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.
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 10th, 2014, 3:27 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
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.
I did quote her completely enough (in my opinion), in my post at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =10#p16195. If you read the paragraph that she wrote as I quoted there, and still consider it to be linguistics driving interpretation, then I cannot agree with you but let's not argue okay? In that same post I did give clear reasons why I can easily reject such reasoning that she used. Also, I do not claim that my claims about "ινα" is correct, but they are falsifiable. All you need is a statistically significant number of examples where an "ινα" clause unambiguously does not describe a purposed result. If you cannot produce these counter-examples, I will stick to my claims, because I have looked at hundreds of instances as well as all of Margaret's examples up to page 100. And if my claims hold for every instance, then it is justifiable for me to say that "ινα" has precisely the meaning I claim, which is distinct from hers.

And if I have made any theological assumptions, you should point them out, and I will retract them. It was not my intention to be antagonistic towards theological opinions, but merely to point out that I do not support linguistic claims based on them. We all have our own opinions, but it won't do to make claims about a language based on our personal theology. It is better to say "I don't know" rather than "Since it makes more sense for the writer to mean this and that, and therefore this grammatical construction must have this or that function.", because what one person thinks the writer cannot possibly mean could be exactly what another person thinks the writer must mean. To avoid that, the only way is a corpus-based approach.
Jonathan Robie wrote: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.
It is a theological assumption. Either the writings were intended to describe future events or they were not. And either they are accurate or they are not. Once you choose one assumption from each pair, you have made theological assumptions. Furthermore, your statement that "Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled" is at variance with the writings themselves as I stated in my earlier post. You will probably have some explanation of the meaning of Matt 26:54-56, among other statements scattered throughout the writings, that nullifies my objection, but every explanation will have to be based on some theological assumptions.

Also, whether Judas was thinking of the quoted psalm is irrelevant because the "ινα" clause there simply means that the betrayal transpired in order that the quoted verse would be fulfilled, and does not specify how the betrayal was guaranteed to transpire. In particular it does not mean that Judas himself followed the quoted verse to fulfill it.
Jonathan Robie wrote: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.
I have also given a clear explanation of "ινα" that makes sense. That does not mean that my explanation is correct. Likewise just because her explanation may make sense does not make it correct either. Moreover, having confusing translations is not a reason to change an understanding of a word.
Jonathan Robie wrote: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.
[...]

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.
I believe (though I may be wrong) that you did not read what I wrote carefully enough, since I've already explained this very example many times. As I have made clear before, I do not claim that the "ινα" clause describes a purpose for what is described in another clause, as it may be a content clause describing a purposed result (and whom it is purposed by depends on the context). Anyway let me answer Moon's question and it should answer to this as well.
0 x


δαυιδ λιμ

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 10th, 2014, 6:37 am

moon jung wrote: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).
Correct. The context makes clear that it is not an equation of identical entities, and in my idiomatic paraphrase I have tried to express the implied meaning (based on a bit of interpretation) as precisely as possible. If you look at my literal rendering, I simply converted the text into English and so you will have to do that bit of interpreting yourself. Indeed in English we often have that kind of statements that on the surface equate two things but require interpretation to obtain the intended meaning, especially in literary writings, for example "Knowledge is power." and "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.". It is simply a literary device and nothing more.
moon jung wrote: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.
Firstly, "εμη" functions as an adjective or a possessive pronoun, so "η εντολη εμη" is grammatically wrong. Secondly, just because "η εντολη η εμη" means "my commandment" does not grammatically mean that "ινα αγαπατε αλληλους καθως ηγαπησα υμας" conveys an instruction, since there is always the possibility of ellipsis or some other literary device. In other words your reasoning is the wrong way round; it is due to the "ινα" clause conveying a purposed result and the semantic meaning of "η εντολη η εμη" that we know that the "ινα" clause conveys the content of "η εντολη η εμη".
moon jung wrote: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.
That is what I did in my literal rendering. Why did you think that the surface structure must correspond to the intended meaning? The context is equally important and will fill in the gaps. So the conclusions you made about what the life or knowledge referred to means are not valid.
moon jung wrote: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?
Context. As I have said a number of times, any idiomatic rendering requires a bit of interpretation, so if you want absolutely zero interpretation then you will have to make do with a literal rendering like mine, which is not how we would normally speak, but which will still be readily understood in its context by any native speaker.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

ἵνα (+ subj) allows the subject to be specified

Post by Stephen Hughes » July 10th, 2014, 7:51 am

It seems that what using ἵνα (+ subj) rather than an infinitive actually does do is to make the subject of the infinitive clear.

