Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by moon jung » June 24th, 2014, 2:27 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Actually this isn't what Moon meant. He wanted the "οσα" to be the subject of "λαλει", as can be seen from his posts, which is simply impossible in my opinion.
Uh, thanks. That was so impossible that I misread the proposal.
David and Stephen, let me pursue my translation a little bit.

(1) There are many cases in NT where ινα clause are equivalent to οτι clause after verbs of saying:

Mt 4:1. εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι γένωνται.
Μκ 9:12. πῶς γέγραπται ἐπ̀ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἵνα πολλὰ παθῃ και ἐξουδενηθῇ;
Μκ 6:12. Καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν ἵνα μετανοῶσιν.
they went out and preached that men should repent.

(2) If the " ὅσα" clause cannot be the subject of λαλει I can still translate as follows:
Whatever the law says to those in the law, it [the law] asserts that
every mouth is stopped and all the world is guilty before God.

(3) I am not fluent enough in Greek to have an intuitive judgement about the akwardness of this
this understanding. But it fits naturally to Rom 3:9-10:

προῃτιασάμεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίαν τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφʼ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι,
καθὼς γεʼγραπται ὅτι .......

Rom 3:9-10 reads naturally when what is quoted is applied to both the Jews and the Greek.

Moon Jung
0 x



Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2831
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 24th, 2014, 3:33 am

moon wrote:(2) If the " ὅσα" clause cannot be the subject of λαλει I can still translate as follows:
Whatever the law says to those in the law, it [the law] asserts that
every mouth is stopped and all the world is guilty before God.
OK, this is a little better, but "asserts that ... is" is not what I would expect from λαλεῖ ἵνα + subjunctive. The sense would have to more contingent (perhaps, "every mouth should be stopped" or something like that) than a normal indicative assertion, and that contingency would seem to weaken Paul's point, as outlined here.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by David Lim » June 24th, 2014, 3:51 am

moon wrote:(1) There are many cases in NT where ινα clause are equivalent to οτι clause after verbs of saying:
No they are not equivalent at all.
Mt 4:1. εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι γένωνται.
The purposed result of saying something is that "these stones might come to be bread". The text does not mean that he was supposed to say "these stones are to be bread", even though saying that might indeed have the desired effect.
Μκ 9:12. πῶς γέγραπται ἐπ̀ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἵνα πολλὰ παθῃ και ἐξουδενηθῇ;
This "ινα" clause describes the purpose of "τον υιον του ανθρωπου", and so the "ινα" is actually part of the contents of what "γεγραπται". To rephrase using "οτι" would not only require switching from subjunctive to indicative, it would also need additional words like "δει" to convey a similar content of necessity, though it would still be slightly different from using "ινα".
Μκ 6:12. Καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν ἵνα μετανοῶσιν.
The intended result is that "μετανοωσιν". Again, this connotation of purpose is part of the contents of what they "εκηρυξαν".

If you compare these with Matt 12:16, 14:36, 28:10 it would become clearer that "ινα" and "οτι" are distinct.
moon wrote:(2) If the " ὅσα" clause cannot be the subject of λαλει I can still translate as follows:
Whatever the law says to those in the law, it [the law] asserts that
every mouth is stopped and all the world is guilty before God.
No. As I said, "ινα" cannot be used for factual assertions, just as Matt 28:10 does not mean that Jesus is asserting where his brothers are going.
moon wrote:(3) I am not fluent enough in Greek to have an intuitive judgement about the akwardness of this
this understanding.
If that's the case, you should stick to a proper translation. Whether an impossible interpretation "fits" the context does not make it possible. Of course one could always say that no interpretation is impossible, but then deciding with certainty on the meaning of any sentence would be impossible, and discussion too becomes meaningless.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by moon jung » June 25th, 2014, 7:28 am

David,
many thanks for pushing me to make sense of what I saying.

Let me pursue a bit more.

(1) About the examples I provided, you seem to say that the ἵνα clauses still have
purposes in mind. But this judgement seems forced, which is caused by the presupposition
that the ἵνα clauses ALWAYS introduce purposes. Please see below.

(2) You said"
If you compare these with Matt 12:16, 14:36, 28:10 it would become clearer that "ινα" and "οτι" are distinct.
====
Let me use Mat 28:10 for further discussion.

