INFINITIVE CLAUSE SYNTAX IN THE GOSPELS by Edgar J. Lovelady Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Theology in Grace Theological Seminary May 1976 Accepted by the Faculty of Grace Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree Master of Theology Examining Committee James L. Boyer Homer A. Kent Jr. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is not always the case that one can complete his advanced theological degree with thesis advisors who were the student's first teachers of Greek 18 years previously. It is also not always the case that one is allowed the freedom to go out on a theoretical limb to pur- sue a project which is somewhat a departure from traditional topics in theology. Happily, both of these exceptions blended effectively in the advising and production of this study. The natural modesty of both of my advisors, Dr. James Boyer and Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., prevents me from heaping upon them the praise for their scholarship and counsel that is their due. But I should like them and the readers of this thesis to know just how deeply I appreciate their contributions to my work. Just about all of the Greek I now know and recently have had the joy of teaching, is attributable to the efforts of these men of God. I have profited from their insights in courses in grammar, exegesis, tex- tual criticism, extra-Biblical Koine, and classical Greek. Indeed, many of the essential concepts in this work have been either shaped or tem- pered by their knowledge, and a part of their earthly satisfaction should be to see their own work extended through their students. However, they may not wish to be held responsible for the linguistic novelties which govern the methodological purview of the study, and the consequences, for better or worse, are attributable to the author. iv If I have learned any one thing from this project, it is the truth of the following axiom from the pen of Dr. A. M. Fairbairn, and congenially embodied in my two advisors: "No man can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine." v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Problem 1.2 Previous Research II. TAGMEMIC THEORY 16 2.1 The Tagmemic Theoretical Model 2.2 The Corpus 2.3 Procedures of Analysis III. INFINITIVE CLAUSE CONSTITUENTS 42 3.1 Identification of Clauses 3.2 Primary Clause Tagmemes 3.3 Secondary Clause Tagmemes 3.4 The Infinitive Clause Marker Tagmeme IV. TYPES OF INFINITIVE CLAUSES 86 4.1 Infinitive Clause Typology 4.2 Active Infinitive Clauses 4.2.1 Intransitive 4.2.2 Transitive 4.2.3 Transicomplement 4.2.4 Middle 4.2.5 Ditransitive 4.2.6 Equational 4.3 Passive Infinitive Clauses 4.3.1 Transitive 4.3.2 Transicomplement 4.3.3 Ditransitive 4.4 Interrogative Infinitive Clauses 4.4.1 Transitive 4.4.2 Ditransitive 4.4.3 Equational vi Page Chapter V. CONCLUSION 133 5.1 Problems 5.2 Suggestions for Interpretation 5.3 General Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY 158 vii LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS I. Tagmemes A. Sentence SL Sentence Linker B. Clause Ag Agent Alt Alternative Ax Axis B Benefactive C Subject Complement C Connector Cir Circumstance D Direction F Purpose Fmk Purpose Marker G Goal H Head I Indirect Object Ins Instrument L Location M Manner Modmk Modifier Marker Neg Negative O Direct Object OC Objective Complement P Predicate PC Predicate Complement Peri Position Indicator for Peripheral Tagmemes Q-C-R Interrogative-Complement-Relator Qmk Question Marker Q-O-R Interrogative-Object-Marker Reas Reason Reasmk Reason Marker Ref Reference Rel Relationship Resmk Result Marker RU Retained Object S Subject Sc Source Smk Subject Marker T Time Tmk Time Marker viii C. Phrase Alt Alternative C Connector D Determiner H Head Pos Possessive Rel Relator II. Structures A. Clause AvC1 Adverbial Clause D.Q. Direct Quotation D-S Coordinate Dissimilar Structure InfCl Infinitive Clause 0 Zero Manifestation PtC1 Participial Clause B. Phrase Ajad Adversative Adjective Phrase Nalt Alternative Adjective Phrase Aj(cx) Adjective Phrase (optionally complex) Artneg Negative Article Phrase Avco Coordinate Adverb Phrase dispn Distributive Pronoun Phrase D-Sco Coordinate Dissimilar Structure IA Item-Appositive Phrase N Noun Phrase Nad Adversative Noun Phrase Nco Coordinate Noun Phrase Ncomp Comparative Noun Phrase Ncx Complex Noun Phrase NP Proper Noun Phrase Npt Participial Nominal Phrase Numen Enumerative Numeral Phrase 0 Zero Manifestation RA Relator-Axis Phrase RAalt Alternative Relator-Axis Phrase RAco Coordinate Relator-Axis Phrase RAcx Complex Relator-Axis Phrase Voc Vocative Phrase C. Word aj adjective ajcomp comparative adjective alt alternator art article ix av adverb c connector dem demonstrative pronoun dvinf(p) ditransitive infinitive (optionally passive) eqvinf equational infinitive indfpn indefinite pronoun indfneg negative indefinite pronoun intpn interrogative pronoun ivinf intransitive infinitive