[B-Greek] Imperatival hINA in John 9:3?

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Feb 19 16:15:21 EST 2011


I am forwarding herewith a message from Margaret Sim in response to yesterday's
thread with the subject-header indicated above. She has wanted to share with 
interested list-members a paper that she delivered in 2007 entitled,
"Relevance Theory and Independent hINA clauses" but could not 
send it as an attachment to her message. I have offered to host a copy
of her paper on my own site until she can upload it to her SIL site. It
is accessible as a PDF file at:

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/RT%20and%20independent%20ina%20clauses.pdf

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

============
Friends,
I have been away from home and email for several days and have not been able to interact as I would have liked to! Perhaps the thread is now old and Carl has responded as I would have but in case anyone wants more I have atached a paper which was presented at the ISBL in 2007. It is wider than the verses mentioned in John 9 but deals with them in more detail.
I do enjoy this list!!

Margaret Sim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>; <cierpke at prodigy.net>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperatival hINA in John 9:3?

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Brian Abasciano wrote:

> [Woops, I forgot to put the proper subject in my first attempt at sending this message. Here it is again.]
> 
> Bryant's judgment seems a bit hasty. hINA can be used imperatively. I don't
> agree that it is imperatival here however. Nor do I think it likely that it
> is telic. I think Margaret Sim probably has it right that hINA is here used
> to indicate what Jesus knew would come to pass in this situation ("A
> Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle hINA in Koine Greek," p. 89). I
> would say that this is something akin to an ecbatic (i.e. result) hINA.
> (Note that an ecbatic hINA is used in the preceding verse in the disciples'
> question, which Jesus is answering. The hINA of v. 3 seems to
> answer/correpsond to the hINA of v. 2.) Sim translates John 9:3 thus: "Jesus
> replied, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but the works of God must be
> revealed in him.’" This is not far off from Boyd's and Turner's view, though
> it is different. It seems unfair to suggest that Boyd and Turner are letting
> their theology overrule the text.

I thought that Margaret Sim, whose dissertation on hINA and hOTI has been
referred to hitherto on this list -- and she's a list-member also, has a comment
on this verse that is relevant to the current discussion. I'm quoting from the
original dissertation, "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle hINA
in Koine Greek" (Ph.D. 2006, U. Edinburgh); the book is now in print as
_Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek_ (Eugene, Oregon:
Pickwick, 2010). This is from pp. 169-70 of the dissertation:

"John 9:3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς
αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.
[APEKRIQH IHSOUS· OUTE hOUTOS hHMARTEN OUTE hOI
GONEIS AUTOU, ALL᾿ hINA FANERWQHi TA ERGA TOU QEOU
EN AUTWi.]
Jesus replied, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works
of God should be revealed in him.’

"I do not accept the interpretation of the i(/na clause which claims that
the man was born blind in order that the works of God should be
shown in him.24 Since blindness, even congenital blindness, was common
in Palestine at this time, the view that God was obligated to make someone
blind in order to show his works, seems ill-founded.25 The works of God
were displayed in this man, but the hINA clause indicates John’s representation
of Jesus’ own understanding of what must happen: a representation of
acrepresentation. In denying the disciples’ understanding of the relationship
between disability and sin, John does not substitute another resultative
connection between the man’s blindness and the healing which he is to receive.
Note the lack of a main verb after a)ll` on which either purpose or result clause
could be predicated. Cadoux suggested that this was an example of ‘imperatival’
hINA. I think this is on the right lines, but would rephrase this as a deontic
clause:

‘The works of God must be revealed in him’

"This shows the desirable state of affairs from the perspective of the speaker.
The whole thrust of this pericope is that Jesus brings light. It would be
perverse to argue that God first brought darkness in order that light might
come by his later acts.

"When the standard grammars describe the particle hINAa as introducing final,
object, predicate, complementary and result clauses,27 it must be apparent that
such an analysis can only be made from the wider context in which such clauses
occur. In short, decisions on the type of clause which this particle introduces
are made on pragmatic rather than syntactic or lexical grounds, although this
is seldom made clear. i(/na does not give instructions about the logical relationship
between clauses, but guides the reader to process the following clause as a
representation. Purpose may well be indicated in clauses introduced by hINA
but this must be inferred from the context and not the introductory particle."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)




More information about the B-Greek mailing list