ὑπάγετε ἀπαγγεἰλατε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου ἵνα αʼπελθωσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
go tell my brothers that they should go to Galilee.
[or go tell my bothers to go to Galilee].

Robertson, in his big grammar book, p. 991 says that in these examples, ἵνα + subjunctive verb (or sometimes future indicative verb) functions like "object or subject clauses like ὅτι clauses".
After the verbs of saying, the ἵνα clause defines the content of the saying, although the content is not
indicative
. The ἵνα clause in this context is often interchangeable with the infinitive clause.
So, ἵνα introduces a subjective/jussive clause, which states a purpose or a non-indicative content depending on the context. This is clearly seen in the following examples, where the ἵνα clause is used as a nominative case.

e.g. Jo 4:34. Ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θἐλͅμα τοῦ πέμψαντος με
My food is to do the will of him who sent me.
Lk 1:43 Καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μητηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρός εʼμέ;
who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
[ Although the mother of my Lord has come is a fact, the use of a subjunctive clause
here seems to refer to the very idea or notion of the mother of my Lord's coming to me]

(3)
moon wrote:(2) If the " ὅσα" clause cannot be the subject of λαλει I can still translate as follows:
Whatever the law says to those in the law, it [the law] asserts that
every mouth is stopped and all the world is guilty before God.
No. As I said, "ινα" cannot be used for factual assertions, just as Matt 28:10 does not mean that Jesus is asserting where his brothers are going.

==> Home run!. My translation implies "factual assertions". So, I should have written:

What the law says to those in the law, it speaks that every mouth be stopped and all the world be
guilty before God.

If acceptable, I would prefer my original translation:

What the law says to those in the law speaks that every mouth be stopped and all the world be guilty before God.

The use of λαλεω [speaks] seems significant If the explanation in Thayer's lexicon
has some merits:

"The primary meaning of λαλειν, to utter oneself, enables us easily to understand its very frequent use in the sacred writers to denote the utterances by which G o d indicates or gives proof of his mind and will, whether immediately or through the instrumentality of his messengers and heralds. (Perhaps this use may account in part for the fact that, though in classic Greek lalei/n is the term for light and familiar speech, and so assumes readily a disparaging notion: in Biblical Greek it is nearly
ιf not quite free from any such suggestion. ]"

(4)
moon wrote:(3) I am not fluent enough in Greek to have an intuitive judgement about the akwardness of this
this understanding.
If that's the case, you should stick to a proper translation. Whether an impossible interpretation "fits" the context does not make it possible. Of course one could always say that no interpretation is impossible, but then deciding with certainty on the meaning of any sentence would be impossible, and discussion too becomes meaningless.[/quote]
=====

You are definitely right. But I felt very strongly that I needed to do some experiment here.
If Paul says: we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
AS IT IS WRITTEN " X ",
would expect that the content of X would indict both Jews and Greeks.
But according to the usual translation, Paul writes that the indictment of the law applies only to those in the law, that is, the Jews. That puzzles me.

Moon Jung
0 x

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by David Lim » June 25th, 2014, 9:54 am

moon wrote:(1) About the examples I provided, you seem to say that the ἵνα clauses still have
purposes in mind. But this judgement seems forced, which is caused by the presupposition
that the ἵνα clauses ALWAYS introduce purposes.
No it's not forced. I never make any presuppositions, but rather find the best explanation for the data.
moon wrote:(2) You said"
If you compare these with Matt 12:16, 14:36, 28:10 it would become clearer that "ινα" and "οτι" are distinct.
====
Let me use Mat 28:10 for further discussion.

ὑπάγετε ἀπαγγεἰλατε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου ἵνα αʼπελθωσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
go tell my brothers that they should go to Galilee.
[or go tell my bothers to go to Galilee].