n common noun neg negative (1:131) np proper noun num numeral numord ordinal numeral 0 zero manifestation pos personal pronoun in genitive case ptc particle (2n) rcp reciprocal pronoun refl reflexive pronoun rel relator relpn relative pronoun tcpinf passive transicomplement infinitive tvinf(p) transitive infinitive (optionally passive) v-emo emotive verb v-erg ergative verb v-freq frequentative verb v-im imminent verb v-inc inceptive verb v-mid middle verb v-nec necessitative verb v-s verb-seems III. Clause Types InfdCl Ditransitive Infinitive Clause InfdpCl Passive Ditransitive Infinitive Clause InfeC1 Equational Infinitive Clause Infe-iCl Inceptive Equational Infinitive Clause Infe-sC1 Stative Equational Infinitive Clause InfiC1 Intransitive Infinitive Clause InfmC1 Middle Infinitive Clause InftC1 Transitive Infinitive Clause Inft/cC1 Transicomplement Infinitive Clause' Inft/cpCl Passive Transicomplement Infinitive Clause InftpCl Passive Transitive Clause whQ-InfdC1 wh-Question Ditransitive infinitive Clause yhp-InfeqC1 wh-Question Equational Clause x whQ-InftC1 wh-Question Transitive Clause IV. Transformations T-rel Relative Clause Transformation (with Direct Ob- ject) T-rel-IO Indirect Object Relative Clause Transformation T-wh-Qd wh-Question Ditransitive Clause Transformation T-wh-Qe wh-Question Equational Clause Transformation T-wh-Qt wh-Question Transitive Clause Transformation xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In spite of the extensive and precise scrutiny given to the study of the ancient Greek language in general and New Testament Greek in particular, there is still sufficient room left to challenge the in- vestigator today. Recently-developed theories of language analysis have made feasible the study of languages from fresh vantage points, thus adding to the well-established body of linguistic knowledge currently available. The process has been both cyclical and spiral, for as we have come to know more about specific languages, the development of linguistic theory has been advanced, and in turn the advancement of theoretical linguistics has expanded and deepened our command of the languages. It is the purpose of this study to present the results of a syntactic analysis of selected infinitive clauses furnished by the con- temporary linguistic method known as tagmemics, presented in a subsequent part of this study. In so doing, it is hoped that this presentation can serve both as a reference tool for infinitive clauses in New Testament Greek, and as a model for the systematic analysis of other syntactic constructions to be explored by researchers to follow. While this study is data-based and analysis--oriented, conclusions involving the language of the New Testament are drawn wherever they are warranted for their use in translation and interpretation. This study, then, is essen- tially a grammar of the infinitive clause in the New Testament Gospels. 2 1.1 The Problem The primary contribution of this study is grammatical rather than exegetical, and this purpose is based on the premise that the more we know about the language itself, the more accurate and reliable can be our interpretation of its literature. The central and basic question resolves to this: Is there such a thing as positional syntax in Koine Greek for clauses? It is safe to say that Greek scholars for over a century have generally felt that inflectional criteria have determined clausal syntactic relationships, and that word order (with some excep- tions1) was of marginal consequence. Indeed, most Greek grammars devote the bulk of their coverage to inflectional syntax. For example, in Blass and Debrunner's classic work, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 225 pages are given to a discussion of inflectional syntax, while only about 15 pages treat the significance of word order.2 The studies undertaken by students of Greek are soundly based on observation collected from a wide range of sources, both Biblical and extra-Biblical. Such constructions as the articular infinitive, genitive l Such studies as that by E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," reprint from Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), p. 9, demonstrate the contribution that word order studies can make to Koine Greek grammar. In an extensive survey of predicate nouns with and without the article occurring both before and after the verb he finds that out of 112 definite predicates used before the verb, only 15 are used with the article (13%), while 97 are used without the article (87%). From this and other evidence he concludes that word order and not definiteness is the variable quantum in predcate nominative constructions. 2 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961). 3 absolute, ingressive aorist (and many more) have been presented in grammatical compendia primarily as resource tools for those who are either learning the language, translating texts, or exegeting passages.