[B-Greek] Causal hINA in Romans 5:20 and 6:1 - Caragounis

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 5 20:22:26 EDT 2007


I've read through this section in Caragounis and I find it unconvincing,
particularly the designation of hINA + subj. in a "causal" category.
I think that what we have here is simply the initial stages of the later
Greek infinitive; the Modern Greek infinitive is NA + subj. and
(however surprising it may seem to students of ancient Greek) the
Modern Greek infinitive is conjugated for person and number --
and aspect is indicted by the tense/aspect-stem.

On May 5, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Eric Weiss wrote:

>
> Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>> It has been several years since I looked at Caragounis.
>> I agree with Iver that reading hINA "because" in Rom.
>> 5:20 is untenable.
>
> Iver Larson wrote:
>> On the other hand, I can see no justification to ascribe
>> a causal sense to hINA. I am not aware of any contexts
>> where hINA could mean "because".
>
> But that is precisely what Caragounis seems to be asserting,
> and he gives examples and justification for his assertion.
> He starts with John 8:56 ("Abraham your father rejoiced
> because he saw (hINA IDHi) my day, and he saw [it] and was
> glad."), and mentions John 20:20, saying that IDONTES TON
> KURION might easily have been hINA IDWSIN TON KURION.

As noted above, I think that what we have here is in fact the
equivalent of an epexegetic infinitive: hINA IDHi = IDEIN:
"was glad to see ... "

As for John 20:20 ECARHSAN OUN hOI MAQHTAI
IDONTES TON KURION, I see no particular reason why
the circumstantial participle IDONTES must be understood
as causal; I'd think simple temporal relationship is quite
adequate: "they were glad when the saw the lord." And if
we did have hINA IDWSIN TON KURION, I'd be inclined
to read that too as an equivalent to an epexegetic infinitive:
"they were glad to see the lord."


> He
> says Mark 4:12 EN PARABOLAIS TA PANTA GINETAI, hINA
> BLEPONTES BLEPWSIN KAI MH IDWSIN should be "everything
> is/comes in parables because..." and that this
> interpretation is confirmed by Matthew 13:13 which reads
> DIA TOUTO EN PARABOLAIS AUTOIS LALW, hOTI BLEPONTES OU
> BLEPOUSIN.

There may be a hermeneutical assumption here that Matthew is narrating
and interpreting the story in the same manner as Mark; I'm more inclined
to think that Matthew is deliberately altering and reinterpreting the  
story
as Mark told it. Hermeneutical arguments are outside the scope of BG
discussion but by the same token I don't think that Matthew's version
is evidence for what Mark intended his phraseology to mean.

I would agree that Matthew says that Jesus' reason for speaking to
the crowds in parables is because of their obtuseness. On the other
hand I think Mark is up to something different altogether. There's a
classic work of literary criticism on these passages -- Frank Kermode's
_The Genesis of Secrecy_.  For my part I think that the hINA clause
in Mark 4:12 is indeed a purpose clause and that this segment is a
hinge in a major Marcan theme regarding the blindness of disciples.
Again, that falls outside the parameters of BG discussion, but suffice
it to say that the relationship between Mk 4:12 and its synoptic
parallels to Isaiah 6:9-10 is complex and perhaps open to alternative
interpretations.

> "The difference between the final and causal
> interpretation of hINA here is considerable. In the first
> case, the purpose of the parables is to veil truth, while
> in the second case parables are used because the audience
> has chosen to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to Jesus'
> message. In general commentators have been unaware of the
> causal use of hINA, and this has led to considerable
> embarrassment with this text."
>
> He then goes on to discuss Romans 5:20 and 6:1 as I pointed
> out.

For my part, I am satisfied that the conventional understanding
of these passages is right -- they we do have hINA purpose
clauses here, though I realize some think that it's a result clause
in Rom 5:20. I think some good points have already been made
regarding this.

> What Caragounis writes is too lengthy to copy and post, and
> he of course has lengthy footnotes for all of this.
>
> So I hope someone here gets a copy of the book and reads
> these several pages and comments on Caragounis'
> scholarship and argument.

I've read through this part of Caragounis' book and I don't
find this particular argument about "causal hINA" convincing --
which is not at all to say that I don't find the book commendable
in many respects: I certainly do.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list