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.