John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

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

John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by moon jung » July 2nd, 2014, 3:52 am

There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end.
All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David.
But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER".

Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3.

John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος.
This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent.

John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν.
This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.

I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into
English?

Moon Jung
0 x



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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by David Lim » July 3rd, 2014, 12:16 am

moon wrote:There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end.
All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David.
But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER".

Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3.

John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος.
This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent.

John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν.
This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.

I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into
English?
Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation):
[John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth.
[John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.

Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on B-Greek at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by cwconrad » July 3rd, 2014, 5:59 am

David Lim wrote:
moon wrote:There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end.
All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David.
But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER".

Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3.

John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος.
This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent.

John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν.
This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.

I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into
English?
Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation):
[John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth.
[John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus:

Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work.
Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.

These ἵνα-clauses come close to being infinitives (later Greek νά + subj.).
David Lim wrote:Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on B-Greek at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would.
For what it's worth:
Wikipedia wrote:A final clause in linguistics is a dependent adverbial clause expressing purpose. For this reason it is also referred to as a purposive clause or a clause of purpose.
Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;
660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II:

1n+ 2 s
(11) ἐμὸν βρῶμά / ἐστιν / ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πέμψαντός με Jn 4:34
My food is to do the will of the one sending me
Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate:

My food is that I do the will of the one sending me

The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
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)

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by David Lim » July 5th, 2014, 4:01 am

cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation):
[John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth.
[John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus:

Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work.
Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.
I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous:
[John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth.
[John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.
My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
cwconrad wrote:[...]

Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;
660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II:

1n+ 2 s
(11) ἐμὸν βρῶμά / ἐστιν / ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πέμψαντός με Jn 4:34
My food is to do the will of the one sending me
Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate:

My food is that I do the will of the one sending me

The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
Yes indeed. But doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing.

If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by moon jung » July 6th, 2014, 12:01 am

David worte:
I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous:
[John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth.
[John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.
My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
(1)
In [John 6:29], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "you"
In [John 17:3], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "they"

"you" are supposed to bring the state of "trusting in [him] God sent" / "your" purpose is to bring .the state of "trusting in [him] God sent".
"they" are supposed to bring the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus" / "their" purpose is to bring
the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus".

But, this ingenious undertaking does not seem necessary.

"you are to trust in [him]" and "they are to know you" do not describe actual state of affairs, but potential states of affairs,
which "you" and "they" are supposed to obtain. These potential states of affairs are simply desriable states of affairs [
which are therefore described by subjunctive clauses], but we do not need to suppose that they are intended by someone.

You seem to accept the claim of Funk's book that in these cases, ἱνα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses. The infinitive clauses often represent purposes and results, but they can be used simply to describe potential states of affairs, without any notion of purpose or result. Are you saying that ινα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses, only when
the latter represent purpose or result?


(2)
Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings.
I guess you would not try to avoid such implications, if the clauses were ὁτι clauses. But I would like to show that
the meaning you wanted to avoid is actually what is meant by the verses.

[17:3] ;

The context is:

[17:1b-2]: Glorify you son that the son may glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh that all you gave him,
he may give them eternal life (expression without the article).
[17:3] αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωωνιος ζωη ( expression with the article) ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθισνον Θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν Χριστον.

17:3 is special in two respects. The connective δε is known as the marker of discontinuity.
Here, 17:3 is an off-line statement about what is the eternal life, which was mentioned in the previous sentence.
It is not clear whether the writer (John) or Jesus added it. Anyway, it intends to modify the notion of eternal life
which might have been entertained by the audience. THIS, not others, is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and him you sent, Jesus Christ. 17:3 is an example of sentences with argument focus, one of three sentence types
[ the other two types are "topic-comment/focus" sentence and "sentence-focus" sentence (also called presentational / event-reporting sentence ]. This argument-focus sentence presupposes that the audience entertains "X is the eternal life" with their own ideas for X, or wonders what the X would be. In summary, by using the connective δε and the argument-focus sentence,
17:3 asserts what the eternal life is, not what the audience is to do in order to obtain the eternal life as in your rendering.


