At the expense of the context, as I've already explained. I hope you seriously reconsider why you are pushing your opinions on "ινα" so strongly, because if we disregard context, we can always argue for anything we like and find excuses for everything that doesn't quite fit. No doubt, the context has to be interpreted, so again you are free to disregard everyone's interpretation except those whom you agree with.moon jung wrote: But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general, my rendering can be obtained.
You can choose whatever you like, but I feel that you are just trying to get someone to agree with you, and at the same time you seem to also let your opinions drive your linguistic claims. For example, you keep trying to use what others say in order to prove your original claims, and you press people in that direction as far as you can. Thus I urge you to instead start learning Greek simply as a language rather than as a tool to be wielded. And it would be good for you to be aware of confirmation bias. No one is immune to it, so the best we can do is to provide objective evidence. For a natural language, it seems that only statistical evidence (with a sufficiently large sample size) is objective enough, as other types of evidence all turn upon interpretation, hence the multitude of opinions based on them. You will have to decide for yourself what you consider as sufficient evidence, but don't expect me to agree with you if you do not provide corpus-based evidence but only your opinions concerning solitary instances. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 13th, 2014, 10:47 pmmoon jung wrote: My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim's dissertation: [...]
David, thanks for all the detailed clarifications about the notion of "purposed result". Under your undertanding of the ἱνα + subjunctive, I think the following equation can be stated by John 17:3 as in John 15:12. ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν..... The "content clause" ἱνα γινωσκωσιν..... states the desirable state of affairs intended by the speaker, not an actual state of affairs. This desirable state of affairs ( = desirable result intended by the speaker) is equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη by John 17:3. The following rendering is made inevitable only when we take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν.....to be sort of an instruction: To obtain the eternal life, they should know .... But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general, my rendering can be obtained. The difference from John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. seems to be that in this case, it is very hard to find an appropriate English translation. In English, we do not seem to have an auxiliary verb indicating the simple "desirable state of affairs" without connotation of obligation or instruction. My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim's dissertation:
Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 13th, 2014, 2:31 amI claim that ἱνα clause does ‘denote content’ but that the function of the particle is to alert the reader to expect that content and to read it as indicating speaker or subject attitude.
If the grammatical structure has missing elements, they would be supplied by the context. Because of this, there may be cases where substituting an "ινα" clause with an infinitive may result in a different implied meaning, since infinitives have other uses. But I don't have examples of this at hand and it's not really important. I only mentioned it so that you don't assume that you can simply substitute one for the other everywhere.moon jung wrote: But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"?
Yes it is. We have the same situation in English, where infinitives in phrases like "try to do" or "ask him to come" denote a result that is purposed, so I don't really understand why you don't get it.moon jung wrote: Let compare the following two statements of yours: (1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b [b](2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have.
Yes I am indeed. In this case it does indeed express what we should do, which as you say is a desirable state of affairs, but why do you think that that is not an intended result? What one desires is what one intends to have. I consider the connotation of purpose to be inherent to "ινα", and my justification is that it is the simplest explanation. All you need are unambiguous examples of "ινα" where there is simply no connotation of purpose, and I will have to retract my claim.moon jung wrote: The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ). You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result". But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11, this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker. But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction. Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"?
That's perfectly fine, though if you render an "ινα" clause in English, remember that the English infinitive won't work for the cases where the subjects do not match. Also, there are verbs which accept an infinitive as a complement but not an "ινα" clause, such as "μελλειν", simply because it is never used to express a purposed result. This hence provides a little additional evidence for my claim. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 12th, 2014, 12:11 pmmoon jung wrote: It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result".
David, now I think I have understood what you were trying to say. The following two quotes are revealing: (1)
But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"? (2)David wrote:As for whether there is the notion of a "purposed result", perhaps you are reading a little bit too much into my claim, since all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases, except in cases of ellipsis where the infinitive construction, having other grammatical functions, may no longer be interchangeable with the "ινα" clause.Stephen Hughes wrote: Presumably, the need to specify the subject for the infinitive outweighed the need to use the ἵνα (+ subj) construction with it's "purposed result" significance.
