experienced
> >among them, as e. g. Carl Conrad, say to the this matter?
> Although my immediate gut feeling upon reading this was that Baumert cannot
> be right about this, I wanted to do some checking. I was able quickly
> enough. using AcCordance, to compile a file of all the GNT texts using EIS
> TO + infinitive, but I had to do some careful analysis of each instance
> before I could feel confident about replying (and a rainy morning in the
> mountains proved to be a KAIROS for that!)
> a. I must say first of all that I haven't found any CLEAR examples of EIS TO
> without acc. & infinitive that must be interpreted as having consequent
> (result) meaning; and 'consequently' I would affirm: (1) most of the
> instances of EIS TO + infinitive in the GNT really are best explained as
> purpose constructions; and (2) I think it most likely that EIS TO +
> infinitive originally functioned to express purpose following upon some
> other verb or assertion, and that extension of the construction to express
> result was a secondary development; I think this would be parallel to the
> extension of hWSTE + infinitive constructions from expressing only result to
> expressing purpose as well as result. Quite simply put, what seems to be in
> play here is a formal assimilation of purpose and result constructions to
> each other in view of the affinity of the ideas, "I do X in order to achieve
> Y" and "I do X and Y results."
> b. I have found several examples of EIS TO with accusative and infinitive
> that (to me, at least) pretty clearly seem to have final (purpose) meaning:
> Acts 3:19 METANOHSATE OUN KAI EPISTREYATE EIS TO EXALEIFQHNAI hUMWN TAS
> hAMARTIAS. "Repent then and turn about so that your sins may be wiped away."
> TAS hAMARTIAS must be the subject here, and while there may be some question
> whether the wiping away of the sins is simply a consequence, it really
> appears to be the INTENTION of repentance and turning about that they should
> be wiped away.
> Rom 1:11 EPIPOQW GAR IDEIN hUMAS, hINA TI METADW CARISMA hUMIN PNEUMATIKON
> EIS TO STHRICQHNAI hUMAS. Here hUMAS is the subject again of a passive
> infinitive STHRICQHNAI, and since the governing construction is one of
> purpose, it seems to me we ought to understand the infinitive phrase as one
> of purpose also: "I yearn to see you in order to impart to you some
> spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened."
> Rom 8:29 hOTI hOUS PROEGNW, KAI PROWRISEN SUMMORFOUS THS EIKONOS TOU hUIOU
> AUTOU, EIS TO EINAI AUTON PRWTOTOKON EN POLLOIS ADELFOIS ... "For those whom
> he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformant to the image of his son,
> so that He would be firstborn among many brothers and sisters." One could, I
> suppose, argue that EIS TO EINAI AUTON PRWTOTOKON KTL. indicates a
> consequence of God's foreknowledge and foreordination rather than a purpose,
> but in a sentence the fundamental sense of which is the working out of God's
> purposes, it makes more sense to me to view every aspect of it as involving
> purpose and deliberate intent.
> Rom 12:2 KAI MH SUSCHMATIZESQE TWi AIWNI TOUTWi, ALLA METAMORFOUSQE THi
> ANAKAINWSEI TOU NOOS EIS TO DOKIMAZEIN hUMAS TI TO QELHMA TOU QEOU, TO
> AGAQON KAI EUARESTON KAI TELEION. Here hUMAS is the subject of DOKIMAZEIN,
> and if this "putting to the proof" is a 'result' of transformation and
> remaking of the mind, it seems to me it is the INTENDED result,and so I'd
> say this is a purpose construction.
> Rom 15:13 hO DE QEOS THS ELPIDOS PLHRWSAI hUMAS PASHS CARAS KAI EIRHNHS EN
> TWi PISTEUEIN, EIS TO PERISSEUEIN hUMAS EN THi ELPIDI EN DUNAMEI PNEUMATOS
> hAGIOU. Here hUMAS is the subject of PERISSEUEIN, and since PLHRWSAI here is
> one of the (relatively) few authentic optatives in the GNT expressing a
> fervent wish, I think that PERISSEUEIN here is indeed an INTENDED result,
> wherefore here too I vote this to be a purpose construction.
> 1 Cor 10:6 TAUTA DE TUPOI hHMWN EGENHQHSAN, EIS TO MH EINAI hHMAS
> EPIQUMHTAS KAKWN, KAQWS KA'KEINOI EPEQUMHSAN. I don't see how this could be
> consecutive: paradigms of what to shun are offered for an INTENDED result.
> 1 Th 2:12 PARAKALOUNTES hUMAS KAI PARAMUQOUMENOI KAI MARTUROMENOI EIS TO
> PERIPATEIN hUMAS AXIWS TOU QEOU TOU KALOUNTOS hUMAS EIS THN hEAUTOU BASILEAN
> KAI DOXAN. Here an argument could be made that PERIPATEIN hUMAS AXIWS TOU
> QEOU KTL. is result of the exhortation, but I can't see that there's any
> signficant difference from a purpose.
> 2 Th 2:10 KAI EN PASHi APATHi ADIKIAS TOIS APOLLUMENOIS, ANQ' hWN THN
> AGAPHN THS ALHQEIAS OUK EDEXANTO EIS TO SWQHNAI AUTOUS. 11 KAI DIA TOUTO
> PEMPEI AUTOIS hO QEOS ENERGEIAN PLANHS EIS TO PISTEUSAI AUTOUS TWi YEUDEI.
> Here I have to believe that EIS TO SWQHNAI AUTOUS and EIS TO PISTEUSAI
> AUTOUS TWi YEUDEI are negative and positive purpose constructions,
> respectively: they wouldn't accept love of truth in order to be saved; God
> visited them with efficacious Error to make them believe falsehood.
> James 3:3 EI DE TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS EIS TA STOMATA BALLOMEN EIS TO
> PEIQESQAI AUTOUS hHMIN ... Surely the obedience of the horses to us is the
> very intent and purpose of our putting bits in their mouths.
thank you very much indeed for your search. I am sorry that in my
post, there was an essential error, viz. in Mac 6:55 I can clearly see
a f i n a l meaning. But it seems, that has not influenced your
response. It is, as usual, very balanced. I can say my view about the
matter is very much similar.
Faculty of theology
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT