Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.

Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Postby Scott Lawson » October 11th, 2013, 7:55 pm

At John 17:3 it seems quite possible that ίνα is used with an indicative verb. The N/A 27 lists A, D, L, N, W as well as some fragments with the reading ίνα γινωσκουσιν.

Robertson observes (R. 202-203) that there was a vowel change from ω to ου in the Thessalian dialect and that the change also reappears in Rhodes and the Aeolic-Doric. But he points out that some indicatives in ου could be subjunctives. This agrees with the critical text we now have.

How likely is it that the ίνα is here used with the indicative of γινωσκω?
Also, what kind of clause is this? It seems to me to be an appositional clause. Robertson's Word Pictures mentions it as a subject clause.

Many translations English the verb so that the result of "to know" is in view ("come to know".) Since the verb is present in form isn't the imperfective in view rather than the perfective?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 313
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Postby RandallButh » October 12th, 2013, 7:30 am

That the future is sometimes used is certain.

E.g. Rev. 9.5 ἵνα βασανισθήσονται and 14:3 ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται are not dependent on a potential vowel, since theta-aorist subjunctives use -ωσι not -ησονται.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 562
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Postby Barry Hofstetter » October 12th, 2013, 7:36 am

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.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 559
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Postby Barry Hofstetter » October 12th, 2013, 7:44 am

RandallButh wrote:That the future is sometimes used is certain.

E.g. Rev. 9.5 ἵνα βασανισθήσονται and 14:3 ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται are not dependent on a potential vowel, since theta-aorist subjunctives use -ωσι not -ησονται.


But apparently the variant listed is present, not future. Let me suggest that the subjunctive in purpose clauses has an unfulfilled idea inherent -- the action of the main verb is done towards a future purpose. That someone who doesn't know his Greek well (as the author of Revelation clearly doesn't) might use the future to indicate this isn't a surprise, or that he might do so purposely to indicate emphatically that yes, this will be the case is also a possibility, but it's certainly not standard usage at that time.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 559
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Γινωσκωσιν at John 17:3

Postby Scott Lawson » October 12th, 2013, 8:48 pm

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.


Barry,

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"?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 313
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm


Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest