In my last responss to the thread initiated by Larry Kruper, I said:
> ... It seems to me that
>hINA + subjunctive is introduced initially to students of NT Greek in its
>classical Attic function, the purpose clause, and not enough is done to
>clarify how extensively the function of the hINA + subjunctive clause has
>spread out into a variety of other functions, not the least of which is to
>become a substantive clause (much like the so-called "jussive noun clauses
>in latin with UT + subjunctive); in many an instance the hINA clause is a
>virtual equivalent to an infinite--as here: where the easiest way to
>translate hINA POIHSW is "to do." While it may be possible to discern how
>the purpose clause played a role in the transition of the hINA +
>subjunctive construction here to a substantive clause, that is almost
>impossible in the other construction to which Larry called attention in
>John 4:34: EMON BRWMA ESTIN hINA POIHSW TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS ME KAI
>TELEIWSW AUTOU TO ERGON. Here there's not even a remote hint of purpose:
>"My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to complete his
>work." hINA POIHSW and (hINA) TELEIWSW here are nothing but noun clauses
>functioning as predicate nouns to EMON BRWMA.
>
>Then what is hINA POIHSW in John 17:4 if we understand it as a noun clause?
>I've just looked at Dan Wallace's book (pp. 471-477) and I find that his
>treatment of hINA + subjunctive clauses is laid out rather nicely and
>recognizes a broad variety of functions as a noun clause. He never does
>refer to our verse, but he DOES treat John 4:34 as a predicate nominative,
>and it appears to me that one could fit the usage of hINA POIHSW in 17:4
>into either of his categories on p. 476: (5) "epexegetical" (with TO
>ERGON), or (6) "complementary" (with DEDWKAS). Isn't it fascinating that
>these two categories are ones that we regularly assign to the infinitive?
>
>Whether or not Wallace's treatment of hINA + subjunctive is altogether
>adequate is another question, but I'd have to say that it surely appears to
>me to represent the facts of NT usage of this kind of clause far better
>than the all-too-readily-ascribed rubric of "purpose."
I think that this hINA clause also (1Jn 1:9 hINA AFHi ... KAI KAQARISHi
...) is a noun or substantive clause like those I've discussed previously.
And I think that Robertson is right to call this a "result" or
"consecutive" clause. And furthermore, as I noted above, I think that Dan
Wallace treats these hINA substantive clauses nicely. In his terms on p.
476, I'd call this clause "epexegetical" and I'd translate it, as I've
suggested previously as the easiest idiomatic English for many of these
hINA substantive clauses, with an infinitive in English; the clause does,
in fact, function exactly as would an epexegetical infinitive with an
adjective, and so here with PISTOS KAI DIKAIOS.
I've read the only prior response to Paul Zellmer's question, and in it
Paul Dixon argues convincingly in terms of the structure and context of the
passage--if it really needs arguing, and if there's any question about it,
I guess it does need arguing--that the hINA clause is functioning here to
show result.
Now let's return to Paul Zellmer's practical question of translation:
>We are trying to come up with a way to express this verse in the Ibanag
>language, but we have two different options: one which follows the
>general understanding of the English reader, and one which would state
>roughly, "He is faithful and just in order that he forgives our sins
>and cleanses us..." I hesitate to go to far afield from the
>traditional translation, but we also need to know what the Greek is
>doing here so we can make an intelligent decision.
I would suggest that, since we agree (Robertson, Paul Dixon, and I!) that
this is a consecutive or epexegetic (Wallace) clause, the least violence
you could do to the Greek in converting its structural pattern would be to
translate the hINA as we do the UT in the comparable Latin construction, as
"so that" rather than "in order that." It then becomes "He is faithful and
just so that he forgives our sins and cleanses us..." The epexegetic
infinitive would be far less clumsy, and if you have something like the
infinitive to express result in Ibanag, I'd guess that would work too; but
if you use a "so that" equivalent, the meaning of the Greek clause should
come through intelligibly.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/