[John 6:29] : The context for this verse is set up in 6:27-28.

6:27 [literal translation]: Do not work for the food that is passing away, but for the food that remains unto eternal life
which the son of man will give you.
6:28: Then, they said to him: what shall we do, that we might work the work of God?
6:29: Jesus answered: This is the work of God, that you are to believe in [him] whom He sent.

In this context, "working the work of God" refers to "working for the food that remains unto eternal life".
Here "work of God" does not refer to "God's own work", [although you seems to think so].
6:29 is also an example of "argument-focus" sentence, where the presuppositional open proposition is
"X is the work of God"; The audience's idea for X is mistaken and Jesus correts it:

Believing in him whom God sent is working for the food that remains unto eternal life.


Moon Jung
0 x

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by cwconrad » July 7th, 2014, 4:27 am

David Lim wrote:
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation):
[John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth.
[John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus:

Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work.
Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.
I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous:
[John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth.
[John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.
My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.
David Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing.

If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses.
I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing.

I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action.

I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive.
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)

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by David Lim » July 7th, 2014, 9:34 am

David Lim wrote:[John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth.
[John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous:
[John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth.
[John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.
My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.
Haha! But I don't think my literal version is ambiguous, because I used "that you are to trust ..." instead of "that you trust ...", precisely to give the connotation that it is an instruction to be followed. Of course some people might say that my rendering could be taken as "that you are going to trust ..." but that would be clearly ruled out based on the context. In my opinion, a literal rendering is good when the context is known, but something may need to be added in order to express the same content if the audience does not know the context, which is why in my idiomatic rendering I added "to do ...". For a literal rendering on the other hand, I would in almost all cases render a genitive that functions adjectivally using "of" or the possessive for pronouns, since the English "of" has pretty much the same grammatical and semantic range, and leave it to the reader to infer its meaning in each particular context.
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing.

If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses.
I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing.
Yes; despite me not knowing any Latin, the English examples you give indeed show the distinction in grammatical functions.
cwconrad wrote:I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action.

I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive.
Thanks for telling me what you think about my explanations! But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions. :)
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

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

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by moon jung » July 7th, 2014, 11:19 pm

David,
thanks for your further comments. I think I know why you paraphrased 17:3 as (1).

(1) To obtain the eternal life, they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.

You take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν as a sort of instruction, which cannot be equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη, which does not
have a nuance of instruction. You do not accept the equation ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν.
This is reflected in your rhetorical question " is the knowledge itself everlasting life?". This is why you render 17:3
as (1).

To better understand what you are getting at, let me ask a question.

Consider John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους.

Here we have an equation αὑτη = ἡ εντολη εμη = ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους.
We are sure that ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους has the nuance of instruction, because of ἡ εντολη εμη.

In this case, we can render the verse as:
This is my commandment: that you are to love each other.

Now consider John 17:3. In terms of surface structure of the sentence, we have the following equation as in John 15:12:
αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε.....

Suppose that we respect this surface structure. Then, ἡ αιωνιος ζωη does not have a nuance of instruction. So
ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε. does not have a sense of instruction, although, following M. Sim,
it may be taken to represent a "desirable state of affairs of people" intended by the speaker (
(in this case, Jesus).

So, we can draw the conclusion that

the knowledge [ of knowing God and him He sent] IS everlasting life.

I think that here "γινωσκωσιν σε" is not just intellectual
but experiential knowledge. It is the desirable state of affairs of poeple intended by Jesus, not "knowledge itself".

My question is:

In order to get the paraphrase (1) above, you seem to "disregard" the surface structure of John 17:3
which implies αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε......

How would you justify this liberal rendering of the sentence structure?