Let compare the following two statements of yours: (1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b [b](2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have. The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ). You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result". But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11, this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker. But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction. Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"? It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result". Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 11th, 2014, 2:48 amDavid wrote:I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing, for the reasons I had already given in my earlier posts. The message is not "we love one another", which would be expressed by an "οτι" clause, but "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed. Again, you can see that Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended resultFunk §662 wrote: Like ὅτι (§652), ἵνα may introduce clauses that stand in apposition to some other element in a sentence, usually with a demonstrative pronoun (οὗτος) preceding. (5) in §657 exhibits the same construction but with a purposive nuance. In the following example, this nuance is missing; the ἵνα-clause is merely explanatory. D 1d 2 3n+ (13) ὅτι αὕτη / ἐστιν / ἡ ἀγγελία ... // s ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους 1 Jn 3:11 For this is the message ... namely that we should love one another s modifies 3n+, i.e. stands in apposition to it (indicated by //). Bl-D §394.
Correct. The context makes clear that it is not an equation of identical entities, and in my idiomatic paraphrase I have tried to express the implied meaning (based on a bit of interpretation) as precisely as possible. If you look at my literal rendering, I simply converted the text into English and so you will have to do that bit of interpreting yourself. Indeed in English we often have that kind of statements that on the surface equate two things but require interpretation to obtain the intended meaning, especially in literary writings, for example "Knowledge is power." and "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.". It is simply a literary device and nothing more.moon jung wrote: I think I know why you paraphrased 17:3 as (1). (1) To obtain the eternal life, they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. You take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν as a sort of instruction, which cannot be equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη, which does not have a nuance of instruction. You do not accept the equation ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν. This is reflected in your rhetorical question " is the knowledge itself everlasting life?". This is why you render 17:3 as (1).
Firstly, "εμη" functions as an adjective or a possessive pronoun, so "η εντολη εμη" is grammatically wrong. Secondly, just because "η εντολη η εμη" means "my commandment" does not grammatically mean that "ινα αγαπατε αλληλους καθως ηγαπησα υμας" conveys an instruction, since there is always the possibility of ellipsis or some other literary device. In other words your reasoning is the wrong way round; it is due to the "ινα" clause conveying a purposed result and the semantic meaning of "η εντολη η εμη" that we know that the "ινα" clause conveys the content of "η εντολη η εμη".moon jung wrote: To better understand what you are getting at, let me ask a question. Consider John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. Here we have an equation αὑτη = ἡ εντολη εμη = ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. We are sure that ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους has the nuance of instruction, because of ἡ εντολη εμη.
That is what I did in my literal rendering. Why did you think that the surface structure must correspond to the intended meaning? The context is equally important and will fill in the gaps. So the conclusions you made about what the life or knowledge referred to means are not valid.moon jung wrote: Now consider John 17:3. In terms of surface structure of the sentence, we have the following equation as in John 15:12: αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε..... Suppose that we respect this surface structure.
Context. As I have said a number of times, any idiomatic rendering requires a bit of interpretation, so if you want absolutely zero interpretation then you will have to make do with a literal rendering like mine, which is not how we would normally speak, but which will still be readily understood in its context by any native speaker. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 10th, 2014, 6:37 ammoon jung wrote: In order to get the paraphrase (1) above, you seem to "disregard" the surface structure of John 17:3 which implies αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε...... How would you justify this liberal rendering of the sentence structure?
I did quote her completely enough (in my opinion), in my post at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2608&start=10#p16195. If you read the paragraph that she wrote as I quoted there, and still consider it to be linguistics driving interpretation, then I cannot agree with you but let's not argue okay? In that same post I did give clear reasons why I can easily reject such reasoning that she used. Also, I do not claim that my claims about "ινα" is correct, but they are falsifiable. All you need is a statistically significant number of examples where an "ινα" clause unambiguously does not describe a purposed result. If you cannot produce these counter-examples, I will stick to my claims, because I have looked at hundreds of instances as well as all of Margaret's examples up to page 100. And if my claims hold for every instance, then it is justifiable for me to say that "ινα" has precisely the meaning I claim, which is distinct from hers. And if I have made any theological assumptions, you should point them out, and I will retract them. It was not my intention to be antagonistic towards theological opinions, but merely to point out that I do not support linguistic claims based on them. We all have our own opinions, but it won't do to make claims about a language based on our personal theology. It is better to say "I don't know" rather than "Since it makes more sense for the writer to mean this and that, and therefore this grammatical construction must have this or that function.", because what one person thinks the writer cannot possibly mean could be exactly what another person thinks the writer must mean. To avoid that, the only way is a corpus-based approach.Jonathan Robie wrote:David, I find this really unhelpful. I've been around too many discussions where each person claims that their opinions are based on pure solid linguistic grounds and other people's opinions are based on theological assumptions, and Margaret's own work at least tries to let the language drive her interpretation and not the other way around. If you want to disagree with Margaret, I suggest that you quote her completely enough that it's clear what she says, then explain your own view, focusing on her arguments in detail.David Lim wrote:But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions.
