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 (changed to non-telic use of ινα )

Post by moon jung » June 27th, 2014, 2:21 am

David said:
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.

Now I can understand what David has been saying about ινα:

I think that his view can be the same as that of Sim. The difference
may be one of terminology. Let me quote from Sim:

(1)
I claim that ινα does not have a fixed meaning of ‘in order that’, but rather that its function is
to alert the reader to expect a thought, desire or intention of the speaker, and the fact
that the verb of that clause is in the subjunctive mood signals that this represents a
potential rather than actual state of affairs. (p.4)

(2) Although a notion of ‘purpose’
may be said to lie behind the giving of a command or prayer, this might be better
analysed as a ‘desirable outcome’ , since there is no action from which
"purpose" could be derived. The subject is rather expressing his will
in an utterance which indicates a potential, rather than actual, state of affairs.
An RT analysis which presents ινα as introducing a desirable state of affairs,
from the perspective of the subject, is a more satisfactory interpretation of such clauses. (p.21)

(3) The diffference between the two particles ινα and οτι: the former introduces a thought about a
state of affairs which is potential and may not in fact be realised, while the latter
introduces a clause which claims to be a representation of an actual situation, a real
‘state of affairs’. (p.22)

===
The difference between David and Sim is:
"purposed result" versus "desirable outcome" ( = thought, desire or intention of the speaker).

Sim: Since there is no action from which ‘purpose’ could be derived, the notion of purpose cannot be the constraint of
ινα.
David: No problem. I did not say that the purpose should be that of the preceding phrase.

Sim and David use the term "purpose" differently. I think David' usage would tend to confuse people.
At least I was confused.

David, is there any reason why you would prefer "purposed result" to "desirable outcome"?

·······
Sim's example in p. 142 seems quite convincing:

Example (10) εντολην καινην διδωμι υμιν, ἱνα αγατᾶτε αλληλουσ.

I am giving you a new commandment that you love one another.

Here the ἱνα clause gives not only the content of the ‘new commandment’, but also
the desirable state of affairs which the speaker wishes to see:
you should love one another.

Also, her example in p. 149 - 152 is also convincing.

Ex (17): εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
Ex (18): Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα μετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.


Sim said (p. 152):

Their preaching is mentioned in the context of other activities, such as casting out demons
and healing the sick. Given that context, the ἱνα clause more naturally describes
what was preached, rather than why.

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 27th, 2014, 8:18 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
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.
Smyth does consider "ινα" as subordinating, but as I quoted he says "The principal clause is sometimes omitted.", in other words he allows for "ινα" to head an apparently independent clause, and does not insist that it must explain the purpose for some other clause, unlike what Margaret Sim sets up as a straw man in the first few pages. In addition, he does say "Object clauses after verbs of effort are introduced by ὅπως, rarely by ὡς (Herodotus, Xenophon), scarcely ever by ἵνα.". LSJ makes it quite clear that it considers many of those disputed instances as elliptical. Does labeling "ινα" as a "final conjunction" make both Smyth and LSJ automatically wrong?

As for my analysis of "ινα", I consider the "ινα" clause to function as either a conjunction joining two clauses (the first of which may sometimes be omitted), or as a noun phrase by itself. As I said in my post, it is clear from Eph 5:27 and 2 Thes 3:9 that ellipsis is indeed the best explanation in some cases, and so I disagree with Margaret Sim throwing it out in many of her examples.

I don't expect Margaret Sim to disprove my claims, but was just stating as a matter of fact that none of her examples (in the first 100 pages) cannot be easily explained by taking "ινα" as denoting a purposed result. And I did not miss her point. At the start I distinguished between her objection to what she perceived as the traditional view of "ινα" and her further claims about its meaning that go beyond that. Right at the end I also said:
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.
And if really all that I said stem from missing her point, then are you asserting that you agree with the claims of hers regarding difference in choice meaning difference in meaning, Judas' betrayal, and events happening in order to fulfill the writings? I fail to see how all those claims aren't theologically driven. As I said before, if we want to discuss the language as a language, we cannot accommodate theology, but should rely on statistically observed data. Otherwise the issue becomes a matter of opinion and completely unfalsifiable. So I hope that you understand my objections even if you disagree with my stand. Or you can blame me for liking only scientific approaches. :)
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 (changed to non-telic use of ινα )

Post by David Lim » June 27th, 2014, 8:47 am

moon wrote:David said:
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.

Now I can understand what David has been saying about ινα:

I think that his view can be the same as that of Sim. The difference
may be one of terminology. Let me quote from Sim: [...]
Her claim is similar but not the same. She insists that "ινα" signals a representation of the thought, desire, intention of the speaker, whereas I don't think "ινα" necessarily has to do with the speaker's mental state. In many cases it will actually be true that the contents of the "ινα" clause will be part of what the speaker is thinking about, but that in no way means that "ινα" functions to signal that! Her claim that "ινα" signals a "desirable outcome" is perfectly in line with what I call a "purposed result". I think you were confused because you did not know the meaning of the English word "purpose" when used as a verb. The examples you quote from her are indeed convincing of this aspect, but not at all of her claim regarding "representation of mental state", nor of her later opinion-based claims.

Anyway all this doesn't have much to do with your original question, and if you answer my four questions you will see the reason for my answer to that.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Post by moon jung » June 29th, 2014, 7:34 am

It seems agreed that we distinguish "semantics" and "(discourse) functions" of a word, and
we should not transfer the functions of the word derived from context to the semantics of the word.

In connection with ἱνα I would pose a hypothesis that
ἱνα introduces a non-indicative (modal) content
that is potential, contingent, etc in contrast to the content introduced by a ὁτι clase, which is actual.
That is the semantics of ἱνα. More than that, e.g. wish, intention, purpose, obligation, command, etc
is derived from context.

I think that this is the minimum that Sim proposes after all things that look like over-interpretation are filtered out.

To support this hypothesis, let me cite two more examples in additionn to the one already given.

(1) The original example,

εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
VERSUS
Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.

Here the ὁτι clause and the ὁτι clause correspond to each well.
The only difference seems that the one describes an indicative content, whereas
the other a non-indicative content. The more specific content is derived from the context and the
nature of the main verb.

(2)
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of the request. To think about "a purposed result"
seems to be an over-interpretation.

(3) Num 21:5
και κατελαλει ὁ λαος προσ τον θοεν και κατα Μωυσῆ λεγοντες ἱνα τι εξͅγαγες ἡμας εξ Αιγυπτου..
The people spoke against God and against Moes, saying "Why did you bring out out of Egypt.."

[Similarly with 2Sa 19:12]

Here ̔the ινα clause introduces a direct question, meaning that Moses shouldn't have done that,
which is a non-indicative content.

Let me present two verses from LXX as examples where the ̔the ινα clause is the content of speech.

If I apply this idea to Rom 3:19, I could obtain:

[With reference to ] what the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks that every mouth
should be stopped and all the world should be guilty before God.

[ It is difficult to express the subtle nuance of Greek subjunctive in English. So, the use of "should" should
be simply taken to indicate that it is a pointer fo the subjunctive verb in Greek. ]

Here I took ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ to be an instance of the accusative of reference.

A similar construction is found in Rom 10:5:

Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.
0 x

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Post by David Lim » June 29th, 2014, 9:24 am

Moon, please answer my four questions first, and you will see why your current hypothesis about Rom 3:19 is quite impossible (though less impossible than your first one). Furthermore, if you know a bit of Greek you'll realize that "ινα τι ..." means "for what ..." / "why ..." and "ινα" does not "introduce a direct question" meaning anything like what you said. So I suggest you refrain from continuing your hypothesizing.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Post by moon jung » June 30th, 2014, 12:10 pm

David wrote:

Furthermore, if you know a bit of Greek you'll realize that "ινα τι ..." means "for what ..." / "why ..." and "ινα" does not "introduce a direct question" meaning anything like what you said. So I suggest you refrain from continuing your hypothesizing.

==
Woops! I am mistaken here. I should have know that "ινα τι" is a fixed expression for "why".

Let me answer the four questions you raised by using the remaining examples.

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.



I hope that the following rendering may be declared to be possible :D :

" With reference to what the law says to those in the law, it speaks that every mouth
might be stopped and all the world might be guilty before God."

(1) The case of ὁσα: The accusative of the relative pronoun ὁσος.
Because the antecedent is missing, the ὁσα clause can be in any case.
In my rendering, it is taken to be accusative, in particular, accusative of reference.

(2) The subject of λαλει: The null pronoun, it. It refers to ὁ νομος.

(3) examples where "ινα" heads a clause that is unambiguously the content of speech:

Let me repeat the examples I already provided.

(a)
εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.

Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.

The two sentences are isomorphic except for the modality the compliment clause (
indicative versus non-indicative). The clause specifies the content of speech (εκηρυσσεν, εκηρυξαν)

(b)
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of speech ( λαλησον ).

(4) an example where "λαλει" has a content clause as its direct object:

The example (b) above is an example where "λαλει" has a content clause as its direct object.