Robertson, in his big grammar book, p. 991 says that in these examples, ἵνα + subjunctive verb (or sometimes future indicative verb) functions like "object or subject clauses like ὅτι clauses".
After the verbs of saying, the ἵνα clause defines the content of the saying, although the content is not
indicative
. The ἵνα clause in this context is often interchangeable with the infinitive clause.
So, ἵνα introduces a subjective/jussive clause, which states a purpose or a non-indicative content depending on the context. This is clearly seen in the following examples, where the ἵνα clause is used as a nominative case.
The quote of Robertson that you gave is in perfect agreement with my understanding. An "ινα" clause in these cases we are considering indeed functions as a noun phrase, but it is quite easily seen that it is only used when the content is a purposed result. This is why the majority of content clauses use "οτι". To disprove my claim is rather easy; you just have to find some examples where the content is not a purposed result.
Jo 4:34. Ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θἐλͅμα τοῦ πέμψαντος με
"ινα ποιω ..." is used because that is the purpose for his life, here symbolized by food, because just as food fills us physically, his purpose fills him.
Lk 1:43 Καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μητηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρός εʼμέ;
"ινα ελθη ..." is used because she is asking for what reason Mary comes to her, in other words the purpose for the (observed) result.

In all the above instances "οτι" is not suitable. I'll repeat what I said before: To rephrase using "οτι" would not only require switching from subjunctive to indicative, it would also need additional words like "δει" to convey a similar content of necessity, though it would still be slightly different from using "ινα".
moon wrote:(3)My translation implies "factual assertions". So, I should have written:

What the law says to those in the law, it speaks that every mouth be stopped and all the world be
guilty before God.
This is not English at all and makes no sense. I'll give you two choices:
(1) What the law says to those in the law, the law speaks in order that every mouth might be stopped and all the world might come to be culpable to God.
(2) What the law says to those in the law is the following: that every mouth is to be stopped and all the world is to be culpable to God.

(1) is grammatically possible but not natural. (2) is impossible because it doesn't account for "λαλει". If you meant neither then I don't know what you meant. You should really use proper English to convey your thoughts rather than using weird renderings that puzzle us. If you want to continue, please precisely specify the following:

(a) What is the case of "οσα"
(b) What is the subject of "λαλει"
(c) Give an example where "ινα" heads a clause that is unambiguously the content of speech.
(d) Give an example where "λαλει" has a content clause as its direct object.

moon wrote:If acceptable, I would prefer my original translation:

What the law says to those in the law speaks that every mouth be stopped and all the world be guilty before God.
As we've already said earlier, this rendering puts the contents of what the law says as the subject of "speaks", which is completely wrong. If you insist on this translation, you will be in our opinion portraying not the original text but rather your opinion.
moon wrote:The use of λαλεω [speaks] seems significant If the explanation in Thayer's lexicon [...]
I don't care to discuss so-called "lexicons" that are full of doctrine, as no one can distinguish between fact and opinion without already knowing which is which.
moon wrote:(4) If that's the case, you should stick to a proper translation. Whether an impossible interpretation "fits" the context does not make it possible. Of course one could always say that no interpretation is impossible, but then deciding with certainty on the meaning of any sentence would be impossible, and discussion too becomes meaningless.
=====

You are definitely right. But I felt very strongly that I needed to do some experiment here.
If Paul says: we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
AS IT IS WRITTEN " X ",
would expect that the content of X would indict both Jews and Greeks.
But according to the usual translation, Paul writes that the indictment of the law applies only to those in the law, that is, the Jews. That puzzles me.
If you read the policy of B-Greek, we do not discuss interpretation of the writings beyond the surface meaning, so we do not attempt to solve doctrinal puzzles, otherwise there will be no end. Also bear in mind that the meaning of words in isolation often have to be heavily modified by the context. For example "πας" may mean "every of some group" but that group is dependent on the context. I don't know what you mean by "experiment", but if you don't have statistical evidence to back up your claims I'm not going to be convinced. You can certainly wait and see what Stephen and the others have to say about it.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2831
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 25th, 2014, 10:06 am

