[B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Feb 11 10:07:09 EST 2009
On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> ----- 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.
In view of Margaret Sim's fundamental approach to the function of hINA-
clauses, it seems we could read that clause in Gal 1:15-16 as "I
should proclaim him among the Gentiles." This was the "call and
mission" indicated in 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. I wouldn't call this a "purpose" clause nor
would I call it a "result" clause. Rather it indicates or "represents"
the "intent" which Paul attributes to God in his statement of how he
has become an evangelist.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list