[B-Greek] Causal hINA in Romans 5:20 and 6:1 - Caragounis

Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sat May 5 00:30:09 EDT 2007


In THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, Chrys 
Caragounis has an interesting discussion in Chapter 4 (Syntactical 
Developments),  Section XI - Conjunctions (pp. 218-226) wherein he discusses 
the use and meaning of hINA - and basically turns the standard interpretations 
and translations of Romans 5:20 and Romans 6:1 on their heads.

>From what I could see, Daniel Wallace doesn't discuss this use/meaning of 
hINA, nor does Perschbacher in his Syntax book, nor do Moo nor Schreiner nor 
Mounce nor Kasemann (the only commentaries I have) in their commentaries on 
Romans. They all opt for the usual interpretation of these verses - i.e., the Law 
was given to cause sin to increase. St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on 
these verses also seems to say the same thing as these others.

Caragounis interprets it to mean that the Law was given to curb sin, because sin 
had increased. He contends that hINA here functions causally. As I said, the 
usual translations of Romans 5:20 and 6:1 are that the law entered in so that sin 
might increase (5:20), and Paul's question (6:1) - based on this idea that as law 
comes in, sin increases - is translated to say, "should we sin so that grace might 
increase" (since as sin increased, grace increased even more; cf. Romans 
5:20b). But Caragounis argues that they should be translated, "the law entered 
in, because sin had increased" (5:20), and "should we continue in sin, because 
grace has increased?" (6:1).

Caragounis's translation comports better with Galatians 3:19, and he seems to 
have some good evidence to support his argument. 

Any comments? 

Naturally, this has huge implications for theology - or at least some sermons 
and commentaries. But I'm asking what people think of Caragounis's argument 
and support for his case.

BDF at 369(2) discusses causal hINA, but not these verses: I don't know how 
much of the following (from Logos) will display properly:

--On ‘causal’ ἵνα (Rev 22:14) s. Jannaris §1741; Hesseling and Pernot, 
Neophilologus 12 (1927) 41–6; Pernot, Études 90–5; Windisch, ZNW 26 (1927) 
203–9; Robertson, Studies in Early Christianity, ed. by S. J. Case (N.Y. and London, 
1928) 51–7. Of the NT exx. adduced by Hesseling and Pernot, Rev 22:14 at the best 
stands the test if  μακάριοι 
 ἵνα = μακάριοι 
 ὅτι of Mt 5:3ff.; but ‘in order that’ 
(dependent on πλύοντες) is also possible; likewise Rev 16:15. 14:13 ἵνα (p47 ὅτι!) 
ἀναπαήσονται is a main clause ‘they shall rest’ (§387(3)). Mk 4:12 = Lk 8:10 ἵνα is final 
(theory that some are incapable of repentance), softened by Mt 13:13 to causal ὅτι 
(διὰ τοῦτο in answer to διὰ τί 10). Ed. Schweizer, ThZ 8 (1952) 153f. accepts ἵνα in 1 P 
4:6 as causal. Literature on causal ἵνα also in Zerwick, Graec. bibl. 95 n. The LXX is 
also ruled out: Gen 22:14 ἵνα ‘so that’ (§391(5)), likewise Epict.: 3.4.10 ἵνα is final, cf. 
θέλω in 11. But still there remain the grammarians (e.g. Apollonius Dysc., Synt. 3.28 
[Gramm. Gr. ii 2, 382.2] explains ἵνα φιλολογήσω παρεγενήθη Τρύφων as identical with 
διότι ἐφιλολόγησα π. Τ.), the Church Fathers and late papyri (e.g. BGU iv 1081.3 [ii/iii 
ad] ἐχάρην ἵνα σε ἀσπάζομαι [however cf. §392(1a)]; Ghedini, Aegyptus 15 [1935] 236).
  

  Eric S. Weiss
  XPICTOC ANECTH


       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list