[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