Larry's original post:
At 12:00 PM -0500 9/2/97, lakr wrote:
>Dear b-Greekers,
>
>I'm trying get a feel for the Greek of John 17:4, and I'm a bit
>stumped with the 'INA POIHSW'. My copy of Porter's Idioms calls this
>a 'content clause'.
>
> Joh 17:4 EGW SE EDOCASA EPI THS GHS
> TO ERGON TELEIWSAS O DEDWKAS MOI INA POIHSW
>
>The other place I see this used is John 4:34. I have conditioned myself,
>probably in error, to always look for a meaning when I see a subjunctive
>that relates to 'might', something that has not happened, etc.
I still doubt whether contingency is enough to explain the subjunctive here
and I rather think that hINA POIHSW is NOT really a purpose clause but
rather, as I suggested before, a substantival clause. 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."
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/