Moon Jung
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3611
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by Jonathan Robie » July 8th, 2014, 9:57 am

David Lim wrote:But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions. :)
David, I find this really unhelpful. I've been around too many discussions where each person claims that their opinions are based on pure solid linguistic grounds and other people's opinions are based on theological assumptions, and Margaret's own work at least tries to let the language drive her interpretation and not the other way around. If you want to disagree with Margaret, I suggest that you quote her completely enough that it's clear what she says, then explain your own view, focusing on her arguments in detail.

In her thesis, this is what she says about John 6:29:
Margaret Sim wrote:Several other examples of nouns which occur in a stative clause and are explicated by ἵνα and the subjunctive use figurative language: βρῶμα, ἔργον, ἡ αἰώνιοϲ ζωή. This also alerts the hearer to expect an utterance which does not reflect a state of affairs in the real world, but an interpretation of such.

Consider example (9) below:
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
This is the work of God: that you should believe in the one whom he sent. In this example, a stative clause, with an initial demonstrative pronoun, is followed by a clause introduced by ἵνα, the latter explicating ‘the work of God.’ By using ἵνα with the subjunctive, however, rather than the accusative and infinitive, which as we have seen would have been usual in earlier Greek, the writer is able to mark the person being addressed: ‘you’. An infinitive construction could not do this as transparently. The ‘subject’ of the infinitive is usually in the accusative case, which would be awkward in this sentence. The infinitive alone : ‘this is the will of God, to believe….’ states a fact rather than introducing a desirable state of affairs, or what the speaker believes should happen. The use of ἵνα may also invite the reader to infer the attitude of the speaker:
You should believe on the one whom he sent
This clause, and other similar ones, has been considered to be ‘epexegetic’, a reasonable description which ‘fits’ in this context, as in other Johannine examples.

In terms of traditional grammar it is indeed an epexegetic noun clause, in that it seems to explicate the content of τοῦτο, or ἔργον. Since the context dictates that the clause introduced by ἵνα cannot indicate purpose, grammarians have struggled either to fit in a ‘purpose’ somehow, or to find a label for this use. If we leave on one side the insistence on a telic interpretation of ἵνα, we should be able to view this clause from the perspective of its communicative function. I claim that the reader is being invited to infer the speaker’s thought and attitude from such a use. In many of these examples the ἵνα clause is deontic, marking what the speaker thinks should be done.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3611
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 6:29: ἱνα without any nuance of "purposed result"?

Post by Jonathan Robie » July 9th, 2014, 4:01 pm

David Lim wrote:Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of what she said. Are you referring to 3.5 Introducing a quotation from the Old Testament?
Margaret Sim wrote:A slightly different type of independent clause introduced by ἵνα, is that of the quotations in the gospel of John where ἵνα introduces either a quotation from the Psalms or a statement reported to have been made earlier by Jesus.

!!! SNIP !!!

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.

!!! SNIP !!!

Consider the following example from John 13:18:

Example (21)
οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.
The words quoted come from Psalm 41:9, in which the psalmist bewails the behaviour of a close friend in turning against him. Jesus is presented as recalling that psalm and seeing a fulfilment in his own life with the betrayal of Judas, who even as Jesus spoke was eating with him. Indeed this context is of the fellowship meal with all reclining together as they ate and drank. It is a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it. John may also be presenting Jesus as indicating the appropriateness of fulfilment. Recall that previous examples of the use of ἵνα in this section have shown a representation of what someone believed should be done. This is not the same as indicating that Judas was impelled to act as he did in order to fulfil Psalm 41:9.
I don't see this as a theological assumption.

In most of these quotes, the writers of the Psalms did not think of themselves as writing prophecies to be fulfilled later, and Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled. Judas was probably not thinking of Psalm 41:9 at the time that he betrayed Jesus, that's not why he did it.

Margaret is providing an interpretation of ἵνα that makes sense, given these assumptions. The traditional explanation of ἵνα makes this verse hard to understand in the given context, and has resulted in some rather confusing translations.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”