[B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Feb 10 22:56:52 EST 2009


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 10. februar 2009 23:06
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae

>>> 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.

The "problem" is cause by the mistaken presupposition that hINA basically and ordinarily functions 
to indicate purpose. Once this mistake is rectified, the problem goes away. hINA serves to connect 
clauses, and this connection may be purpose, result or content.

>> 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.

One reading is not more "theological" than another. As you are familiar with Relevance Theory, you 
also know that any reading of any text is based on our presuppositions, and that includes thelogical 
ones, especially for a Biblical text. That hINA in the OT quotation texts could possibly be 
understood as purpose is caused by the mistake mentioned above, IMO.

>
>  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.

I don't think anyone denies that hINA in some contexts can be understood to represent a purpose 
connection. In a personal mail from margaret Sim, she commented:
"1. I am not refusing to accept the fact that  hINA introduces a purpose clause. It very often does, 
but I claim that its FIRST function is to introduce a metarepresentation of a thought, intention 
etc."

However, Gal 1:15 is in no way relevant for the interpretation of hINA plus PLHROW, since the text 
does not talk about fulfillment of prophecy. When somebody "wills" something to happen, there is 
often purpose involved, no matter who "wills" it. But in the OT quotations, it is the narrator who 
tells us that when A happened, this was actually in fulfilment of an old prophecy. It does not 
happen in order to fulfill the prophecy. That is putting the cart before the horse. You can say that 
both the original prophecy and the fulfillment of it is a result of God's will and plan, but that 
does not make hINA here indicate purpose.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list