[B-Greek] INA + Subjunctive Substantival Clause?
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Jun 13 05:41:31 EDT 2009
On Jun 13, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Timothy Mitchell wrote:
> If any one could help clear this up for me, that would be great.
> I have been looking at Philippians 1:9-11 a lot recently and have
> been trying to figure out the IVA + Subjunctive clauses. First, here
> is the passage.
> 9 Καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη
> ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον
> περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ
> 10 εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ
> διαφέροντα, ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς
> καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ,
> 11 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης
> τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς δόξαν
> καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ.
> 9 KAI TOUTO PROSEUCOMAI IVA H AGAPH UMWN ETI MALLON KAI MALLOV
> PERISSEUHi EV EPIGNWSEI KAI PASHi AISFHSEI
> 10 EIS TO DOKIMAZEIV UMAS TA DIAFERONTA IVA HTE EILIKRIVEIS KAI
> APROSKOPOI EIS HMERAN XRISTOU
> 11 PEPLHRWMEVOI KARPON DIKAISUNHS TON DIA IHSOU XRISTOU EIS DOXAN
> KAI EPAINON QEOU
> I am not confused at the use of TOUTO (τοῦτο) in 1:9, I see it
> as the direct object of the verb PROSEUCOMAI
> (προσεύχομαι). But I am confused at the IVA + Subjunctive
> PERISSEUHi (περισσεύῃ) in 1:9. I am taking it as a
> substantival direct object of PROSEUCOMAI (προσεύχομαι),
> am I right on this?
> Concerning the second IVA + Subjunctive in 1:10, IVA HTE (ἵνα
> ἦτε), is it the "purpose" clause of HTE (ἦτε), or is it also
> another substantival direct object clause of PROSEUCOMAI
I would read both instances of hINA as you have, i.e. the first one
(1:9) as substantival (one might even call it appositional to TOUTO),
the second (1:10) as indicating purpose.
Another way of looking at hINA-clauses has been suggested by Margaret
Sim, whose dissertation, "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the
particle hINA in Koine Greek," has been discussed this last February
(beginning with (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2009-February/048416.html
). She has written, "I argue that the particle hINA was used to give
procedural instructions to the reader or hearer, rather than to
indicate the logical relation of the clause it introduces to the
rest of the sentence. In Koine it no longer had a fixed lexical
meaning, perhaps it never did have, but was always used to give
procedural instructions regarding the following clause, which in
earlier Greek was invariably telic." As she is now a member of the
list, she may want to comment directly on your question.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek