[B-Greek] M. Sim dissertation on hINA (was hINA in Jn 9:3, 11:4)
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 11:46:19 EST 2009
Carl, Elizabeth, and list,
Carl, are you reversing your judgment that BDAG pretty much has hINA right?
I have not read througfh the dissertation, though I have perused it a
little. It does seem well written, but I am skeptical of the claim that hINA
is semantically empty (as Elizabeth summarized Sim's position). Does it not
make more sense that hINA has a range of possible meanings, partially
dictated by the types of constructions it is used in? I do not have trouble
with accepting that it serves a a structural marker or procedural marker,
but why would it not have meaning dictated by the context as any other word?
Surely there is a range of meanings hINA is used with. If one were to assess
every usage, and make judgments about the meaning communictaed by the hINA
phrase there, and then draw up the different ways it is used, how is that
different than what lexicographers do with any word? Would that not be hINAs
range of meaning, and then its specific meaning in any passage would then be
dependent on the context it is used in? I guess I am having trouble seeing
the difference between deriving a telic or ecbatic or any other sense from
context in a hINA phrase from what we normally do with determing the meaning
of a word in a specific context. I suppose one could argue that.hINA alone
has no meaning, but that it has such meaning in combination with other
words, i.e., in a phrase or a clause, and so unlike normal words, if one
were simply to say hINA, there is no auotmatic semantic sense that springs
to mind. But this is probably a distinction without a difference. If there
are certain types of phrases, such as telic, ecbatic, etc., that hINA is
most often used with, then would those not be tantamount to the meaning it
communicates? If one were to say simply hINA, would not the listener/reader
expect, according to Sim, a thought to be articulated? But then, if hINA is
most often used with thoughts in a specific logical relationship with what
procedes, would that not practically become part of hINA's unmarked meaning,
and would not the listener/reader expect a purpose clause with complete
flexibility to contrue what follows in any of the other ways hINA was used?
And would not the range of logical relations practically become its range of
meaning along with its procedural/structural role?
I am sorry if this is a bit rambling. I do not feel like I have expressed
myself particularly well. But hopefully it is well enough to add to the
discussion either insight or impetus for clarification.
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:15:16 -0500
> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] M. Sim dissertation on hINA (was hINA in Jn
> 9:3, 11:4)
> To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> Cc: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <62F9CE85-77EC-468E-A9F6-6FC41A00A889 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>
>> I would agree with Elizabeth that FANERWQHi IN Jn 9:3 ought to be
>> considered telic rather than consecutive, pace Iver. I did not read
>> through the whole dissertation but rather looked at several sections
>> of it. I am surprised, indeed rather shocked, that she used BGAD
>> rather than BDAG when she did her research, considering that she did
>> review what Chrys Caragounis had to say about hINA in his
>> "Development ..." book, which is much more recent than the publication
>> of BDAG (I was interested to see that she questions (as do I)
>> Caragounis' claim (based on Apollonius Dyscolus) that hINA is causal
>> and should be understood as meaning "because" in Mk 4:12 and Rom 5:20
>>
>> Mark 4:11 ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??
>> ????????? ??????? ??? ?????????
>> ???
>> ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??
>> ?????????? ?? ????? ???????,
>> 12 ??? ????????? ???????? ??? ??
>> ??????, ??? ????????? ???????? ???
>> ?? ????????, ?????? ????????????
>> ??? ????? ??????. [KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS: hUMIN TO
>> MUSTHRION DEDOTAI THS BASILEIAS TOU QEOU; EKEINOIS DE TOIS EXW EN
>> PARABOLAIS TA PANTA GINETAI, 12 hINA BLEPONTES BLEPWSIN KAI MH IDWSIN,
>> KAI AKOUONTES AKOUWSIN KAI MH SUNIWSIN, MHPOTE EPISTREYWSIN KAI AFEQHi
>> AUTOIS]
>>
>> Romans 5:20 ????? ?? ???????????, ???
>> ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??
>> ?????????? ? ???????,
>> ???????????????? ? ?????, [NOMOS DE
>> PAREISHLQEN, hINA PLEONASHi TO PARAPTWMA; hOU DE EPLEONASEN hH
>> hAMARTIA, hUPEREPERISSEUSEN hH CARIS.]
>>
>> I think most interpreters do indeed understand hINA in these two
>> passages as telic, and so do I. Of course the interpretation of Mark
>> 4:10-12 does indeed puzzle interpreters, some understanding it in
>> ironic terms as I do, others literally as what Jesus intended to
>> affirm. Reading that hINA as causal, however, appears to cut the knot
>> rather than untie it: "everything comes in riddles to them BECAUSE
>> they see without seeing and hear without understanding, so as not to
>> repent and be forgiven."