There is a really good post in regard to that by a certain Alex Hopkins a long while before my time on the board began, the examples that he cites from Acts are really very telling;
Alex Hopkins in [url=http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1272&p=6371&hilit=%E1%BC%80%CF%80%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%B9#p6371]Re: Subject of γράφειν in 1 Thess 4:9?[/url] wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:The Critical Text for 1 Thess 4:9 reads:
1 Thess 4:9 wrote:
Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους,
Normally the unexpressed subject of an infinitive is that of its controlling finite verb, but that does just not make sense in this context: "Now concerning brotherly love, you don't need to write you, etc."
I was reading last night the following passage from Demosthenes' On the Crown, which prompted me to think of Stephen's post, wondering if it might be of interest. I'll give a longer extract than perhaps necessary, to give some context. (The words are addressed to Aeschines, who has brought a prosecution against Demosthenes' client, Ctesiphon.)
Demosthenes, On the Crown, 259 wrote: ... ἀνὴρ δὲ γενόμενος τῇ μητρὶ τελούσῃ τὰς βίβλους ἀνεγίγνωσκες καὶ τἄλλα συνεσκευωροῦ, τὴν μὲν νύκτα νεβρίζων καὶ κρατηρίζων καὶ καθαίρων τοὺς τελουμένους καὶ ἀπομάττων τῷ πηλῷ καὶ τοῖς πιτύροις, καὶ ἀνιστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ καθαρμοῦ κελεύων λέγειν ‘ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον,᾿ κτλ
Pickard, in translation, wrote:Then, when you became a man, you used to read out the books to your mother at her initiations, and help her in the rest of the hocus-pocus, by night dressing the initiated in fawnskins, drenching them from the bowl, purifying them and wiping them down with the clay and the bran, and (when they were purified) bidding them stand up and say, 'The ill is done, the good begun,' ...
κελεύων is in agreement with the subject of the verbs ἀνεγίγνωσκες and συνεσκευωροῦ, i.e. Aeschines, while the subject of the infinitive λέγειν is the initiates. It's not explicitly stated as the subject of the infinitive but τοὺς τελουμένους is easily enough understood from the previous clause. Whether this makes it distinct from 1 Thess 4:9 or similar to it depends, I suppose, on how easy we consider it to be to understand the unexpressed subject of γράφειν.

Similar is
BGT Hebrews 13:19 περισσοτέρως δὲ παρακαλῶ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, ἵνα τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ ὑμῖν.
NIV Hebrews 13:19 I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon.
Again the "you" subject of the infinitive, ποιῆσαι, is unstated, but easy enough to understand from the context of the preceding verses. The verbs κελεύων and παρακαλῶ most naturally imply an address to one other than oneself, and so the understanding of the subject is perhaps easier than the 1 Thess 4:9 example.

Also interesting is Acts 16:22: καὶ συνεπέστη ὁ ὄχλος κατ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ στρατηγοὶ περιρήξαντες αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐκέλευον ῥαβδίζειν, κτλ (Of Paul and Silas). NIV translates "the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten". The use of these passives in translation obscures the fact that the subject of ῥαβδίζειν is not made explicit. FFBruce says "This beating with rods was carried out by the lictors, the ῥαβδοῦχοι of ver. 35 (q.v.)."

Another example where the subject of the infinitive is not that of the finite verb is Acts 15:19, where again context makes the sense easy enough.
διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, 20 ἀλλὰ ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος.


The subject of παρενοχλεῖν and of ἐπιστεῖλαι is not "I" but "we". "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Act 15:19, 20 NIV)

Acts 24:23 yields a plurality of infinitives with different subjects; I'll cite the previous verse for context:
Acts 24:22 Ἀνεβάλετο δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ Φῆλιξ, ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ εἴπας, Ὅταν Λυσίας ὁ χιλίαρχος καταβῇ, διαγνώσομαι τὰ καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς 23 διαταξάμενος τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἔχειν τε ἄνεσιν καὶ μηδένα κωλύειν τῶν ἰδίων αὐτοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν αὐτῷ.