In this connection, I would welcome thoughts on Margaret Sim's study of ἵνα n a 2006 U. Edinburgh thesis called A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina' in Koine Greek.
Sim, abstract wrote:This thesis uses insights from a modern theory of communication, Relevance Theory, to examine the function of certain particles - in particular the conjunction ἵνα- in Koine Greek. This particle has been regarded from the time of Classical Greek as an introducer of purpose clauses and so has been thought to have the lexical meaning of ‘in order that.’ More recently, however, scholars have recognised that in the New Testament at least, no more than 60% of the uses of ἵνα merit such a translation, with a considerable number of independent clauses being introduced by this particle also. Apart from the New Testament it is the case that pagan writers of Koine used this particle to introduce a wider range of clauses than merely those with a telic relationship to the main clause of the sentence. This is particularly noticeable in the Discourses of Epictetus, a philosopher who taught in the latter half of the first century of the Christian era. In addition, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a notable critic of literary style and the historian Polybius, both writing within the Koine period used hina to introduce indirect commands and noun clauses as well as purpose clauses. The frequency of such uses (approximately 10% of all the instances of this particle) in their writings is considerably less than that of Epictetus, but those uses are nevertheless present in their works. Since ἵνα was used for this wider range of clauses by pagan, non-Jewish authors, some of whom spoke Greek as their first language, it seems extremely implausible to attribute such use to the incompetence of the implied authors of the New Testament, or ‘Semitic interference’. Since the many instances of non-telic hina in the New Testament are identified with reference to the context in which they occur, the telic instances should also be deduced from such context. I claim that the function of this particle is not to introduce a purpose clause nor does it have a fixed lexical meaning of ‘in order that’, but rather that it alerts the reader to expect an interpretation of the thought of the speaker or implied author. Of course in many instances a clause introduced by ἵνα will be a purpose clause, but this is inferred from context rather than solely from the presence of this particle. This thesis proposes a unified account of the function of hina which fits the developing pattern of the language and relates it to the particle ὅτι, and provides a theoretical basis for its use as an indicator of speaker or subject’s thought, thus enabling a reader to re-examine biblical texts whose interpretation has been problematic to date.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by cwconrad » June 25th, 2014, 2:02 pm

I must say, I wondered whether we'd get around to bringing Margaret Sim's work on ἵνα to bear on this question. I'm glad to see you've done it, Stephen.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by moon jung » June 25th, 2014, 9:47 pm

Stephen, thanks for the dissertation of Sim. I will read it today.
David, many thanks for pushing me. I will do the homeworks you
assigned to me, and come back^^. By "experiment", I mean "guess wild and see if
it can hold water".

Moon Jung
0 x

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by David Lim » June 26th, 2014, 11:19 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:In this connection, I would welcome thoughts on Margaret Sim's study of ἵνα n a 2006 U. Edinburgh thesis called A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina' in Koine Greek.
Since you ask about this study, here is my opinion. :) Firstly, it doesn't disprove what I said. Specifically, I said that "ινα" heads a clause that denotes a purposed result. Also, I didn't say that it must describe the purpose for the preceding phrase. I've always understood Smyth and LSJ to be referring to the broader notion of a purposed result rather than that "ινα" must link two clauses with one being the purpose for the other. Secondly, I disagree with the author's claims about the meaning of "ινα" in many cases. Let's look at some of the examples in the thesis, where the author claims cannot really be understood as a normal "ινα" clause and gives her alternative explanation.

[1 John 1:9] εαν ομολογωμεν τας αμαρτιας ημων πιστος εστιν και δικαιος ινα αφη ημιν τας αμαρτιας και καθαριση ημας απο πασης αδικιας
Margaret Sim wrote:The content of the clause introduced by ἵνα ‘that he should forgive our sins…’ cannot be the purpose of the righteous and faithful nature of God. It is rather the reverse: the author is claiming that the faithfulness and righteous nature of God is the basis on which such forgiveness might be predicated.
But "ινα αφη ημιν τας αμαρτιας ..." describes the result that God purposes for us, so I consider it indeed a normal "ινα" clause.

[Luke 18:41] λεγων τι σοι θελεις ποιησω ο δε ειπεν κυριε ινα αναβλεψω
"ινα αναβλεψω" is again a normal "ινα" clause because it describes the result that the blind man wanted Jesus to make happen. It is thus distinct from using an imperative or subjunctive, and yet doesn't at all necessitate interpreting it as explicitly conveying the thought or wish of the blind man.

[1 Cor 9:18] τις ουν μοι εστιν ο μισθος ινα ευαγγελιζομενος αδαπανον θησω το ευαγγελιον του χριστου εις το μη καταχρησασθαι τη εξουσια μου εν τω ευαγγελιω
"ινα ... αδαπανον θησω ..." describes what Paul purposes to be (has in mind as) his reward for announcing the glad tidings.

[Luke 14:28-29] τις γαρ εξ υμων ο θελων πυργον οικοδομησαι ουχι πρωτον καθισας ψηφιζει την δαπανην ει εχει τα εις απαρτισμον ινα μηποτε θεντος αυτου θεμελιον και μη ισχυοντος εκτελεσαι παντες οι θεωρουντες αρξωνται εμπαιζειν αυτω
"ινα μηποτε ..." describes a result that one would not intend.

