Well, you now have the listing of ἵνα μή clauses in the GNT. I'm not sure what you're indicating in your comment. I think that "lest" is more or less archaic English: although I grew up with it, practically the only place I ever saw it was in grammar explanations of Latin ne or Greek ἵνα μή clauses. Certainly the ἵνα μή clauses are subordinate to a main verb, as here where the main verb is αἴρει in αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν. We could raise the question whether the ἵνα μή indicates purpose or result, since ἵνα + subj. is being used in the Koine that way: "The devil makes them forget the word so that ..." or "The devil comes along and makes them forget, the result being that they ... " Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 3rd, 2016, 9:22 amWes Wood wrote: Thank you for your reply. Is it safe to say that ἵνα μὴ only negates a main verb? I cannot think of a time when I have heard/seen 'lest' where it did not link to a main verb. What I am not sure of is whether Greek works the same way. I am trying to determine what a good English equivalent for this phrase would be, if such a thing exists. Also, I cannot find a parallel usage except for the one listed in LSJ. The words used appear to be too common for a Perseus search. If anyone would be willing to provide some examples of this phrase being used in other passages (Koine or otherwise), I would greatly appreciate it.
Don't know whether you done an NT search on this yet, Wes, but there's 87 passages where ινα μη occurs: Matthew 7:1; 12:16; 24:20; 26:5; 26:41; Mark 3:9; 3:12; 5:10; 13:18; 14:38; Luke 8:12; 8:31; 9:45; 16:28; 18:5; 22:32; 22:46; John 3:20; 4:15; 5:14; 6:12; 7:23; 12:35; 12:40; 12:42; 16:1; 18:28; 18:36; 19:31; Acts 2:25; 4:17; Romans 11:25; 15:20; 1 Corinthians 1:15; 1:17; 4:6; 7:5; 8:13; 9:12; 11:32; 11:34; 12:25; 16:2; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2:3; 2:5; 2:11; 6:3; 9:3; 9:4; 10:9; 12:7; Galatians 5:17; Ephesians 2:9; Philippians 2:27; Colossians 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 1 Timothy 3:6; 3:7; 6:1; Titus 2:5; 3:14; Philemon 14; 19; Hebrews 3:13; 4:11; 6:12; 11:28; 11:40; 12:3; 12:13; James 5:9; 5:12; 2 Peter 3:17; 1 John 2:1; 2 John 8; Revelation 7:1; 9:4; 9:5; 9:20; 11:6; 13:17; 16:15; 18:4; 20:3. Usually translated as "lest" in 1 Cor 1:15, 17; 4:6; 7:5; 11:34; 1 Tim 3:6; 6:1; and Phile 19; the rest of the time "in order that ... not" or "so that ... not" is the common understanding. Interestingly, only appears 88 times in the LXX: Genesis 3:3; 11:7; 14:23; 19:15; 24:3; 44:34; 45:11; 47:19; Exodus 20:20; 23:29; 23:33; 28:28; 28:31; 28:39; 30:21; 33:3; 36:29; Leviticus 8:35; 10:6; 10:7; 18:28; 22:9; Numbers 4:15; 11:15; 18:32; Deuteronomy 4:21; 7:22; 17:20; 19:6; 20:8; 20:18; 21:8; 22:9; 29:19; 32:27; Joshua 20:9; 22:24; 22:25; 23:6; 2 Kingdoms 2:22; 12:28; 15:14; 1 Chronicles 21:3; 2 Chronicles 18:15; Esdras B 17:65; Job 9:3; 21:2; 32:13; 34:37; Psalm 9:39; 15:8; 16:5; 68:15; 77:8; Proverbs 3:26; 5:9; 5:10; 9:8; 20:16; 25:8; 26:4; 26:5; 24:29; 24:32; 24:73; Ecclesiastes 5:5; 7:15; 7:18; Isaiah 14:21; 26:10; 33:15; 38:17; 40:20; 48:9; Jeremiah 10:24; 45:10; Ezekiel 14:11; 37:23; Daniel 1:8; 1:10; 3:95; Proverbs 25:10a; Daniel 6:12a. Usually translated as "lest" when the underlying Hebrew is פן, and as "in order/so that ... not" when the underlying Hebrew is אשֶר לא. Statistics: Posted by S Walch — December 3rd, 2016, 3:02 am
Thank you for your reply. Is it safe to say that ἵνα μὴ only negates a main verb? I cannot think of a time when I have heard/seen 'lest' where it did not link to a main verb. What I am not sure of is whether Greek works the same way. I am trying to determine what a good English equivalent for this phrase would be, if such a thing exists. Also, I cannot find a parallel usage except for the one listed in LSJ. The words used appear to be too common for a Perseus search. If anyone would be willing to provide some examples of this phrase being used in other passages (Koine or otherwise), I would greatly appreciate it. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — December 2nd, 2016, 11:55 am
I'd say that ἵνα μή governs the subjunctive verb σωθῶσιν only., but I think what you're getting at is this: ἀκούσαντες is an essential element in the sequential process "believe and be saved." That being the case, πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν = πιστεύσωσιν και σωθῶσιν. I guess that amounts to saying that the ἵνα μὴ does indeed govern the whole phrase πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν. It's just that phrasing it that way is not quite right. Both the idiomatic function of the aorist participle to indicate prior action comes into play to complement the subjunctive function of σωθῶσιν with ἵνα μή. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 1st, 2016, 2:04 pmWes Wood wrote:My question is this: does the phrase ἵνα μὴ act as a single unit meaning something like 'lest' or must μὴ be read with πιστεύσαντες and/or σωθῶσιν?οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν.
My question is this: does the phrase ἵνα μὴ act as a single unit meaning something like 'lest' or must μὴ be read with πιστεύσαντες and/or σωθῶσιν? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — December 1st, 2016, 11:42 amοἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν.