Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

John 9:3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Since the theology is important to the hermeneutic applied in reading it, we can go ahead with theology at this point.
    Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    The phrase itself is an elision of one sort or another. Either you must supply an understood reference to what precedes, ie, “This happened so that the works of God might be revealed,” or you must supply an implied, “My prayer, hope, wish, or intention is that...,” so as to turn the hina clause into a mild implied command. The Greek wording is a kind of shorthand. It’s expected that the reader will fill in the blanks. The grammar won’t definitively settle the matter, although I think the wording and grammar, without any theological biases, favors the first option; hina as a command is very rare. The only examples in the New Testament are Mark 5:23, which I explained could also be read as an implied “she entreated him, so that he would lay his hands on her daughter.” And possibly Ephesians 5:33. But each one of you, let him love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife, that she might respect her husband.” That last line could be a third-person command, “Let each wife respect her husband.” But I think it reads more naturally that the elision is “And the same thing applies to the wife; let each wife love her husband as herself,... so that (or with the result that) she will respect her husband.”
    So there is no clear-cut example of an imperitival hina in the New Testament.


    On the other hand, John’s gospel is full of elisions where the hina implies, “This happened so that...” or “This fulfills the purpose that...” For example,
    12:7 Leave her alone. (This fulfills the purpose) that she would save the perfume for my burial.
    12:38 (This fulfills the purpose) that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled
    13:18 (This happened) so that the scriptures might be fulfilled.
    14:31 (All that is going to happen will fulfill the purpose) that the world might know that I love the Father.
    15:25 (This happened) that the word of the law might be fulfilled.
    18:9 (This happened) that the words he had spoken might be fulfilled
    18:32 (This happened) that Jesus’ word might be fulfilled


    This is your thread, so I won’t address any more theology. But from a grammatical perspective, I think the command hina is not impossible but is unlikely in 9:3.
    Ok, I see what you mean. However, Margaret G. Sim (who is a linguist and biblical scholar who lectured for many years in Biblical Studies and Translation at Africa International University. She now works as a translation consultant for Wycliffe Bible Translators.) Has a different take on it. In her book "Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek" Margaret Sim says this:


    [Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek - Margaret G. Sim Page 3]: The question raised in the book is: what inference does the use of "ἵνα" with the subjunctive invite the reader to draw in her interpretation of the clause it introduces and it's relationship to the rest of the sentence? This question arises because it seems to be a general assumption, based on an earlier stage of the language, that the meaning, or dictionary entry for "ἵνα" is: 'in order that'. A study of the NT texts alone, however, shows that for Luke and John this is true for only 40% and 62% of such uses respectively. The remaining instances show a wide range of clause types, in terms of traditional grammar, as noted above, together with contexts in which the telic interpretation of this particle is simply impossible.
    Consider the following example (1) from 1 John 1:9:
    Example (1) 9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος , ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ αθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. if we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just that he should forgive our sins and cleanse us from all wrongdoing.
    The content of the clause introduced by "ἵνα" "...that he should forgive our sins..." cannot be the purpose of the righteous and faithful nature of God. It is rather the reverse: the author is claiming that the faithfulness and righteous nature of God is the basis on which such forgivness might be predicted.


    In this book, Margaret Sim has argued that we should be careful in always associating hina clauses with purpose statements. By her count, only 40% of hina clauses in Luke and 62% in John indicate purpose. So, she suggests that we begin to rethink the usage of this particle –
    "...not as a container of semantic content, but as a particle that functions to represent what the speaker thinks or expects. Thus, hina can (and does) regularly function to indicate purpose, but it also (not infrequently) indicates commands or wishes."

    I think you are already acknowledging this statement...yes?

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-06-2018, 02:11 PM.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      I don't think any of the renderings necessarily imply that God made him blind from birth, but that God allowed him to be born blind (effects of the Fall) that a greater good (the blind man's testimony of being healed) would result. I don't see this as any different than God not removing Paul's thorn in the flesh that his strength might be made perfect in weakness.

      Does that help?
      Actually, this is the same "Augustinian Blueprint" theology I'm attempting to refute. Is the EO somewhat deterministic in it's theology?
      Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-06-2018, 02:20 PM.
      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
        Actually, this is the same "Augustinian Blueprint" theology I'm attempting to refute. Is the EO somewhat deterministic in it's theology?
        How is that deterministic? In my understanding, determinism is God dictating what will happen; God allowing what would happen without intervention would appear to be the antithesis of determinism. The EO is not at all deterministic in its theology; free will is emphasized.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #19
          Margaret Sim seems to be only disagreeing with some who say that hina is always telic/purpose, whereas it is often result oriented. I have been in agreement, as I have offered both purpose and result options (see my comment on Ephesians 5: "so that (or with the result that) she will respect her husband.”
          Whenever a purpose looks to the future, it is hard to fully differentiate purpose (what is supposed to happen) from desire (what I'd like to happen) from command (what I want or expect someone to make happen). But the cases where it actually crosses over into an actual command is rare.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            How is that deterministic? In my understanding, determinism is God dictating what will happen; God allowing what would happen without intervention would appear to be the antithesis of determinism. The EO is not at all deterministic in its theology; free will is emphasized.
            Well...that's what I thought...

            I'm still in the process of forming this argument...so bear with me.

            How is it NOT deterministic whether God actively wills something or passively wills something? God knowing it was going to happen and allowing it is the very essence of "the Problem with evil" argument.
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              Well...that's what I thought...

              I'm still in the process of forming this argument...so bear with me.

              How is it NOT deterministic whether God actively wills something or passively wills something? God knowing it was going to happen and allowing it is the very essence of "the Problem with evil" argument.
              I don't see open theism as a legitimate way around it, so I suspect I'm not going to be able to help you further. I had forgotten you espoused open theism, which regards even Arminianism as deterministic.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                I don't see open theism as a legitimate way around it, so I suspect I'm not going to be able to help you further. I had forgotten you espoused open theism, which regards even Arminianism as deterministic.
                Yeah...and most of the people in my church would fall into the spectrum of Arminianism. The more I study it, I find it increasingly difficult to answer the problem of Evil adequately with OUT Open Theism. So, I have to word it carefully to not stray (at least to far) into O.T. Ascribing evil acts to anyone other than evil humans or evil demonic forces implicates God at least as an accessory IMO.
                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                  I'm preparing a month long study for a class. I have a question about this verse. One of the authors of my resource material contends that the original Greek reads differently. He asserts that Jesus does not say ..."he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him." that the translators insert that for clarification.
                  He is right. Here's the Greek:

                  ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.
                  But since this verse does not exist in a vacuum and builds up on the question to which Jesus was responding , namely as to why the man was born blind ("who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind ?") it makes common sense to argue that Jesus was answering their question and saying "He was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him", with the words in bold taken to be implied in Jesus's response.



                  He contends the passage if translated literally would be more akin to"...let the works of God be revealed in him." Can anyone here confirm or deny his assertion? I greatly respect this author, but I just do not have the ability to confirm or deny.

                  thanks!
                  No, there is no imperative here, for starters. The verse literally translated would be as follows --

                  "Answered Jesus, Neither he sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X