Acts 22:5 εν ϊερουσαλημ ϊνα τειμωρηθωσιν

[Stirling Bartholomew]

(SBLG) Acts 22:5
ὡς καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς μαρτυρεῖ μοι
καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον·
παρʼ ὧν καὶ ἐπιστολὰς δεξάμενος πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
εἰς Δαμασκὸν ἐπορευόμην
ἄξων καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας
δεδεμένους εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ
ἵνα τιμωρηθῶσιν.


Bezae D 05 Acts 22:5 (Cambridge Bezae) http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae% ... xml#B02K16

ως και ⸆ αρχιερευς μαρτυρησει μοι
και ολον το πρεσβυτεριον
παρ ων επιστολας δεξαμενος παρα των αδελφω(ν)
εις δαμασκον επορευομην
αξων και τους εκει οντας
δεδεμενους εν ϊερουσαλημ
ϊνα τειμωρηθωσιν

In Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Message of Acts in Codex Bezae v.4 p219, the authors consider εν ϊερουσαλημ a constituent of the ϊνα clause.

first question: what do you think about the syntax issue, a clause constituent before the conjunction. We have covered this before but my memory isn't clear on it. I think Margaret Sim had something to say about it but couldn't find it in the pdf of her thesis.

second question: assuming that εν ϊερουσαλημ is a constituent in the ϊνα clause, does that make it a focus constituent? Focus constituents can be either marked by fronting or clause final position.

third question: Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger translate εν ϊερουσαλημ ϊνα τειμωρηθωσιν "to be punished in Jerusalem." What do you think about that?

[David Lim]

first question: what do you think about the syntax issue, a clause constituent before the conjunction. We have covered this before but my memory isn't clear on it. I think Margaret Sim had something to say about it but couldn't find it in the pdf of her thesis.

Both RP and WHNU say "εις ιερουσαλημ" so I'll go with that:
"... ( εις δαμασκον ) επορευομην ( αξων { και τους εκεισε οντας δεδεμενους } ( εις ιερουσαλημ ) ( ινα τιμωρηθωσιν ) )"
In other words, "εις ιερουσαλημ" and "ινα τιμωρηθωσιν" both modify "αξων".
But what makes me curious is why it is a future participle rather than an infinitive...

[Stirling Bartholomew]

first question: what do you think about the syntax issue, a clause constituent before the conjunction. We have covered this before but my memory isn't clear on it. I think Margaret Sim had something to say about it but couldn't find it in the pdf of her thesis.

Both RP and WHNU say "εις ιερουσαλημ" so I'll go with that:
"... ( εις δαμασκον ) επορευομην ( αξων { και τους εκεισε οντας δεδεμενους } ( εις ιερουσαλημ ) ( ινα τιμωρηθωσιν ) )"
In other words, "εις ιερουσαλημ" and "ινα τιμωρηθωσιν" both modify "αξων".
But what makes me curious is why it is a future participle rather than an infinitive...

Hello David,

Perhaps my post was unclear. I do my best to make my posts understandable but seem to fail to achieve that on a regular basis.

the question wasn't about the reading which reading is correct. The question is about syntax of a particular greek manuscript which is quoted in original post. I keep having a problem on b-greek of people thinking because I quote Bezae or p74 or whatever that the issue under discussion is text-critical in nature. That is not the case. Codex Bezae in Acts is a greek text. Just like B03 in Acts is greek text. Why is it that we can discuss B-03 but not D-05? I don't get it. The text that appears in NAxx or UBSx or SBLGNT doesn't constitute the only viable version of the NT text. But isn't the issue here. I am not promoting a text type, just want to know if Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger's understanding of the syntax is within the bounds of what we call Koine greek?

[David Lim]

Perhaps my post was unclear. I do my best to make my posts understandable but seem to fail to achieve that on a regular basis.

the question wasn't about the reading which reading is correct. The question is about syntax of a particular greek manuscript which is quoted in original post. I keep having a problem on b-greek of people thinking because I quote Bezae or p74 or whatever that the issue under discussion is text-critical in nature. That is not the case. Codex Bezae in Acts is a greek text. Just like B03 in Acts is greek text. Why is it that we can discuss B-03 but not D-05? I don't get it. The text that appears in NAxx or UBSx or SBLGNT doesn't constitute the only viable version of the NT text. But isn't the issue here. I am not promoting a text type, just want to know if Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger's understanding of the syntax is within the bounds of what we call Koine greek?

Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted specifically to interpret that rather than the usual one. In that case, I would still take "εν ιερουσαλημ" to modify "αξων", denoting destination. I don't see how "ινα" can be in the middle of its own clause. Do you have any examples where this clearly happens?

[timothy_p_mcmahon]

I don't see how "ινα" can be in the middle of its own clause. Do you have any examples where this clearly happens?

I would suggest 2 Corinthians 2:4.

εγραψα υμιν δια πολλων δακρυων ουχ ινα λυπηθητε αλλα την αγαπην ινα γνωτε ην εχω περισσοτερως εις υμας

[Stephen Carlson]

Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted specifically to interpret that rather than the usual one. In that case, I would still take "εν ιερουσαλημ" to modify "αξων", denoting destination. I don't see how "ινα" can be in the middle of its own clause. Do you have any examples where this clearly happens?

Yes, it's possible. For example, there's Gal 2:10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν.

[David Lim]

I don't see how "ινα" can be in the middle of its own clause. Do you have any examples where this clearly happens?

I would suggest 2 Corinthians 2:4.

εγραψα υμιν δια πολλων δακρυων ουχ ινα λυπηθητε αλλα την αγαπην ινα γνωτε ην εχω περισσοτερως εις υμας

Ah I see, thanks! I find it strange, as if it shouldn't be grammatically correct but occurred in informal writing anyway, as if the writer wrote "την αγαπην" first and remembered to add in the "ινα" later; "not so that you might be grieved, but the love, so that you might know [the love] which I have exceedingly for you".

Yes, it's possible. For example, there's Gal 2:10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν.

Thanks! I do find this instance a little different, however, since "ινα" here has a slightly different meaning, and hence it seems easier to move a focal constituent out; "only, the poor, that we remember [them]".

Anyway I see now that it is possible for "εν ιερουσαλημ" to be part of the "ινα" clause semantically, even if not grammatically for the above reasons.

And does anyone have anything to say about the future participle?

[cwconrad]

I don't see how "ινα" can be in the middle of its own clause. Do you have any examples where this clearly happens?

Yes, it's possible. For example, there's Gal 2:10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν.

Thanks! I do find this instance a little different, however, since "ινα" here has a slightly different meaning, and hence it seems easier to move a focal constituent out; "only, the poor, that we remember [them]".

Anyway I see now that it is possible for "εν ιερουσαλημ" to be part of the "ινα" clause semantically, even if not grammatically for the above reasons.

Actually, I don't think there's that much difference between the two ἵνα clauses; it seems to me that they're ἵνα + subj. clauses functioning much like infinitives: "to remember", "to be punished" where the semantic function of the ἵνα clause is not clearly marked: "the poor: remember them" and "in Jerusalem, to be brought to justice".

And does anyone have anything to say about the future participle?

ἐπορευόμην ἄξων: this is a not uncommon usage of the future participle to express purpose, especially common with verbs of movement. cf. Smyth §2065.

[Dan King]

At least for certain types of verbs, the future ptc is the 'normal' way, in literary classical Gk,of expressing purpose. From when I was taught Gk many years ago I remember this as a sort of default setting, as in
ὡρμησαντο ἐπι το τειχισμα ἐπιθησομενοι - they rushed towards the fortification so as to attack it