[B-Greek] Causal hINA in Romans 5:20 and 6:1 - Caragounis
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat May 5 12:19:02 EDT 2007
It has been several years since I looked at Caragounis. I agree with
Iver that reading hINA "because" in Rom. 5:20 is untenable.
On the other hand, what is being called the "traditional
interpretation" here is far from monolithic. There is a tension
between the purpose and result. Chrysostom: TO DE, hINA, ENTAUQA OUK
AITIOLOGIAS, ALL' EKBASEWS ESTI. Cranfield (Rom ICC, 1:292)
disagrees "This hINA is not to be explained as merely ecbatic. The
clause it introduces states not, of course, the whole purpose of God
in giving the law but an important part of it -- an intermediate
object, not the ultimate goal of the divine action." Within certain
dogmatic frameworks the distinction between purpose and result
becomes moot. In other words, if introducing the law resulted in
making sin more obvious (not increasing the quantity of sin), that
result, within some dogmatic frameworks, could be understood as being
also a (not THE) purpose of the law. The syntax and semantics of the
hINA clause can only function to limit the exegitical choices, it
cannot resolve all the theological issues.
Elizabeth Kline
On May 5, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> Since I don't have a copy of his book, I cannot comment on his
> arguments, but it seems to me that
> Caragounis may be objecting to the traditional interpretation of
> hINA in these verses as a marker of
> purpose. If so, I would agree, since the contexts in my view
> prohibit the sense of purpose. It
> cannot be the case that God gave the law in order to increase sinning.
>
> On the other hand, I can see no justification to ascribe a causal
> sense to hINA. I am not aware of
> any contexts where hINA could mean "because". Nor does L&N or BAGD
> suggest such a
> possibility. The hINAs in Rev 22:14, 16:15, Mark 4:12 indicate
> result rather than cause. 1 Pet 4:6
> could be either purpose or result, but not cause.
>
> hINA must indicate a result relationship in Rom 5:20 and 6:1 as in
> so many other places. It has been
> stated several times on this list that whereas hINA in Classical
> Greek was predominantly, but not
> exclusively, used to indicate purpose, this has changed in
> Hellenistic Greek. In the NT, hINA is
> used either for purpose or result, and only the context will
> (sometimes) tell you which is intended.
> (hINA has other usages, too.) Many English translations of the NT
> are misleading because they assume
> the Classical usage rather than the Hellenistic one.
> Douglas Moo prefers the purpose interpretation, but acknowledges in
> a footnote that "This clause is
> occasionally taken to indicate result (BDR 391[11]; Chrysostom;
> Stuart; Lenski; Black)."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list