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