>>
>> I need to go back and work through the whole dissertation and try to
>> understand the way she differentiates hINA from hOTI as introducing
>> representations of what is spoken or urged. I do think that BDAG has
>> got hINA pretty much right, but my own guess is that hINA +
>> subjunctive clauses in Vulgar Koine (as opposed to the literary
>> language) functions much as does the infinitive -- in a variety of
>> not-
>> so-readily distinguishable variant functions.
>
> 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 ??? and ??? 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 ??? is not completely empty semantically -- it is a
> relative adverb of place (correlative to ????, a sort of third-
> declension equivalent to the relative adverbs ?? and o? which are
> correlative with ??? and ???;
> (2) Then there's ??? ??, often spelled as one word ?????,
> almost exactly equivalent to French 'pourquoi' = 'pour quoi.'
> (3) In her diachronic account of ???, she argues that the orators
> show the inroads of ??? over ???? ??? ?? 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 ??? is very closely parallet to the usage
> of the Latin particle 'ut' used with the subjunctive;
> (5) Unless I've missed it (I still haven't finished reading through
> the whole of the thesis), she does discuss usage of ??? + subj. in
> independent clauses but doesn't discuss the usages of ??? with the
> indicative.
> (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 ???.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
*********
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:01:37 -0800
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] hINA in Jn 9:3, 11:4
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <C1AC2C14-317C-4288-89FC-7C4BD6D83A1E at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
> I did not read through the whole dissertation but rather looked at
> several sections of it.
Carl,
I found it fairly easy to misconstrue M.Sim's conclusions about
particular passages which involve hINA clauses if I didn't keep her
framework constantly before me, particularly section 2.2.2.6
Procedural Markers (pages 46-48) where she explains her claim that
hINA, hOTI, GAR, DE ... as semantically empty procedural markers.
This is more or less the key to her entire project. If this aspect of
her framework is momentarily set aside, some of her musings on
lexical semantics might appear to be somewhat arbitrary. When I went
back and reviewed chapter 2 a lot of what she said later began to make
sense.
She claims that hINA has no native lexical value, that unlike nouns,
verbs, adjectives and prepositions, hINA does not have a 'meaning'
nor does it have any fixed logical function (telic, ecbatic). The
main function of hINA is to mark the following text as a
'representation' of a thought, somewhat like the word "that" in english.
The fact that Sim takes particular positions in regard to
interpretations of texts, for example, rejecting the telic
understanding of the hINA clause in Jn 9:3, 11:4, actually is a
distraction from her main thrust. There is nothing about her notion of
hINA as a procedural marker that would weigh against reading the hINA
clause in Jn 9:3, 11:4 as telic, since according to her rules the
telic aspect is an inference from the total context (textual,
cultural, ...).
The irony of her reading on Jn 9:3 (c.f. Jn11:4) is that IMHO
Relevance Theory actually comes in as support for the telic reading of
the hINA clause. Particularly in Jn 11:4, where everything about the
death of Lazarus and Jesus words there cries out for a telic reading
of hINA in Jn 11:4. It is worth noting that M. Sim does not cite Jn
11:4 in her thesis.
Elizabeth
*********
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:52:33 -0800
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Subject: [B-Greek] M. Sim on hINA, hOTI, hOPWS etc.
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <EBA0D025-7F98-43E5-A537-F2A7005E5E77 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
It seems to me that this thesis is something that could be discussed
in this forum with some benefit to those who are trying to read and
understand NT greek. Carl has already given it his blessing (with
qualifications). My previous post was narrowly focused on Sim's
conclusions about John 9:1-3, which I do not share. However, her
proposal concerning several greek particles hINA, hOTI, hOPWS
certainly has significant implications for exegesis (and translation)
of the NT.
A Relevance Theoretic approach
to the particle hINA in Koine Greek
Margaret Gavin Sim
PhD, 2006
Submitted in satisfaction of the requirements of the degree of PhD
in the University of Edinburgh.
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1395
The main idea:
---quote from Page 249-250
I argue that the particle hINA was used to give procedural
instructions to the reader or hearer, rather than to indicate the
logical relation of the clause it introduces to the rest of the
sentence. In Koine it no longer had a fixed lexical meaning, perhaps
it never did have, but was always used to give procedural instructions
regarding the following clause, which in earlier Greek was invariably
telic.
end of quote---
For those who don't know Margaret Sim, myself included, her vita might
be something worth reading:
http://www.negst.edu/resumes/msim.htm
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list