[B-Greek] M. Sim dissertation on hINA (was hINA in Jn 9:3, 11:4)
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 13:57:02 EST 2009
>> Carl, are you reversing your judgment that BDAG pretty much has hINA
>> right?
>
> Not at all; I think that you'll see that different suggested glosses are
> indicated for different usages of hINA, most fundamentally "in order
> that" and "that" (introducing a noun clause), but these are really very
> rough equivalents. In practice the constructions using hINA have to be
> understood as one meets them, and if one undertakes in each instance to
> put them into English translation, some care will have to be taken to
> find the appropriate locution. There are some constructions where an
> English infinitive would seem to be the most appropriate "equivalent."
I agree.
> How would you define the semantic value of the conjunction/particle
> "that" is in English? If you looked carefully at my "nit-picking"
> criticisms, you should have noticed what I said about hINA as a spatial
> adverb in classical Greek and hINA TI (= hINATI) in Koine: that it's not
> quite completely empty semantically; if I had to offer a single
> equivalent for hINA I might suggest "for" or "to" -- the "to" that is
> used to form an infinitive in standard English. Etymologically, I think
> that hINA originally meant something like "in the direction of."
Ok, so then I would say that I agree with your nitpick on that issue, which
was the main issue of my comments. But I don't know that it is necessarily
merely a nitpick.
> I don't think a "normal" reader or listener who knows Greek analyzes a
> text for contextual clues about hINA. It is only if one has learned Greek
> with the single gloss, "in order that" for hINA that one will run into
> problems with it. And if you use "so that," you have something that will
> work with both telic and ecbatic functions. I think that
> beginning-intermediate students of Koine have more trouble with the
> substantival clauses introduced by hINA -- until they've seen enough of
> them and recognize them without further thought.
Well, the significance of context does not have to take place as a scholarly
analysis, and very often it can take place quite naturally or almost
subconsciouly. I assume you agree that context will largely dictate how the
reder/listener takes hINA, or at least the logical relationship of the
phrase it heads to what it is connected to. I would think that the gloss "in
order that" has come to be regarded as the meaning of hINA because that is
its most usual usage. I completely welcome the point hINA often means
something else. I am concerned not to deny that hINA might have an unmarked
meaning.
>
> What would you say of English "that" in the following three sentences.
>
> 1. There were so many beautiful paintings in the gallery that I didn't
> know where to begin.
> 2. What I really wish is that you would go away.
> 3. It is God's will that not a single person should perish.
>
> In each instance, "that" serves the same function we're saying hINA has
> in comparable Koine Greek sentences; would you conclude therefrom that
> the semantic value of hINA is "that"? I wouldn't; I'd say that "that" in
> these sentences performs a comparable syntactic function to that
> performed by hINA in Greek constructions.
Again, I would agree with you. But this seems merely to highlight what we
already knew without Sim's dissertation, that hINA is a conjuntion /
syntactical marker. One important question is, what does it mark? That's
where we talk about the range of "meaning" of hINA. It is often used to mark
purpose, sometimes result, objective (I wonder if it would be better to call
this epexegetic, complementary, content or the like), or emphasis. It seems
helpful to me to recognize whether hINA has an unmarked "meaning" or
function, which I would think is to mark purpose clauses, though not as
unmarked as many assume.
Let me add that I think the English "that" does not seem to have a
comparable range of meaning as does hINA. Or perhaps it is more accurate to
say that its range of marking function is more easily indicated by its
context. This may be because English "that" does not have an ecbatic
function on its own; it needs to be "so that". And it is probably true that
thre are typically other indicators to mark "that" in English as beginning a
purpose clause, such as wording that would indicate a subjunctive. In Greek,
hINA's ecbatic sense is used with the subjunctive so that (that's a result
usage of "so that" right there) it is only non-grmmatical context that
indicates whether the hINA clause is telic, ecbatic, or both.
>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list