<Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

<Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Does the construction pattern:
  • <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive>
mean
  • <Subject> does not need to <infinitive>
OR
  • <Subject> needs to NOT <Infinitive>
?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by cwconrad »

Acts 17:29 wrote: γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλομεν νομίζειν χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῳ, χαράγματι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον. " ... we must not suppose that ... "
BDAG s.v. ὀφείλω wrote:β. be obligated. w. inf. foll. one must, one ought (Hom. [Il. 19, 200] et al.; ins, pap; 4 Macc 11:15; 16:19; Philo, Agr. 164, Spec. Leg. 1, 101; TestJos 14:6; Just., A I, 4, 4 al.; Mel., P. 76, 550; Iren., Did.) ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι πεποιήκαμεν Lk 17:10. κατὰ τ. νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν J 19:7. Cp. 13:14; Ro 15:1, 27; 1 Cor 7:36; 9:10; 11:10; Eph 5:28; 2 Th 1:3; 2:13; Hb 2:17; 5:3, 12; 1J 2:6; 3:16; 4:11; 3J 8; 1 Cl 38:4; 40:1; 48:6; 51:1; 2 Cl 4:3; B 1:7; 2:1, 9f; 4:6; 5:3; 6:18; 7:1, 11; 13:3; Pol 5:1; 6:2; Hs 8, 9, 4 v.l.; 9, 13, 3; 9, 18, 2; 9, 28, 5. Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:BDAG s.v. ὀφείλω
Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
That dictionary entry is actually ambiguous.

"one ought not", "one must not" sounds like a prohibition, while "are under no obligation to" sounds like a relaxation of a constraint.

The reason for my initial question is the irregular negative of "have to" in English. The negative of "have to" is "mustn't" ("to not have to" is not the negative in English). My concern is that the irregularity of the English system of negative such as this has been inadvertently overlayed onto the Greek. That is to say that the meaning given "one ought not, one must not " seems to have been taken from English language logic. The Greek seems to mean to me that "it is not at all profitable to", "it would be a pointless exercise to", "why would xxx bother to". I

In the 1 Corinthians 11:7 text,
Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων·
"Why would a man bother to cover his head, when he already is the image and glory of God"
"It would be pointless for a man to cover his head, seeing as he is already the image and glory of God"
In sum, I think that the negative of the Greek is what we are warned is not the negative in English, i.e. "to not have to" "A man doesn't have to cover his head", "Children don't have to be their parent super trust fund".
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:BDAG s.v. ὀφείλω
Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
That dictionary entry is actually ambiguous.

"one ought not", "one must not" sounds like a prohibition, while "are under no obligation to" sounds like a relaxation of a constraint.

The reason for my initial question is the irregular negative of "have to" in English. The negative of "have to" is "mustn't" ("to not have to" is not the negative in English). My concern is that the irregularity of the English system of negative such as this has been inadvertently overlayed onto the Greek. That is to say that the meaning given "one ought not, one must not " seems to have been taken from English language logic. The Greek seems to mean to me that "it is not at all profitable to", "it would be a pointless exercise to", "why would xxx bother to". I

In the 1 Corinthians 11:7 text,
Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων·
"Why would a man bother to cover his head, when he already is the image and glory of God"
"It would be pointless for a man to cover his head, seeing as he is already the image and glory of God"
In sum, I think that the negative of the Greek is what we are warned is not the negative in English, i.e. "to not have to" "A man doesn't have to cover his head", "Children don't have to be their parent super trust fund".
I have to say that I read BDAG quite differently; it's not a negation of the obligation but rather an obligation not to do X. I don't think the dictionary definition is at all ambiguous. I think this is generally true of negations of words of obligation in Greek. So BDAG regarding δεῖ·
To convey the idea that someth. should not happen, δεῖ is used w. the negative οὐ Lk 13:16; 2 Tim 2:24; 2 Cl 1:1; AcPlCor 1:10 or μή. Tit 1:11 (ἃ μὴ δεῖ what is not proper [also Ael. Aristid. 54 p. 687 D.] is prob. a mixture of τὰ μὴ δέοντα 1 Ti 5:13 and ἃ οὐ δεῖ [Job 19:4]; s. B-D-F §428, 4; Rob. 1169); Ac 15:24. εἰ δὲ δεῖ ἡμᾶς . . . μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παραβολήν AcPlCor 2:28.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
"One ought not", "one must not" is a different type of negation to "are under no obligation to" - that's the ambiguity I found. The meaning and the example are out of sync.

