[B-Greek] M. Sim dissertation on hINA

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Sun Feb 8 12:41:02 EST 2009


Not having had time to read Margaret's dissertation I highly value Carl's
mini-review.
> After reading more closely through Sim's dissertation, which deals
with both hINA and hOTI, I am all the more impressed with it. I have
my reservations about a few items, but I could wish in vain that
dissertations might generally be so well-written and actually make a
solid contribution to the understanding of an important matter. Maybe
doctoral candidates should simply write a good paper to illustrate
capacity for research and postpone the real dissertation for three
decades.>
> There are some nit-picking criticisms I'd offer, although use  of BGAD
rather than BDAG is scarcely excusable; others:
(1) although I'm pretty satisfied that she's essentially right about
the way ἵνα and ὅτι function as structural markers to preset
the reader/listener expectation of the clause that follows, with the
distinction between factual clause and potential clause, it seems to
me that ἵνα is  not completely empty semantically -- it  is a
relative adverb of place (correlative to τίνα, a sort of third-
declension equivalent to the relative adverbs οὗ and oἷ which are
correlative with ποῦ and ποῖ;>

In listing some practical verb tables I have chosen ἵνα as the marker
of the subjunctive (YPOTAKTIKH). It's nice to know that there is some
theoretical justification.

> (2) Then there's ἵνα τί, often spelled as one word ἱνατί,
almost exactly equivalent to French 'pourquoi' = 'pour quoi.'

which would not leave INA totally empty.

> (3) In her diachronic account  of ἵνα, she argues that the orators
show the inroads of ἵνα over ὅπως ανδ ὡς in comparison
with Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Aristophanes -- but it's standard
practice to distinguish usage  in poets from that in prose writers
since poets tend to use a more archaizing vocabulary;
> (4) Finally, she is careful to avoid using Hellenistic authors who
might be influenced by Semitic patterns (she won't use Josephus on
grounds that  he claims to have written in Aramaic originally) -- she
sticks with Polybius and Epictetus, but  in fact Polybius and
Epictetus lived in Rome (as did Josephus in  his later years); I think
that the Koine usage of ἵνα is very closely parallet to the usage
of the Latin particle 'ut' used with the subjunctive;>

But Josephus is my hero! If anything, his patterns are 'too high'
and certainly don't pattern Semitically. One could be excused for
doubting Joesphus' comment that the War was a translation. It
has been thoroughly Grecized and breathes a different world from
our gospels where Semitisms are palpable and visible.
And if we're going to start taking Josephus' at his word about translation,
then she should believe what Josephus' said--he wrote an original War
in the 'patriarchal language' [i.e., not Aramaic, see War 5.272 where the
patriarchal language is unambiguously Hebrew ('the son is coming' is
only a word play in Hebrew for "stone is coming" 'ben baa')]. Let's give
Josephus credit where it is due. He knew the three languages of the
Land quite well, knew their differences, was proud of his dual-register
Hebrew, and he took pains that his Greek works came out in good
Greek. Josephus is a model for first century Greek writing in Judea.

> (5) Unless I've missed it (I still haven't finished reading through
the whole of the thesis), she does discuss usage of ἵνα + subj. in
independent clauses but doesn't discuss the usages of ἵνα with the
indicative.

Those bother me.

> (6) And, of course, there are those instances we've discussed on list
where we think she is wrong NOT to discern a telic usage of ἵνα.
>

Thank you, Carl.

ERRWSO

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life



More information about the B-Greek mailing list