It is a theological assumption. Either the writings were intended to describe future events or they were not. And either they are accurate or they are not. Once you choose one assumption from each pair, you have made theological assumptions. Furthermore, your statement that "Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled" is at variance with the writings themselves as I stated in my earlier post. You will probably have some explanation of the meaning of Matt 26:54-56, among other statements scattered throughout the writings, that nullifies my objection, but every explanation will have to be based on some theological assumptions. Also, whether Judas was thinking of the quoted psalm is irrelevant because the "ινα" clause there simply means that the betrayal transpired in order that the quoted verse would be fulfilled, and does not specify how the betrayal was guaranteed to transpire. In particular it does not mean that Judas himself followed the quoted verse to fulfill it.Jonathan Robie wrote: I don't think that's an accurate summary of what she said. Are you referring to 3.5 Introducing a quotation from the Old Testament?I don't see this as a theological assumption. In most of these quotes, the writers of the Psalms did not think of themselves as writing prophecies to be fulfilled later, and Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled. Judas was probably not thinking of Psalm 41:9 at the time that he betrayed Jesus, that's not why he did it.Margaret Sim wrote:A slightly different type of independent clause introduced by ἵνα, is that of the quotations in the gospel of John where ἵνα introduces either a quotation from the Psalms or a statement reported to have been made earlier by Jesus. !!! SNIP !!! In the case of quotations from the Psalms, the source text was not a prophecy, but a commentary on the psalmist’s situation or a cry to God for help. I claim that current events caused the observers to remember something that had been spoken of earlier. This seems to be a more logical way of viewing such an utterance, than seeing it as a claim of fulfilment. It is difficult to view an event as taking place solely to make something predicted earlier come true, while having no relevance during the lifetime of the original hearers of the prediction, particularly when the earlier writing was not in a prophetic book. Surely what we have here may be the author attributing to Jesus the realisation that in fact the event recalls words spoken earlier. The event does ‘fulfil’ the earlier words, but did not take place in order to fulfil it. !!! SNIP !!! Consider the following example from John 13:18: Example (21)The words quoted come from Psalm 41:9, in which the psalmist bewails the behaviour of a close friend in turning against him. Jesus is presented as recalling that psalm and seeing a fulfilment in his own life with the betrayal of Judas, who even as Jesus spoke was eating with him. Indeed this context is of the fellowship meal with all reclining together as they ate and drank. It is a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it. John may also be presenting Jesus as indicating the appropriateness of fulfilment. Recall that previous examples of the use of ἵνα in this section have shown a representation of what someone believed should be done. This is not the same as indicating that Judas was impelled to act as he did in order to fulfil Psalm 41:9.οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.
I have also given a clear explanation of "ινα" that makes sense. That does not mean that my explanation is correct. Likewise just because her explanation may make sense does not make it correct either. Moreover, having confusing translations is not a reason to change an understanding of a word.Jonathan Robie wrote: Margaret is providing an interpretation of ἵνα that makes sense, given these assumptions. The traditional explanation of ἵνα makes this verse hard to understand in the given context, and has resulted in some rather confusing translations.
I believe (though I may be wrong) that you did not read what I wrote carefully enough, since I've already explained this very example many times. As I have made clear before, I do not claim that the "ινα" clause describes a purpose for what is described in another clause, as it may be a content clause describing a purposed result (and whom it is purposed by depends on the context). Anyway let me answer Moon's question and it should answer to this as well. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 10th, 2014, 3:27 amJonathan Robie wrote: In her thesis, this is what she says about John 6:29:Margaret Sim wrote:Several other examples of nouns which occur in a stative clause and are explicated by ἵνα and the subjunctive use figurative language: βρῶμα, ἔργον, ἡ αἰώνιοϲ ζωή. This also alerts the hearer to expect an utterance which does not reflect a state of affairs in the real world, but an interpretation of such. Consider example (9) below:[...] In terms of traditional grammar it is indeed an epexegetic noun clause, in that it seems to explicate the content of τοῦτο, or ἔργον. Since the context dictates that the clause introduced by ἵνα cannot indicate purpose, grammarians have struggled either to fit in a ‘purpose’ somehow, or to find a label for this use. If we leave on one side the insistence on a telic interpretation of ἵνα, we should be able to view this clause from the perspective of its communicative function. I claim that the reader is being invited to infer the speaker’s thought and attitude from such a use. In many of these examples the ἵνα clause is deontic, marking what the speaker thinks should be done.Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of what she said. Are you referring to 3.5 Introducing a quotation from the Old Testament?David Lim wrote: Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions.
