[B-Greek] purpose hina vs. result hina?

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 13:49:16 EDT 2009


I would say that it is primarily context by which one judges purpose hina vs. result hina. If you think result fits better, go for it! I would say that purpose is more usual, and so all things being equal should be favored. But the least indication from context can warrant opting for result. One further note: purpose and result can both be in view, as BDAG points out. But that should be judged from context as well. Also, are you aware of the somewhat recent discussions of the doctoral work of  Margaret Gavin Sim, "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle hina in Koine Greek"? The dissertation is available on the internet. I believe she is also on B-Greek now as well. Maybe she will respond to your query too.

God bless,

Brian Abasciano


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [B-Greek] purpose hina vs. result hina?
To: b-greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <418329.20632.qm at web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

How does one know when to translate hINA as purpose versus results, and/or what leeway 
does one have to pick and choose between them? In looking at the Lexham Clausal 
Outlines of the New Testament (Logos Bible Software) for Romans 5-8, there were a 
number of places where Dean P. Deppe (the author/editor of the Lexham Outlines) 
indicated that it was a result hINA. I?looked at BDAG and Wallace, but it seems to me 
that at times it could go either way. Most translations I'm familiar with seem to translate it 
as purpose, but translating it as result, or as kind of a middling "that" (i.e., leaving it vague 
whether it's purpose or result) can definitely change the meaning of some significant 
passages in this section of Romans (in positive ways, IMO), and likely elsewhere as well.
Eric S. Weiss 

More information about the B-Greek mailing list