In John 17:3, are these two variants identical in meaning?

[Bill Ross]

How should the variants be rendered? As cause or effect?:

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 17:3 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι / γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

I notice that the NLT has a causative reading:

[Jhn 17:3 NLT] (3) And this is the way to have eternal life--to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

As does the NIV:

[Jhn 17:3 NIV] (3) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Most others read more like the KJV, suggesting, I think (but am not sure) effect:

[Jhn 17:3 KJV] (3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[nathaniel j. erickson]

ἵνα γινώσκωσι / γινώσκωσιν

These are both present subjunctives. One form has the so-called "moveable nu" and one does not. They are identical in all but spelling, and normally would not be considered a variant, unless you are really interested in spelling issues.

There is a variant reading which gives an indicative form: γινώσκουσιν (A D L N W Δ 0109. 0301. 33. 579. 1241, as per NA 28). An ἵνα clause with an indicative verb is not unheard of, but highly unusual. BDAG notes:

ἵνα is found w. the pres. ind. [like the passage here] only in passages where the subj. is also attested in the mss.; its presence is prob. due to corruption of the txt

There are around 10 of them listed in the NT. The entry goes on to list a few instances where there is definitely a present indicative in an ἵνα clause in extant literature, but they are quite few.

The difference in meaning between translations which you are detecting is entirely do to how the translators understand the ἵνα + subjunctive clause here. The text variant has no impact on that. I'm not sure there is much difference between the different renderings and it is likely simply the result of different attempts to render this passage.

[Bill Ross]

So would it be fair to say that neither rendering, cause or effect, can be ruled out? Our best bet then being to look for contextual clues? IE: The grammar itself doesn't lean either way?

[Jason Hare]

So would it be fair to say that neither rendering, cause or effect, can be ruled out? Our best bet then being to look for contextual clues? IE: The grammar itself doesn't lean either way?

Does the NT use ἵνα + subj. for resultant clauses? That's the normal structure for purpose clauses. Now you've got me curious!

Looking quickly in Wallace's NT Syntax, there is no mention of ἵνα in resultant clauses, but he does mention what he calls "purpose-result" clauses. They still show the intention of ἵνα, but he says that "both the intention and its sure accomplishment" are being show. He gives as examples John 3:16, wherein the receipt of eternal life is both the purpose of the giving of the son and its result, and Philippians 2:9–11, where the knees bowing and tongues confessing are both the intention of God's exalting Jesus and the result of that exaltation.

I don't think a pure resultant clause would use ἵνα.

[Daniel Semler]

So would it be fair to say that neither rendering, cause or effect, can be ruled out? Our best bet then being to look for contextual clues? IE: The grammar itself doesn't lean either way?

When I have a problem with a section or when something like this comes up, I like to "take a run at the passage in question" as it were. Read more of the preceding, and perhaps succeeding passage and see if that helps.

“Ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶπεν· πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.”
(John 17:1-5 Novum Testamentum Graece (New Testament in Greek))
https://accordance.bible/link/read/GNT28-T#John_17:1

To me this suggests perhaps a simple "that" sense rather than "so that" or "in order that". From BDAG:

e. ἵνα can also take the place of the explanatory inf. after a demonstrative (B-D-F §394; Rdm.2 192.—Wsd 13:9; Just., D. 14, 2 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύμβολον τῶν ἀζύμων, ἵνα μὴ . . .) Mk 11:28. πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ (for τὸ ἐλθεῖν τὴν κτλ.) Lk 1:43 (cp. GJs 12:2). τοῦτο προσεύχομαι ἵνα Phil 1:9. cp. 1 Cor 9:18. This is a favorite usage in J: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε (for τὸ πιστεύειν ὑμᾶς) 6:29; cp. vs. 50. μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα . . . θῇ (for τοῦ θεῖναι) 15:13; cp. 3J 4.—J 6:39; 17:3; 1J 3:11, 23; 4:21; 5:3; 2J 6a. ἐν τούτῳ: ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ μου ἵνα . . . φέρητε (for ἐν τῷ φέρειν ὑμᾶς ἐδοξάσθη) J 15:8; cp. 1J 4:17.—S. also Hs 9, 28, 4, and ποταπὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα 1J 3:1.


BDAG, s.v. “ἵνα,” 476.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/BDAG#12627

Thx
D

[Bill Ross]

Yes, it took me a minute but I see that. The NIV/NLT reading does not seems at all possible.

[Jason Hare]

So would it be fair to say that neither rendering, cause or effect, can be ruled out? Our best bet then being to look for contextual clues? IE: The grammar itself doesn't lean either way?

When I have a problem with a section or when something like this comes up, I like to "take a run at the passage in question" as it were. Read more of the preceding, and perhaps succeeding passage and see if that helps.

“Ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶπεν· πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.”
(John 17:1-5 Novum Testamentum Graece (New Testament in Greek))
https://accordance.bible/link/read/GNT28-T#John_17:1

To me this suggests perhaps a simple "that" sense rather than "so that" or "in order that". From BDAG:

e. ἵνα can also take the place of the explanatory inf. after a demonstrative (B-D-F §394; Rdm.2 192.—Wsd 13:9; Just., D. 14, 2 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύμβολον τῶν ἀζύμων, ἵνα μὴ . . .) Mk 11:28. πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ (for τὸ ἐλθεῖν τὴν κτλ.) Lk 1:43 (cp. GJs 12:2). τοῦτο προσεύχομαι ἵνα Phil 1:9. cp. 1 Cor 9:18. This is a favorite usage in J: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε (for τὸ πιστεύειν ὑμᾶς) 6:29; cp. vs. 50. μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα . . . θῇ (for τοῦ θεῖναι) 15:13; cp. 3J 4.—J 6:39; 17:3; 1J 3:11, 23; 4:21; 5:3; 2J 6a. ἐν τούτῳ: ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ μου ἵνα . . . φέρητε (for ἐν τῷ φέρειν ὑμᾶς ἐδοξάσθη) J 15:8; cp. 1J 4:17.—S. also Hs 9, 28, 4, and ποταπὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα 1J 3:1.


BDAG, s.v. “ἵνα,” 476.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/BDAG#12627

Thx
D

[Jason... hit "quote," not "edit"... OK...]

Yes, this is exactly right. One day, I'll get my hands on a Logos copy of BDAG and HALOT!