Barry Hofstetter wrote:First of all, please remember that text critical issues per se are not part of the purview of B-Greek. ἵνα with the indicative in classical Greek means "where," but that is impossible from the context here. Here it would simply be a solecism, a copyist error, based on the usage elsewhere in John and consistently throughout the literature.
Robertson reports that Thayer views ἵνα with the present indicative as a solecism. Robertson himself does not necessarily admit the use of ἵνα with the indicative as such. He states: "The original use of ἵνα, after the demonstrative and the relative stage, was pure final. It is so in Homer, though Monro admits one instance of the object-clause. Only the subj. occurs with it in Homer in this construction. This is the natural mode for the expectant note in clauses of purpose. But it must not be overlooked that ἵνα in no way controls the mode, for the idiom is at bottom paratactic in origin. But the indicative had a use as well as the optative, as will presently be shown." (Robertson p. 982 lines 5-12)
He also states: "But while the subj. is the normal construction, the indicative is also present." (Robertson p. 984 lines 6,7)
He gives 8 instances of ἵνα with the present indicative (included is John 17:3) in the NT but reviewing them I see that the N/A 27 presents evidence for the subjunctive.(Robertson p. 985 lines 1,2) Evidently modern scholarship has superceeded his observations. This is backed up by the comments in BDAG that "ἵνα is found w. the pres. ind. only in passages where the subj. is also attested in the mss.; its presence is prob. due to corrupton of the text. BDAG does points to some clear instances, beyond those mentioned by Robertson, which when I looked them up are disputed by the N/A27.
As per BDAG ἵνα [2 β (e) ] ἵνα can take the place of the explanatory infinitive after a demonstrative and is a favorite usage in John. John 17:3 is included in the examples.
So, in translating the purpose clause at John 17:3 is it recommended to supply the English modal "should" with "come to know" or is it not necessary? Also, is it more accurate to reflect γινώσκωσιν with something like "taking in knowledge"?