[John 1:22] ειπον ουν αυτω τις ει ινα αποκρισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψασιν ημας τι λεγεις περι σεαυτου
Margaret Sim wrote:This is also denied and so the questioners are forced to reveal their real agenda: ‘We must give an answer to those who sent us.’
If an agenda is not a purpose, I don't know what it is. Furthermore this illustrates my point earlier that if we drop "ινα", we would need some other words like "δει" to convey the connotation of purpose. In English we can't just start an independent clause with "that", so we either have to use ellipsis as in "tell us, so that ..." or we similarly have to use other words as in "we { must / need to } give an answer ...". I don't see ellipsis in an English translation as being "driven by the desire to keep the telic force for the particle, and so maintain it as a subordinating conjunction following a main verb.", contrary to the author's assertion. Just look at the following:
[Eph 5:27] ινα παραστηση αυτην εαυτω ενδοξον την εκκλησιαν μη εχουσαν σπιλον η ρυτιδα η τι των τοιουτων αλλ ινα η αγια και αμωμος
[2 Thes 3:9] ουχ οτι ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αλλ ινα εαυτους τυπον δωμεν υμιν εις το μιμεισθαι ημας
In these instances the "ινα" clause is clearly a purpose-describing clause because it is parallel to another purpose-describing clause, and clearly requires ellipsis because the other clause does not have the same grammatical function. So if these have ellipsis, I don't see why those in John must not. The writer just seems to like "αλλ ινα".

[Acts 24:4] ινα δε μη επι πλειον σε εγκοπτω παρακαλω ακουσαι σε ημων συντομως τη ση επιεικεια
Again, this independent "ινα μη" clause simply describes a certain result that is not wanted, namely that Felix wastes his time.

[Dem 21:43] πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν οἱ περὶ τῆς βλάβης οὗτοι νόμοι πάντες, ἵν᾽ ἐκ τούτων ἄρξωμαι, ἂν μὲν ἑκὼν βλάψῃ, διπλοῦν, ἂν δ᾽ ἄκων, ἁπλοῦν τὸ βλάβος κελεύουσιν ἐκτίνειν ...
"ἵν᾽ ἐκ τούτων ἄρξωμαι" is isolated, but it is not totally devoid of the connotation of purpose as the author claims. It means something like "let me begin from these [things]", but unlike this English approximation the Greek "ινα" conveys not an imperative but the purposed result, something more like "[allow me] so that I might begin from these [things]". That is why LSJ says "where the purpose of the utterance is stated", and Smyth says "the principle clause is omitted".

[Dionysius 4:80:1] [...] αὐτίκα τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, ἵν᾽ ἀπὸ ταύτης ἄρξωμαι, πῶς παρέλαβεν; ἆρά γ᾽ ὡς οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι βασιλεῖς; πόθεν;
Similarly here "ιν απο ταυτης αρξωμαι" means something like "[allow me] so that I might begin from this". Anyway this kind of construction may be somewhat of an idiom and the audience may not consciously process it as a purposed result, just as we won't normally consciously process "let me begin here" as an imperative when it occurs in everyday usage.

[2 Mac 1:9] και νυν ινα αγητε τας ημερας της σκηνοπηγιας του χασελευ μηνος ετους εκατοστου ογδοηκοστου και ογδοου
Here "ινα αγητε ..." is clearly an injunction "[see] that you hold/celebrate the days of the feast of tabernacles ...", which naturally follow the usage of "ινα" with certain verbs of speech to convey instructions.

[BGU IV.1079] [...] μη ινα αναστατωσης ημας
Here, all "ινα" does is to convey the desired result, and the context suggests that it is part of a request. Likewise for the other similar quotes it is the context that determines the tone.

[Eph 5:33] πλην και υμεις οι καθ ενα εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα ουτως αγαπατω ως εαυτον η δε γυνη ινα φοβηται τον ανδρα
"η γυνη ινα φοβηται τον ανδρα" conveys what is desired, so since it is in parallel with "υμεις οι καθ ενα εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα ουτως αγαπατω ως εαυτον", we should take it to be a parallel injunction. Similarly the "ινα" in 1 Cor 7:29 by itself conveys neither a full imperative nor the purpose for the time to be shortened, but rather a desired situation.

