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

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 13:51:37 EST 2009




> 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 ??? ?? ????????? [? ????] ?
> ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???
> ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????
> 16 ?????????? ??? ???? ????? ??
> ????, ??? ????????????? ????? ??
> ???? ???????, ?????? ??
> ???????????? ????? ??? ??????
>
> 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

There is a huge difference between the point that hINA retains it's ability 
to mark a purpose clause in the NT and the suggestion that it typically does 
so in the OT fulfillment formulae. In the recent hINA threads, I have 
actually argued that I believe hINA as a marker of purpose clauses is 
actually hINA'a unmarked meaning/function. However, the text you cite doe 
not occur in the same sort of construction as the OT fulfillment formulae 
(BTW, I do not even claim that it never marks purpose in these; that may be 
the case, but I would have to look at each construction; but my from what I 
remember of the typical fulfillment notice, ecbatic seems much more likely). 
It is such a good example of a telic hINA in which the purpose is the divine 
purpose because it directly speaks of the dvine action, and proceeds 
smoothly off of that. So it reads very naturally as a purpose clause marking 
God's purpose. But in the OT fulfillment formulae the construction is 
entirely different. As I said, 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. Regarding 
the use of hINA with PLHROW, PLHROW does not even appear in Gal 1:15-17. I 
do n ot have any resistance to the idea that hINA with PLHROW can mark 
purpose. But I think the construction should bear that out; it does not 
typically seem to in the OT fulfillment notices. As I said, it may well in 
some of them; I would have to look at the occurrences.

(Addendum: I now see that Iver has said something similar.) 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list