Please critique my theory of

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1630
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 7th, 2011, 11:57 am

Jason Hare wrote:Regarding 2 Cor 11:7
Ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε, ὅτι δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν;
This isn't the same as the above question. Here ἁμαρτίαν is the object of ἐποίησα (first-person) and ἐμαυτὸν is the object of ταπεινῶν. There are two different verbs with two different objects in the accusative. Above, we had only one verb (ἐποίησε) with two objects.
Thanks, Jason, I was just about to write this post, and you saved me a bit of time. Let me observe that you have specified here how the context is different, so that it is not a parallel statement. Careful attention to detail is a must!
0 x


N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3628
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 7th, 2011, 12:01 pm

Jason Hare wrote:Do we normally find ἁμαρτία with a verb like ποιέω? Does ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν mean "to commit sin"?
I think it can. Isn't ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα in 2 Cor 11:7 an example of that? But as you yourself point out, this isn't what's going on in 2 Cor 5:21.

I think the structure of these two verses looks similar on the surface, but when you think about the function of each clause, the actual structure is quite different.

And as you mention, the accusative in τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτία is key to understanding the structure of 2 Cor 5:21.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Bill Ross 2
Posts: 25
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 12:15 pm

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Bill Ross 2 » June 7th, 2011, 12:36 pm

And as you mention, the accusative in τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτία is key to understanding the structure of 2 Cor 5:21.
Okay, thank you.
0 x

Bill Ross 2
Posts: 25
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 12:15 pm

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Bill Ross 2 » June 8th, 2011, 2:43 pm

Secondly, ἵνα is almost certainly purpose or result (hard to tell the difference sometimes, even in context. Render "that we might become the righteousness of God in him." There is no "could" about it.
Would you equate the subjunctive in this case with "would"? IE: "...so that we would become..."?

IE: Is "might"="would" as you read it?

Thanks.
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3628
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 8th, 2011, 3:44 pm

Bill Ross wrote:Would you equate the subjunctive in this case with "would"? IE: "...so that we would become..."?

IE: Is "might"="would" as you read it?
I think the subjunctive is a consequence of ἵνα here. And I suspect English works the same way:

I worked hard so that you could go to college <- good English
I worked hard so you might go to college <- good English

In English, I use the subjunctive after "so that" in this sentence even if I'm talking to a child who is already in college, or who has already completed college. I can't say this, even if my daughter went to college:

* I worked hard so that you went to college <- bad English

Let's ask Funk about this ...

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html
655. ἵνα customarily signals that the subjunctive mood is coming in the subordinate clause. Since a subordinate clause introduced by ἵva usually expresses something contemplated, desired, intended, the appropriate mood is subjunctive, as the mood appropriate to statements that are not yet fact. The subjunctive is the mood of dubious assertion, the shall and will mood, with reference to the future (§307.2).

656. ἵνα introducing adverbial clauses of purpose (final clauses):

Code: Select all

4d	2-1	sA
(1)	ταῦτα /	λέγω /	ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε	Jn 5:34 
I say these things in order that you might be saved

2-1	5b	4n	sA
(2)	φέρετέ /	μοι /	δηνάριον /	ἵνα ἴδω	Mk 12:15
Bring me a denarius that I may see
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Bill Ross 2
Posts: 25
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 12:15 pm

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Bill Ross 2 » June 8th, 2011, 4:11 pm

I think the subjunctive is a consequence of ἵνα here. And I suspect English works the same way:

I worked hard so that you could go to college <- good English
I worked hard so you might go to college <- good English
Thank you.

I find "might" to be functionally equivalent to "could", but less ambiguous. However, Jeffrey indicated that he felt "might" was appropriate, but "could" was inappropriate; hence, I asked for clarification. (And of course we're referring to the hINA clause in the passage we've been discussing).

In said passage, which of these would be legit?:

"could"
"might"
"would"

I'm thinking that it will be two of the three, unless "might" has a third meaning, somewhere in between somewhere, that is untranslatable in English.
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3628
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 8th, 2011, 4:55 pm

This can be translated into English in many ways. What's important is:

ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν <- this is what he did
ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε <- this is his purpose for doing it

There are translations that express this well using "might", "could", or none of the above. For instance, "humbling myself in order to exalt you" expresses this without using "might" or "could".
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Please critique my theory of

Post by David Lim » June 8th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Bill Ross wrote:
I think the subjunctive is a consequence of ἵνα here. And I suspect English works the same way:

I worked hard so that you could go to college <- good English
I worked hard so you might go to college <- good English
Thank you.

I find "might" to be functionally equivalent to "could", but less ambiguous. However, Jeffrey indicated that he felt "might" was appropriate, but "could" was inappropriate; hence, I asked for clarification. (And of course we're referring to the hINA clause in the passage we've been discussing).

In said passage, which of these would be legit?:

"could"
"might"
"would"

I'm thinking that it will be two of the three, unless "might" has a third meaning, somewhere in between somewhere, that is untranslatable in English.
In English "would" is definitely incorrect because it conveys a certainty (like "will" but without the future time connotation) in indicative clauses. The other two are common alternatives, but we should also note that "could" is ambiguous because it is also the past participle of "can" and may sometimes be construed as implying ability. Therefore I would use "might", so that the meaning might be clearly understood. As Jonathan said, "ινα" + subjunctive can often be expressed by an infinitive, but not always, as my previous sentence shows. :)
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”