[B-Greek] hINA in Jn 9:3, 11:4

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 31 17:40:42 EST 2009


>


JOHN 9:1 KAI PARAGWN EIDEN ANQRWPON TUFLON EK GENETHS.  2 KAI HRWTHSAN  
AUTON hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU LEGONTES: hRABBI, TIS hHMARTEN, hOUTOS H hOI  
GONEIS AUTOU, hINA TUFLOS GENNHQHi  3 APEKRIQH IHSOUS: OUTE hOUTOS  
hHMARTEN OUTE hOI GONEIS AUTOU, ALL hINA FANERWQHi TA ERGA TOU QEOU EN  
AUTWi.

JOHN 11:4 AKOUSAS DE hO IHSOUS EIPEN: hAUTH hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIN PROS  
QANATON ALL hUPER THS DOXHS TOU QEOU, hINA DOXASQHi hO hUIOS TOU QEOU  
DI AUTHS.

M. Sim, in her thesis on hINA in Koine, IMHO shows an intemperate zeal  
to stamp out the purpose clause introduced by hINA.  The author faults  
others for trying to force hINA into a inflexible semantic mold but it  
seems to me that she does the same thing by hammering away on  
"representation" as the one and only function of hINA in the Koine  
period.

A prime example is her reading (pages 170-171) of hINA in Jn 9:3 where  
she rejects the telic reading of hINA in Jesus' reply to the disciples  
ALL hINA FANERWQHi TA ERGA TOU QEOU EN AUTWi. There have been  
suggestions that this hINA introduces a results clause and even the  
more improbable suggestion that it introduces an imperatival clause.  
However,  R.E. Brown, F.F. Bruce, D. Carson. L. Morris, G. Beasley- 
Murray, to name just a few, read it as telic. The clincher is John  
11:4 where the telic meaning is explicit.

I think M. Sim is worth reading and I am all in favor of using  
Relevance Theory as a model, but it is just another framework within  
linguistics which will soon pass into the archives of old frameworks,  
it is already over twenty years old.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list