[B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 10 15:06:18 EST 2009
On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
>
>> 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
Brian,
That is a reasonable reading in many contexts, however before we just
wave off the 'theological' reading as if it were of no value, perhaps
it would be worthwhile to review a use of hINA in a non OT citation
context, where the 'Divine Will' is very explicit, just to establish
that hINA can be used to mark the purpose with QEOS as the implied or
explicit agent.
Gal. 1:15 Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ
ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου
καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν
ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ
προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι
GAL. 1:15 hOTE DE EUDOKHSEN hO QEOS hO AFORISAS ME EK KOILIAS MHTROS
MOU KAI KALESAS DIA THS CARITOS AUTOU 16 APOKALUYAI TON hUION AUTOU
EN EMOI, hINA EUAGGELIZWMAI AUTON EN TOIS EQNESIN, EUQEWS OU
PROSANEQEMHN SARKI KAI hAIMATI 17 OUDE ANHLQON EIS hIEROSOLUMA PROS
TOUS PRO EMOU APOSTOLOUS, ALLA APHLQON EIS ARABIAN KAI PALIN
hUPESTREYA EIS DAMASKON.
I think this passage is strong evidence that hINA retains it's
ability to mark a purpose clause in the NT. Secondly, the passage
demonstrates explicit linking of the purpose clause to the 'Divine
Will'. If we find this sort of linkage in an explicit form then there
is some validity in suggesting that this idea could be left implicit,
or 'underdetermine' in other contexts. I am not arguing that hINA
with PLHROW should always be read as implying purpose of the 'Divine
Will' but it seems that this is an idea that was in current use among
some authors of the NT and for that reason in keeping with the central
idea of RT (Relevance Theory) it isn't out of line to suggest that it
could be inferential in some contexts.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list