==>
(5) Justification for taking the ὁσα clause as the accusative of reference:

For this decision, I was guided by Rom 10:5:

Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.

I think the sentence still makes sense if we replace γραφει by λαλει:
Μωυσῆ γαρ λαλει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.

Here the ὁτι clause specifies what την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ is.
Similarly, in Rom 3:19, the ἱνα clause specifies what ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ ισ is.

(6) The problem with this approach is that the above examples where the ἱνα clause specifies the content of speech
are those where the content appeasr in the context of "command". εκηρυσσεν, εκηρυξαν,
λαλησον in the examples have an implication of command.

In the case of Rom 3:19, however, the content appears in the context of "declaration". The λαλει declares a verdict here.
I haven't found other examples for that. For now, I just assume that both types of contents are modal contents
and can be specified by ἱνα clauses.

(7) The following rendering, which David considers grammatically possible, would be fine for my purpose:

What the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks [it] so that every mouth
might be stopped and all the world might be guilty before God.


We can view the sentence in two ways.
(a)
We can take "what the law says to those in the law" as the direct object of "speaks".
(b)
Or, we can take "what the law says to those in the law" as a casus pendens, a nominal clause
which is used as the object of the verb "speaks". But the situation is ambiguous, because
this nominal clause is not resumed by an object pronoun. But if we posit the null object pronoun
which is allowed in Greek [as well as the subject null pronoun], the sentence can be considered
to use a casus pendens.

In terms of the rhythm of a sentence, I like (b) better than (a).

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

I think for now, I would be satisfied with (a) or (b) above.

Moon Jung
0 x

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Post by David Lim » June 30th, 2014, 10:14 pm

moon wrote:Woops! I am mistaken here. I should have know that "ινα τι" is a fixed expression for "why".
Which is why I said, please stop continuing to hypothesize about Greek without much acquaintance with it.
moon wrote:I hope that the following rendering may be declared to be possible :D :
[...]
If you're going to ask everyone you can find until someone declares your hypothesis possible, then let me tell you in advance that you do not need to ask anyone, because there will always be someone who would agree with just about anything.
moon wrote:Let me answer the four questions you raised by using the remaining examples.

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:(1) The case of ὁσα: The accusative of the relative pronoun ὁσος.
Because the antecedent is missing, the ὁσα clause can be in any case.
In my rendering, it is taken to be accusative, in particular, accusative of reference.
Wrong; the case of "οσος" usually has nothing to do with the antecedent, so everything else you said is irrelevant.
moon wrote:(2) The subject of λαλει: The null pronoun, it. It refers to ὁ νομος.
Okay, and to make clear, this is not what you originally hypothesized.
moon wrote:(3) examples where "ινα" heads a clause that is unambiguously the content of speech:

Let me repeat the examples I already provided.

(a)
εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.

Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.

The two sentences are isomorphic except for the modality the compliment clause (
indicative versus non-indicative). The clause specifies the content of speech (εκηρυσσεν, εκηρυξαν)
These sentences do not have the same meaning unless you heap your interpretive opinions on top of both of them. The second is not an unambiguous example, so you did not answer my question.
moon wrote:(b)
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of speech ( λαλησον ).
This too can be readily taken as a purpose clause, so it does not support your hypothesis. Furthermore, the original Hebrew text says "and he will release ...", which means that that phrase is indeed the purposed result of Moses speaking to Pharaoh, which in fact supports my hypothesis rather than yours.
moon wrote:(4) an example where "λαλει" has a content clause as its direct object:

The example (b) above is an example where "λαλει" has a content clause as its direct object.
No, for the above reason. And I could not find any unambiguous examples of (3) or (4) in the entire LXX+NT, which firstly implies that your hypothesis is very implausible, and secondly is easily explained by what I said about "ινα", because if it indicates a purposed result, it can only be used as a complement of verbs that can indicate a command. "λαλειν" simply isn't one of these verbs. Also, "ινα + <subjunctive>" has almost the same meaning as an infinitive (which is also used for denoting result), but the infinitive cannot be used in some cases because it is unable to specify the person.

As for the grammatically possible but in my opinion unlikely "as many things as the law says to the ones in the law, [the law] speaks [those things], so that ...", I shall not comment because it is essentially a matter of interpretation. But I will say that if no good translation renders it the way you think, you had better know what you're doing. Anyway I have enough of this for now, so please find someone else to continue this discussion if you insist on your strange way of understanding "ινα". Sorry!
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: Parsing of Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

Post by moon jung » July 2nd, 2014, 3:19 am

David,
many thanks for your insights and patience.
I accept your verdict in this issue. Thanks.

Moon Jung
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”