>>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?
>>
>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
>the
> 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.
Michael:
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.
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
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: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************