From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 12:47:16 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: EIS TO with infinitive (rev.
version)</title></head><body>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 4:45 PM +0100 6/19/00, L. Tichy wrote:</div>
<div>>Norbert Baumert, in a German article "EIS TO mit
Infinitiv", in:<br>
>*Filología neotestamentaria* I (1998), pp. 7-24, advances the
thesis<br>
>that, in the New Testament, EIS TO with infinitive has always a
final<br>
>meaning, but EIS TO with accusative and infinitive always
expresses a<br>
>consequence. He makes his assertion purposely contrary to the
Grammars<br>
>(cf. Blass-Debrunner etc. § 402.2) that give either meaning for
both<br>
>constructions. I must confess I am not convinced by his
argumentation,<br>
>in particular by the methodology itself, by his
one-sided<br>
>interpretation of singular New Testament texts and by the fact
that<br>
>texts having accusative with infinitive can be found, e. g. in
the<br>
>Septuagint 1Mac 6:55 (EKQREYAI ANTIOCON TON UhION AUTOU EIS TO<br>
>BASILEUSAI AUTON), that have clearly a consequent meaning.<br>
>What would the B-Greekers, especially those experienced among
them,</div>
<div>>as e. g. Carl Conrad, say to the this matter?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#007700">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!)<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#007700"><br>
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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#007700"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</font><br>
<font color="#007700"></font></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>