I don't see this as a theological assumption. In most of these quotes, the writers of the Psalms did not think of themselves as writing prophecies to be fulfilled later, and Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled. Judas was probably not thinking of Psalm 41:9 at the time that he betrayed Jesus, that's not why he did it. Margaret is providing an interpretation of ἵνα that makes sense, given these assumptions. The traditional explanation of ἵνα makes this verse hard to understand in the given context, and has resulted in some rather confusing translations. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — July 9th, 2014, 4:01 pmMargaret Sim wrote: A slightly different type of independent clause introduced by ἵνα, is that of the quotations in the gospel of John where ἵνα introduces either a quotation from the Psalms or a statement reported to have been made earlier by Jesus. !!! SNIP !!! In the case of quotations from the Psalms, the source text was not a prophecy, but a commentary on the psalmist’s situation or a cry to God for help. I claim that current events caused the observers to remember something that had been spoken of earlier. This seems to be a more logical way of viewing such an utterance, than seeing it as a claim of fulfilment. It is difficult to view an event as taking place solely to make something predicted earlier come true, while having no relevance during the lifetime of the original hearers of the prediction, particularly when the earlier writing was not in a prophetic book. Surely what we have here may be the author attributing to Jesus the realisation that in fact the event recalls words spoken earlier. The event does ‘fulfil’ the earlier words, but did not take place in order to fulfil it. !!! SNIP !!! Consider the following example from John 13:18: Example (21)The words quoted come from Psalm 41:9, in which the psalmist bewails the behaviour of a close friend in turning against him. Jesus is presented as recalling that psalm and seeing a fulfilment in his own life with the betrayal of Judas, who even as Jesus spoke was eating with him. Indeed this context is of the fellowship meal with all reclining together as they ate and drank. It is a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it. John may also be presenting Jesus as indicating the appropriateness of fulfilment. Recall that previous examples of the use of ἵνα in this section have shown a representation of what someone believed should be done. This is not the same as indicating that Judas was impelled to act as he did in order to fulfil Psalm 41:9.οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.
David, I find this really unhelpful. I've been around too many discussions where each person claims that their opinions are based on pure solid linguistic grounds and other people's opinions are based on theological assumptions, and Margaret's own work at least tries to let the language drive her interpretation and not the other way around. If you want to disagree with Margaret, I suggest that you quote her completely enough that it's clear what she says, then explain your own view, focusing on her arguments in detail. In her thesis, this is what she says about John 6:29:David Lim wrote: But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — July 8th, 2014, 9:57 amMargaret Sim wrote: Several other examples of nouns which occur in a stative clause and are explicated by ἵνα and the subjunctive use figurative language: βρῶμα, ἔργον, ἡ αἰώνιοϲ ζωή. This also alerts the hearer to expect an utterance which does not reflect a state of affairs in the real world, but an interpretation of such. Consider example (9) below:This is the work of God: that you should believe in the one whom he sent. In this example, a stative clause, with an initial demonstrative pronoun, is followed by a clause introduced by ἵνα, the latter explicating ‘the work of God.’ By using ἵνα with the subjunctive, however, rather than the accusative and infinitive, which as we have seen would have been usual in earlier Greek, the writer is able to mark the person being addressed: ‘you’. An infinitive construction could not do this as transparently. The ‘subject’ of the infinitive is usually in the accusative case, which would be awkward in this sentence. The infinitive alone : ‘this is the will of God, to believe….’ states a fact rather than introducing a desirable state of affairs, or what the speaker believes should happen. The use of ἵνα may also invite the reader to infer the attitude of the speaker:Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.This clause, and other similar ones, has been considered to be ‘epexegetic’, a reasonable description which ‘fits’ in this context, as in other Johannine examples. In terms of traditional grammar it is indeed an epexegetic noun clause, in that it seems to explicate the content of τοῦτο, or ἔργον. Since the context dictates that the clause introduced by ἵνα cannot indicate purpose, grammarians have struggled either to fit in a ‘purpose’ somehow, or to find a label for this use. If we leave on one side the insistence on a telic interpretation of ἵνα, we should be able to view this clause from the perspective of its communicative function. I claim that the reader is being invited to infer the speaker’s thought and attitude from such a use. In many of these examples the ἵνα clause is deontic, marking what the speaker thinks should be done.You should believe on the one whom he sent