If the abstract wasn't enough to trigger a warning bell, consider this:
Margaret Sim wrote:There is a general belief that writers use alternative but equivalent constructions as a matter of style. In RT, however, a writer in making a particular choice of words or grammatical constructions is inviting the reader to make inferences, and biblical scholars do just this. One example of this is the inference drawn from the Johannine use of σημεια rather than δυναμεις for ‘marvellous acts’ that this is a theological statement on the part of the author.
I maintain my stand that difference in choice of words does not necessarily mean a difference in intended meaning, and so if "biblical scholars" using "Relevance Theory" draw inferences based on a faulty assumption, their conclusions are bound to be biased so that they can fit them into their view. I don't wish to expand on this since I've given sufficient evidence of interchangeable constructions before, so it is up to those who claim a difference in intended meaning between two specific constructions to prove it.

Soon after that we see another forced interpretive framework due to theological bias:
Margaret Sim wrote:The usual interpretation, and also the translation, of these verses is that the events(s) occurred in order that the scripture might be fulfilled. Looked at dispassionately, such an attribution of purpose might lead one to deduce that if the event had not occurred the Scripture could not have been fulfilled. In the case of quotations from the Psalms, the source text was not a prophecy, but a commentary on the psalmist’s situation or a cry to God for help. I claim that current events caused the observers to remember something that had been spoken of earlier. This seems to be a more logical way of viewing such an utterance, than seeing it as a claim of fulfilment. It is difficult to view an event as taking place solely to make something predicted earlier come true, while having no relevance during the lifetime of the original hearers of the prediction, particularly when the earlier writing was not in a prophetic book. Surely what we have here may be the author attributing to Jesus the realisation that in fact the event recalls words spoken earlier. The event does ‘fulfil’ the earlier words, but did not take place in order to fulfil it. I am not, therefore, disputing the element of fulfilment, but rather I view it as the application of a previous experience, in the case of the Psalms. I deny the attribution of purpose to the introductory particle.
Needless to say, this conclusion is erroneous. Firstly, Luke 9:44 has Jesus saying "δει πληρωθηναι παντα τα γεγραμμενα εν τω νομω μωσεως και προφηταις και ψαλμοις περι εμου", which explicitly asserts that the things that had been written in the law of Moses and prophets and psalms about Jesus must be fulfilled. As written, this implies that those things written in the psalms were considered as actually being about Jesus, not just that they could be applied to Jesus. Secondly, Matt 26:54-56 is even more explicit in implying that the writings cannot be fulfilled unless events transpired exactly as recorded, contrary to Margaret Sim. To impose on the language due to personal opinion is not right, and incidentally will just encourage others to do just the same as they.

I saw the next many pages stemming again from the same untenable assumptions (For example she says that Judas' betrayal is "a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it.") and so I stopped at the end of the chapter. I hope what I said is clear enough for others to come to their own carefully reasoned conclusions, since I don't wish to spend more time discussing someone's interpretive framework. She is right that "ινα" is not the same as "in order that", but her further claims about its meaning are not supported by proper evidence.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2831
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 26th, 2014, 12:31 pm

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:In this connection, I would welcome thoughts on Margaret Sim's study of ἵνα n a 2006 U. Edinburgh thesis called A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina' in Koine Greek.
Since you ask about this study, here is my opinion. :)
Well, thanks.
David Lim wrote:Firstly, it doesn't disprove what I said. Specifically, I said that "ινα" heads a clause that denotes a purposed result. Also, I didn't say that it must describe the purpose for the preceding phrase. I've always understood Smyth and LSJ to be referring to the broader notion of a purposed result rather than that "ινα" must link two clauses with one being the purpose for the other.
No, both Smyth and LSJ label ἵνα as a final (subordinating) conjunction. The whole point of such a conjunction is to relate two clauses. The fact that you can find a purpose outside of the linked clause (e.g. as in 1 John 1:9) actually demonstrates that ἵνα is not functioning as a final conjunction per Smyth and LSJ. In fact, that is the problem she is trying to solve. You answer appears to me (it is rather vague) that ἵνα is not a conjunction at all but some kind of an adverb of purpose or something like that. I'm not sure I agree because it gets the part of speech wrong. Clearly, Sim cannot be expected to disprove a view unless it had been present in the scholarly literature. The rest of your critique appears to be the result of missing her point.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”