[B-Greek] M. Sim diss. hINA in OT citation formulae
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 11 15:52:24 EST 2009
On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
>>
>> 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.)
Actually Iver completely missed the point I was making. If he wants to
discuss the thesis he should first read it. I made allusions to ideas
addressed in Sim's thesis which Iver missed so that his comments were
irrelevant to the point in question.
I was NOT claiming that Gal 1:15-16 was the same construction as hINA
with PLHROW. Gal 1:15-16 gives us a window into the apostolic world
view. That was my point. It illustrates that Paul's understanding of
his personal history is telic in relation to the 'Divine Will'. It
shows a hINA clause wrapping up a summary of Paul's life which is
understood in terms of Divine Purpose. If you are going to do RT you
need to ask questions like this, how do the Paul, John, Peter,
understand events in history, in this case Paul's personal history.
There is a line of thinking about the hINA with PLHROW, Sim mentions
it in several places, which suggests that where we find hINA with
PLHROW in OT citation contexts, with no suitable preceding human
agency, i.e. were looking to the human agent preceding the hINA clause
would give a nonsense reading, Sim gives several examples, in these
cases an over arching 'Divine Purpose' or 'Divine Will' is invoked as
serving to fill void, and let the hINA clause be read as a purpose
clause. In other words, the agent, QEOS, who is behind the purpose is
implicit (RT again, inference). This is a somewhat complex notion,
but it fits in with the RT way of doing exegesis since it invokes the
notion of underdetermined encoding in the text and inference from the
total shared cultural, social, religious framework.
***ONE FINAL NOTE*** I don't do NOT personally find this reasoning
compelling. I think reading hINA as ecbatic in these OT citations is a
far better analysis. However, I thought it was interesting that this
theological approach was using some of the principles espoused in RT.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list