Re: Accusative + Infinitive

Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:58:33 -0500

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
>KLHRONOMOS TOU KOSMOU Hi) and Romans 15:8-9 - LEGW GAR CRISTON DIAKONON
>GEGENHSQAI PERITOMHS hUPER ALHQEIAS QEOU ... TA DE EQNH hUPER ELEOUS
>DOXASAI TON QEON (as opposed to GEGONEN XRISTOS DIAKONOS ... and TA EQNH
>(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
>here?

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.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/