David, thanks for your further comments. I think I know why you paraphrased 17:3 as (1). (1) To obtain the eternal life, they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. You take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν as a sort of instruction, which cannot be equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη, which does not have a nuance of instruction. You do not accept the equation ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν. This is reflected in your rhetorical question " is the knowledge itself everlasting life?". This is why you render 17:3 as (1). To better understand what you are getting at, let me ask a question. Consider John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. Here we have an equation αὑτη = ἡ εντολη εμη = ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. We are sure that ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους has the nuance of instruction, because of ἡ εντολη εμη. In this case, we can render the verse as: This is my commandment: that you are to love each other. Now consider John 17:3. In terms of surface structure of the sentence, we have the following equation as in John 15:12: αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε..... Suppose that we respect this surface structure. Then, ἡ αιωνιος ζωη does not have a nuance of instruction. So ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε. does not have a sense of instruction, although, following M. Sim, it may be taken to represent a "desirable state of affairs of people" intended by the speaker ( (in this case, Jesus). So, we can draw the conclusion that the knowledge [ of knowing God and him He sent] IS everlasting life. I think that here "γινωσκωσιν σε" is not just intellectual but experiential knowledge. It is the desirable state of affairs of poeple intended by Jesus, not "knowledge itself". My question is: In order to get the paraphrase (1) above, you seem to "disregard" the surface structure of John 17:3 which implies αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε...... How would you justify this liberal rendering of the sentence structure? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 7th, 2014, 11:19 pm
David Lim wrote: [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
Haha! But I don't think my literal version is ambiguous, because I used "that you are to trust ..." instead of "that you trust ...", precisely to give the connotation that it is an instruction to be followed. Of course some people might say that my rendering could be taken as "that you are going to trust ..." but that would be clearly ruled out based on the context. In my opinion, a literal rendering is good when the context is known, but something may need to be added in order to express the same content if the audience does not know the context, which is why in my idiomatic rendering I added "to do ...". For a literal rendering on the other hand, I would in almost all cases render a genitive that functions adjectivally using "of" or the possessive for pronouns, since the English "of" has pretty much the same grammatical and semantic range, and leave it to the reader to infer its meaning in each particular context.cwconrad wrote:David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.David Lim wrote:I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation".Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
Yes; despite me not knowing any Latin, the English examples you give indeed show the distinction in grammatical functions.cwconrad wrote:Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses. I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing.David Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
Thanks for telling me what you think about my explanations! But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions.cwconrad wrote: I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action. I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive.
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 7th, 2014, 9:34 am
David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.David Lim wrote:I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation".cwconrad wrote:David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses. I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing. I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action. I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — July 7th, 2014, 4:27 amDavid Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
This is a downright false claim. I do not have any emotional attachment to any theology, unlike you. It is you who need to evaluate yourself and your claims about others. You have totally misrepresented what I said in my earlier post and I am not going to bother to defend it. Read what I said again and take what you want, and go and learn Greek. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 7th, 2014, 1:11 ammoon jung wrote: I guess you would not try to avoid such implications, if the clauses were ὁτι clauses. But I would like to show that the meaning you wanted to avoid is actually what is meant by the verses.