Mustn't = Have to not ≠ Don't have to.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
"One ought not", "one must not" is a different type of negation to "are under no obligation to" - that's the ambiguity I found. The meaning and the example are out of sync.

Mustn't = Have to not ≠ Don't have to.
I don't think "don't have to" or "isn't obliged to" is a possible meaning for οὐκ ὀφείλει. I think the meaning can only be "must not" or "is obliged not to do."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Carl, Do other dictionaires or grammars support one view or the other?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
"One ought not", "one must not" is a different type of negation to "are under no obligation to" - that's the ambiguity I found. The meaning and the example are out of sync.

Mustn't = Have to not ≠ Don't have to.
I'm having to backtrack here after looking further into the matter. I see the ambiguity, but I think implication of Danker's gloss of the text is misleading.
2 Cor 12:14 wrote:Ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ καταναρκήσω· οὐ γὰρ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς. οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
I think the negation has to be understood as οὐ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ὀφείλει θησαυρίζειν -- "it's not the children who should store up for parents but rather parents for children." The negation here does not qualify the verb ὀφείλει but rather the pair τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν in contrast to the pair οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις.

As for the matter of negation of verbs of obligation, here's what I have found in Smyth and BDF:
Smyth wrote:2714. χρή (χρῆν, ἐχρῆν) takes either μή or οὐ.
χρὴ μὴ καταφρονεῖν τοῦ πλήθους one must not despise the multitude I. 5. 79, χρῆν οὔ σʼ ἁμαρτάνειν thou oughtst not to do wrong E. Hipp. 507, χρῆ δʼ οὔποτʼ εἰπεῖν οὐδένʼ ὄλβιον βροτῶν it is not right ever to call any son of man happy E. And. 100.
a. For original οὐ χρή was substituted (for emphasis) χρὴ οὐ, where the οὐ was still taken with χρή; ultimately οὐ was felt to belong with the infinitive and hence came to be separated from χρή.
b. δεῖ takes μή, as μὴ ὀκνεῖν δεῖ αὐτούς they must not fear T. 1. 120. οὐ δεῖ may be used for δεῖ μή (2693). In δεῖ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν one must not speak in a general may I. 15. 117 οὐχ is adherescent. Note οἶμαι δεῖν οὐ, φημὶ χρῆναι οὐ, οἶμαι χρῆναι μή.
BDF wrote:428. Negatives in subordinate clauses

(4) T 1:11 διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ (cf. Homil Clem 10.12.3; ἃ μή is neither conditional nor generalizingiterative, therefore unclass.; ἃ μὴ δεῖ is probably merely a mixture of τὰ μὴ δέοντα [1 T 5:13] and ἃ οὐ δεῖ; cf. the reverse in τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα §430(3)). 2 P 1:9 ᾧ μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν (literary; the reference is not to definite persons or things: K.–G. ii 185f.). A 15:29 only D (likewise class.). 1 Jn 4:3 ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is a spurious reading for ὃ λύει; cf. Rahlfs, ThLZ 1915, 525, Katz: originating from dittography? C 2:18 is textually entirely uncertain: ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν C vg syp (without μή p46S*ABD*). Post-class. ἃ μὴ δεῖ and the like: Lucian, Jud. Voc. 2 ἔνθα μὴ δεῖ, 4 εἰς ἃ μὴ χρή; sometimes ὃ (ἃ) μὴ θέμις (LXX 2 Macc 12:14, Philo, Abr. 44 [iv 10.23 Cohn-Wendland], Lucian, DDeor. 13.1, PGM i 4.2653; ὅσα μὴ θέμις … παθεῖν Dionys. Hal., Ant. 4.82.1). Also cf. ἃ μὴ συνεφώνησα CPR 19.17 (330 ad), ᾧ μηθὲν ὑπάρχει ‘who possesses no property’ PHib i 113.15 (c. 260 bc). In class. only after a purpose clause with μή, i.e. the second μή is by assimilation for οὐ (but at the same time ‘it must not be’ itself includes a warding-off of something): Aeschyl., Agam. 342 (354) ἃ μὴ χρή, Hdt. 1.11 τὰ μή σε δεῖ, Xen., Oec. 9.5 ὅ τι μὴ δεῖ; cf. Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae … selectae (Leipzig, 1930) 39 a 26 (iv bc, Cyrene) ἱαρήιον ὅ τι μὴ νόμος θύεν in a conditional clause (αἴ κα … θύσηι). Rev 14:4 p47 οἳ μὴ μετὰ γυναικῶν ἐμολύνθησαν (pm. οἳ μετὰ γ. οὐκ ἐμ.). Conditional: LXX Sir 13:24 ἀγαθὸς ὁ πλοῦτος, ᾧ μή ἐστιν ἁμαρτία.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Tony Pope
Posts: 134
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Tony Pope »

cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Negat. one ought not, one must not (Jos., Vi. 149; Ar. 13, 5) Ac 17:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 1 Cl 56:2; Hm 4, 1, 3; 8; s 5, 4, 2; 9, 18, 1. Cp. 2 Cl 4:3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν children are under no obligation to lay up money for their parents 2 Cor 12:14.
"One ought not", "one must not" is a different type of negation to "are under no obligation to" - that's the ambiguity I found. The meaning and the example are out of sync.

Mustn't = Have to not ≠ Don't have to.
I'm having to backtrack here after looking further into the matter. I see the ambiguity, but I think implication of Danker's gloss of the text is misleading.
2 Cor 12:14 wrote:Ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ καταναρκήσω· οὐ γὰρ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς. οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
I think the negation has to be understood as οὐ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ὀφείλει θησαυρίζειν -- "it's not the children who should store up for parents but rather parents for children." The negation here does not qualify the verb ὀφείλει but rather the pair τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν in contrast to the pair οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις.
Danker has not changed what it says in BAGD, and that in turn is taken over from the German of Bauer.
Bauer 5th ed. wrote:Negat. nicht dürfen (Jos., vi. 149) AG 17, 29. 1 Kor 11,7. 1 Kl 56, 2. Hm 4, 1, 3. 8. s 5, 4, 2. 9, 18, 1. Vgl. 2 Kl 4, 3. οὐκ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τ. γονεῦσι θησαύριζειν die Kinder brauchen nicht für die Eltern Reichtümer zu sammeln 2 Kor 12, 14.
Since in German "nicht dürfen" is unambiguously "one must not", whereas for "one does not have to" the German is "nicht müssen", it seems that Bauer means the 2 Cor. 12.14 example to be understood rather differently from the examples given before. ("Brauchen nicht" = "don't need/have to".)

For reference:
Jos. Vita 149: Πάλιν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον τινὲς ἠρέθιζον τοὺς ἀφικομένους πρός με βασιλικοὺς μεγιστᾶνας οὐκ ὀφείλειν ζῆν λέγοντες μὴ μεταβῆναι θέλοντας εἰς τὰ παρ' αὐτοῖς ἔθη πρὸς οὓς σωθησόμενοι πάρεισι:
But again certain ones kept provoking the crowd to anger, saying that those royally-connected dignitaries who had reached me ought not to live, because they did not want to conform to the customs prevailing among those with whom they were present so as to be safe. [Mason]

I think it's not unusual in Bauer/BAGD/BDAG to find a list of references, which are then followed by one that's quoted and given a translation that exemplifies a somewhat different sense from that of the preceding references. Bauer would have been more helpful if he had included the rest of the sentence as Carl has done.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Carlson »

cwconrad wrote:I'm having to backtrack here after looking further into the matter. I see the ambiguity, but I think implication of Danker's gloss of the text is misleading.
2 Cor 12:14 wrote:Ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ καταναρκήσω· οὐ γὰρ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς. οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
I think the negation has to be understood as οὐ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ὀφείλει θησαυρίζειν -- "it's not the children who should store up for parents but rather parents for children." The negation here does not qualify the verb ὀφείλει but rather the pair τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν in contrast to the pair οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις.
If the following ἀλλά indicates the scope of the negation in the preceding clause (as I think it does), then it would seem that the position of the οὐ is not a fully reliable guide to the scope of the negation.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”