# LXX Greek help



## Prufrock (Jan 13, 2009)

Can someone point out the cause of the infinitive of paroikew having the genitive article in the LXX of Ruth 1:1?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2009)

Paul,

My Smythe is at the office, but my initial reaction on seeing it was "articular infinitive in the genitive for purpose clause." I looked at Wallace quickly in my Bibleworks, and he says that the articular infinitive can be in the genitive for causal clauses "rarely." My guess is that it is rare in the NT, and more common in Classical Greek.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 13, 2009)

When an infinitive has an article coupled with it it is an indicator that it is being modified or at least to be interpreted with the prepositional phrase (here _apo Bethlehem_). As far as I know this only works/happens when the article is neuter singular (as is the case with Ruth 1:1).


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jan 13, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Can someone point out the cause of the infinitive of paroikew having the genitive article in the LXX of Ruth 1:1?



I would say that it's a Genitive Articular Infinitive, indicating purpose or result. It translates lamedh + infinitive in Hebrew.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2009)

Also, here is Conybeare's section:



> *59. The Genitive **Infinitive of Purpose.* The genitive of the verbal noun formed by prefixing the article to the infinitive, which we may call for convenience the Genitive Infinitive, is one of the regular ways of expressing purpose in Biblical Greek, corresponding to our use of ‘to.’ The construction is not entirely unknown to classical authors (e.g. Plat. _Gorg._ 457 E tou/ katafane.j gene,sqai ) and is especially favoured by Thucydides. There is nothing in the Hebrew to suggest it. The following will serve as examples -
> Jdg. 16:5 kai. dh,somen auvto.n tou/ tapeinw/sai auvto,nÅ
> Ps. 9:30 evnedreu,ei tou/ a`rpa,sai ptwco,n .
> Job 1:19 h=lqon tou/ avpaggei/lai, soi .
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2009)

Screenshot may work better.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 13, 2009)

Thanks, all. My LXX translating experience is clearly far too small. Thanks for that last post, especially, Mr. Greco: I didn't remember that construction from the example in Matthew. 

Wes: Smyth has the construction to normally represent _negative_ purpose; is it used in the LXX often for positive purpose as well? I guess you really don't need to answer; I suppose I'll find out soon enough.


----------

