[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) 416; Pernot, Études 905; Windisch, ZNW 26 (1927)
2039; Robertson, Studies in Early Christianity, ed. by S. J. Case (N.Y. and London,
1928) 517. 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