[B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 13:40:40 EST 2009
> A valid question, Carl has already addressed it.
>
> One part of this thesis which is particularly difficult is section 3.5
> Introducing quotes from the OT. Here M. Sim makes a case that the
> semantic value 'purpose' should be abandoned in the OT citation
> formulae. I was just reading this section again it seems that Sim has
> produced a caricature with hINA + PLHROW, a straw man, attributing the
> purpose to some human agent where that is not how the expression would
> have been understood by the original readers/auditors of the text. It
> doesn't really prove anything, pointing out that attributing purpose
> to a human agent makes a ridiculous reading, since IMHO there was no
> intent to attribute purpose to a human agent.
>
> One way to solve the problem is read hINA as a marker of result rather
> than purpose. Another way to solve it is to position the notion of
> purpose within the framework of the purpose of QEOS or the 'Divine
> Will', an approach Sim addresses and explicitly rejects.
>
> Elizabeth Kline
Elizabeth,
I actually agree that hINA should typically be viewed as ecbatic in the OT
citation formulae. IMO, the typical structure does not lend well to a
purpose clause, and a lot needs to be read in to arrive at that sense,
including ellipsis, when the ecbatic sense reads quite smoothly. In my
perusal of the dissertation, I actually ran across some comments pointing in
that direction and found them refreshing, though I don't know if I read any
of the main section on it you mentioned.
Brian Abasciano
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list