RSV: "Then he gave orders to the centurion that he should be kept in custody but should have some liberty, and that none of his friends should be prevented from attending to his needs."
This may be taken as a mixed construction, with αὐτόν (i.e. Paul) being subject-accusative of the verbs τηρεῖσθαι (understood as passive) and ἔχειν, with the subject of κωλύειν reverting to the centurion. But if τηρεῖσθαι is to be understood as middle, then its subject is also understood out of τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ, - an understanding which requires that the subject of the first and third infinitives be understood to be the centurion, while the subject of the second is to be understood as Paul. (The differences in understanding of the grammar of the verse are reflected in differences in translation; compare the RSV with, say, the NIV translation.) Either way, the change in subject must be understood according to sense, as it is not determined by grammar.

Because sense and context play the significant role in the determination of the subject of the infinitives in these instances, I'm less inclined than Metzger to think of the construction in 1 Thess 4:9 as "harsh". At any rate, I hope that these examples may be of some interest.

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Melbourne
Presumably, the need to specify the subject for the infinitive outweighed the need to use the ἵνα (+ subj) construction with it's "purposed result" significance.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: ἵνα (+ subj) allows the subject to be specified

Post by David Lim » July 11th, 2014, 12:58 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:It seems that what using ἵνα (+ subj) rather than an infinitive actually does do is to make the subject of the infinitive clear.
I agree that this is a major reason, which is why I had given a link to http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-45.html saying "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.". Of course, in English the subject of an infinitive must be the subject of the main verb, so translations cannot always render the Greek infinitive construction directly.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Presumably, the need to specify the subject for the infinitive outweighed the need to use the ἵνα (+ subj) construction with it's "purposed result" significance.
As for whether there is the notion of a "purposed result", perhaps you are reading a little bit too much into my claim, since all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases, except in cases of ellipsis where the infinitive construction, having other grammatical functions, may no longer be interchangeable with the "ινα" clause.

By the way, I feel that two examples that Funk gives are not very accurately explained, and perhaps if I give my explanation of them then my claim will be clearer to you.
Funk §646 wrote:ὅτι occasionally initiates a clause that functions as the subject of the sentence (1s):
C p5n+ D 2pass
(1) καὶ) ἐν τῷ νόμῳ [δὲ] τῷ ὑμετέρῳ / γέγραπται /
1s ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν Jn 8:17
And in your own law it is written that the
testimony of two men is true
Funk §661 wrote:A ἵνα-clause rarely appears as subject:
C Q 2pass p4n+
(12) καὶ) πῶς / γέγραπται / ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου /
1s
ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ; Mk 9:12
And how is it written of the son of man
that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?


This construction is agnate to a ὅτι-clause as exemplified in (1), §646: both are subjects of a passive verb.
I would not say that they are agnate. Even the English translation is not. Any "οτι" clause as in (1) is always a factual statement, whereas any "ινα" clause as in (12) is not. If (1) had used an "ινα" clause instead, it would have meant "... it has been written that the testimony of two men is to be true" which makes no sense because of the semantic meaning of "true"; either it would be true or it would not be true, and no one can purpose it to be one or the other. So in other words (1) cannot be rephrased using an "ινα" clause. At the same time, if (12) had used an "οτι" clause, it would have meant "and how has it been written ... that he suffered many things and was scorned?" This is not the same as using the "ινα" clause, which means "and how has it been written ... that he is to suffer many things and be scorned?". Funk himself used the modal "should" precisely because it is not the same as an "οτι" clause.
Funk §662 wrote:Like ὅτι (§652), ἵνα may introduce clauses that stand in apposition to some other element in a sentence, usually with a demonstrative pronoun (οὗτος) preceding. (5) in §657 exhibits the same construction but with a purposive nuance. In the following example, this nuance is missing; the ἵνα-clause is merely explanatory.
D 1d 2 3n+
(13) ὅτι αὕτη / ἐστιν / ἡ ἀγγελία ... //
s
ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους 1 Jn 3:11
For this is the message ... namely that we should love
one another

s modifies 3n+, i.e. stands in apposition to it (indicated by //). Bl-D §394.
I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing, for the reasons I had already given in my earlier posts. The message is not "we love one another", which would be expressed by an "οτι" clause, but "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed. Again, you can see that Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result.
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 11th, 2014, 2:48 am

David, now I think I have understood what you were trying to say.