(1) In [John 6:29], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "you" In [John 17:3], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "they" "you" are supposed to bring the state of "trusting in [him] God sent" / "your" purpose is to bring .the state of "trusting in [him] God sent". "they" are supposed to bring the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus" / "their" purpose is to bring the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus". But, this ingenious undertaking does not seem necessary. "you are to trust in [him]" and "they are to know you" do not describe actual state of affairs, but potential states of affairs, which "you" and "they" are supposed to obtain. These potential states of affairs are simply desriable states of affairs [ which are therefore described by subjunctive clauses], but we do not need to suppose that they are intended by someone. You seem to accept the claim of Funk's book that in these cases, ἱνα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses. The infinitive clauses often represent purposes and results, but they can be used simply to describe potential states of affairs, without any notion of purpose or result. Are you saying that ινα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses, only when the latter represent purpose or result? (2)David worte: I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
I guess you would not try to avoid such implications, if the clauses were ὁτι clauses. But I would like to show that the meaning you wanted to avoid is actually what is meant by the verses. [17:3] ; The context is: [17:1b-2]: Glorify you son that the son may glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh that all you gave him, he may give them eternal life (expression without the article). [17:3] αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωωνιος ζωη ( expression with the article) ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθισνον Θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν Χριστον. 17:3 is special in two respects. The connective δε is known as the marker of discontinuity. Here, 17:3 is an off-line statement about what is the eternal life, which was mentioned in the previous sentence. It is not clear whether the writer (John) or Jesus added it. Anyway, it intends to modify the notion of eternal life which might have been entertained by the audience. THIS, not others, is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and him you sent, Jesus Christ. 17:3 is an example of sentences with argument focus, one of three sentence types [ the other two types are "topic-comment/focus" sentence and "sentence-focus" sentence (also called presentational / event-reporting sentence ]. This argument-focus sentence presupposes that the audience entertains "X is the eternal life" with their own ideas for X, or wonders what the X would be. In summary, by using the connective δε and the argument-focus sentence, 17:3 asserts what the eternal life is, not what the audience is to do in order to obtain the eternal life as in your rendering. [John 6:29] : The context for this verse is set up in 6:27-28. 6:27 [literal translation]: Do not work for the food that is passing away, but for the food that remains unto eternal life which the son of man will give you. 6:28: Then, they said to him: what shall we do, that we might work the work of God? 6:29: Jesus answered: This is the work of God, that you are to believe in [him] whom He sent. In this context, "working the work of God" refers to "working for the food that remains unto eternal life". Here "work of God" does not refer to "God's own work", [although you seems to think so]. 6:29 is also an example of "argument-focus" sentence, where the presuppositional open proposition is "X is the work of God"; The audience's idea for X is mistaken and Jesus correts it: Believing in him whom God sent is working for the food that remains unto eternal life. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 6th, 2014, 12:01 amClearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings.
I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation".cwconrad wrote:David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous:
[John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth.
[John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus.
My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
Yes indeed. But doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y". Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 5th, 2014, 4:01 amcwconrad wrote: [...] Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II: 1n+2s (11)ἐμὸν βρῶμά /ἐστιν /ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός μεJn 4:34 My food is to do the will of the one sending me Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate: My food is that I do the will of the one sending me The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
David, could you explain how you derived the above paraphrases? I guess that you made them because you believe that ἱνα ALWAYS implies an underlying notion of "purposed result", But I cannot see the connection. Let me give my reasoning. In John 17:2, it says: even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. (John 17:2, NAS). The next verse gives an off-line comment as to what the "eternal life" is. It is indicated by the use of particle δε. About the meaning of particles, I find that the book by Stephanie Black "Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew" is a "scientific" work based on modern corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. About δε, I find the following statement (p.159) is useful for our case: [ Commenting on the strong tendency for δε not be appear with V(S) sentences (V = Verb, S =Subject)]David wrote: [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
From this description of the usage of δε, I infer that verse 17:3 intends to modify the notion of eternal life that the audience might have entertained, by saying THIS is the eternal life, THAT you know the God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — July 3rd, 2014, 2:22 pmMaking an explicit subject thematic brings the need to modify the mental representation currently in operation more overtly to the audience's attention. δε appears as the sentence conjunction in nearly 80% of the sentences in Mathew's narrative framework with a thematized subject, serving as a procedural signal reinforcing that the grammaticalized subject which is being processed is indeed to some degree discontinuous with discourse immediately previous.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life. These ἵνα-clauses come close to being infinitives (later Greek νά + subj.).David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.moon wrote:There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English?
For what it's worth:David Lim wrote: Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would.
Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;Wikipedia wrote: A final clause in linguistics is a dependent adverbial clause expressing purpose. For this reason it is also referred to as a purposive clause or a clause of purpose.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — July 3rd, 2014, 5:59 am660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II: 1n+2s (11)ἐμὸν βρῶμά /ἐστιν /ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός μεJn 4:34 My food is to do the will of the one sending me Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate: My food is that I do the will of the one sending me The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth. Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 3rd, 2014, 12:16 ammoon wrote: There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English?
There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — July 2nd, 2014, 3:52 am