The following two quotes are revealing:

(1)
David wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Presumably, the need to specify the subject for the infinitive outweighed the need to use the ἵνα (+ subj) construction with it's "purposed result" significance.
As for whether there is the notion of a "purposed result", perhaps you are reading a little bit too much into my claim, since all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases, except in cases of ellipsis where the infinitive construction, having other grammatical functions, may no longer be interchangeable with the "ινα" clause.
But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"?

(2)

David wrote:
Funk §662 wrote:
Like ὅτι (§652), ἵνα may introduce clauses that stand in apposition to some other element in a sentence, usually with a demonstrative pronoun (οὗτος) preceding. (5) in §657 exhibits the same construction but with a purposive nuance. In the following example, this nuance is missing; the ἵνα-clause is merely explanatory.
D 1d 2 3n+
(13) ὅτι αὕτη / ἐστιν / ἡ ἀγγελία ... //
s
ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους 1 Jn 3:11
For this is the message ... namely that we should love
one another

s modifies 3n+, i.e. stands in apposition to it (indicated by //). Bl-D §394.
I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing, for the reasons I had already given in my earlier posts.

The message is not "we love one another", which would be expressed by an "οτι" clause, but "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed. Again, you can see that Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result
Let compare the following two statements of yours:

(1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b

(2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed


From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have.

The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ).
You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result".
But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11,
this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker.
But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction.
Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"?

It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result".

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 12th, 2014, 12:11 pm

moon jung wrote:But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"?
If the grammatical structure has missing elements, they would be supplied by the context. Because of this, there may be cases where substituting an "ινα" clause with an infinitive may result in a different implied meaning, since infinitives have other uses. But I don't have examples of this at hand and it's not really important. I only mentioned it so that you don't assume that you can simply substitute one for the other everywhere.
moon jung wrote:Let compare the following two statements of yours:

(1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b

(2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed


From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have.

Yes it is. We have the same situation in English, where infinitives in phrases like "try to do" or "ask him to come" denote a result that is purposed, so I don't really understand why you don't get it.

moon jung wrote:The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ).
You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result".
But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11,
this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker.
But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction.
Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"?

Yes I am indeed. In this case it does indeed express what we should do, which as you say is a desirable state of affairs, but why do you think that that is not an intended result? What one desires is what one intends to have. I consider the connotation of purpose to be inherent to "ινα", and my justification is that it is the simplest explanation. All you need are unambiguous examples of "ινα" where there is simply no connotation of purpose, and I will have to retract my claim.

moon jung wrote:It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result".

That's perfectly fine, though if you render an "ινα" clause in English, remember that the English infinitive won't work for the cases where the subjects do not match. Also, there are verbs which accept an infinitive as a complement but not an "ινα" clause, such as "μελλειν", simply because it is never used to express a purposed result. This hence provides a little additional evidence for my claim.
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 13th, 2014, 2:31 am

David,
thanks for all the detailed clarifications about the notion of "purposed result".

Under your undertanding of the ἱνα + subjunctive, I think the following equation can be stated by John 17:3
as in John 15:12.

ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν.....

The "content clause" ἱνα γινωσκωσιν..... states the desirable state of affairs intended by the speaker, not an actual
state of affairs. This desirable state of affairs ( = desirable result intended by the speaker)
is equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη by John 17:3.

The following rendering is made inevitable only when we take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν.....to be sort of an instruction:

To obtain the eternal life, they should know ....

But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general,
my rendering can be obtained.

The difference from John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους.
seems to be that in this case, it is very hard to find an appropriate English translation.
In English, we do not seem to have an auxiliary verb indicating the simple "desirable state of affairs"
without connotation of obligation or instruction.

My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim's dissertation:
I claim that ἱνα clause does ‘denote content’
but that the function of the particle is to alert the reader to expect that content and to
read it as indicating speaker or subject attitude.
Moon Jung
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”