No, it's not like that at all. You set forth the proposition without providing evidence that hina + subjunctive is used substantively many times. I took your claim seriously and looked on line for some argument that would support your claim, to see how robust the argument for it is. I found an article that seemed to be giving a clear list of hina + subjunctive clauses that the author claimed were devoid of any sense of intentioned or expected result. I looked through the verses he cited and saw that, as far as I could see, not one of them was devoid of a sense intentioned or expected result. I impartially took the first four of his examples, and presented my argument to you as to why his claims regarding the first four of his examples we unproven assertions, since I could show how the hina + subjunctive clauses did include a sense of intended or expected results. If the first four of his examples do not support his claim, it is reasonable for me to assert that the author's thesis is false and that I found none of his examples proved his point. Rather than me going through every verse in his list and critiquing them all one by one to show they re all false, I can justly now place the burden on those agreeing with him to cite one or more of the verses in his list that do prove his point. If no one can, then his claim that there are apporx. 10% of hina + subjunctive clauses that are purely substantive should not be taken seriously.
I explained why his first four proof texts failed to make his case. Instead of engaging with my reasoning, you simply argued that this expert and that expert and this resource says that such clauses can be devoid of any sense of intended or expected result, and on that basis alone, without even engaging with my arguments to the contrary, you believe you have established your claim. That is the very essence of the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority".
I would be interested to see some actual reasoned argument against my conclusions that I draw from my own study of the biblical texts. What I see in scripture is not going to change simply because authority A, B an or C disagrees with what I see, At the start of his easy, Greenlee admits that the view he is defending is a relatively recently posited opinion, is not one that what was historically the case, and other experts did not hold to his view. So, clearly, cherry picking experts that agree with his and your view, and accepting the thesis purely on the basis of their being experts and holding the view, without proving their view, is "an appeal to authority."
Maybe, at some point, you will find time to cite even one, two or three verses in which those hina + subjunctive clauses are completely devoid of any sense of intended or expected result.
Grace and peace.
From what I've seen, there is nothing I can cite that you will accept even though I and others see the construction in the verses we've discussed and in other places. Once someone becomes the [only] authority, that one can make anything into anything and claim everyone else is wrong. This seems to be the case here so far.
IOW, you see my translation and interpretive work as being not as authoritative as your work. And you see the work of 4 others I cited as not being as authoritative as your work. I'll add another source hereinbelow. As yet, it seems we've found no one who is as authoritative as you. And to make certain we see you as authoritative, it seems we're in a logical fallacy if we don't.
I'm trying to be respectful here. These are just the facts as I see them.
I'm truly not opposed to taking a position against the crowd, but in this case I agree with the crowd and don't see your authority or agree with your work. So far, you've shown no one who agrees with your work, not even the in the article you presented.
It seems you're versed enough to know that there can be a fine line in this type of analysis. I simply think you're just on the wrong side of the fine line here. IOW, to me this is not some extreme disagreement. Some observations:
- You are having to carry the verb over from 17:2 and insert it in 17:3 to make purpose work.
- It would have been very easy for John to continue the string of didōmi into 17:3 or even infer it more clearly, but he didn't.
- It makes sense to me that John in 17:3 is explaining and making clear what eternal life is.
- It's either what is this EL that Christ is giving to men, or why is Christ giving it to men
- The reason why Christ is giving EL to men is because it is the Father's will that Jesus give EL
- This seems simple and clear enough at minimum in 17:2.
- Just what is this EL that Christ is giving per the Father's will?
- This may be one of the, if not the only place EL is defined or explained for us as it relates to men.
- Many seem to think EL is just living forever
- But here (and elsewhere) John tells us it's much more than that
- The wording "this is the eternal life" seems to me to flow better into content than purpose.
- Content: And eternal life is this: that men know God
- Purpose: And eternal life is this: [it is given] so men can know God
- Purpose would be more likely if the pronoun was not there
- And eternal life is this [given] so men can know God
- I see 1John basically and in many ways as a commentary on GJohn:
- NKJ 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, [in order] that (hina) we may know (subjunctive) Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
- God is Eternal Life
- Jesus Christ is Eternal Life
- It's [purposefully] difficult at times in John's writings to distinguish between God and Jesus Christ
- Jesus Christ has given to us an understanding for this purpose: so we can know God/Eternal Life
- We know God <> We know Eternal Life
- John17:3 cf. 1John5:20 This is Eternal Life for men: to know God who is Eternal Life
- NKJ 1John5:11-12a And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this [eternal] life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has [eternal] life;
- God gave us Eternal Life which is in Jesus Christ
- We have Jesus Christ <> We have Eternal Life
- John17:3 Eternal Life is knowing God and Jesus Christ
- This is relationship language
- We have Jesus Christ who is Eternal Life <> We have Eternal Life <> We Know God and Jesus Christ
- Eternal Life for men is This: Men having relationship with God and Jesus Christ who God sent (and gave to men).
The language of the Text is tough at times for we Englishers. But as I read it, it makes these equations.
The fine line I spoke of earlier acknowledges that content and purpose can be very close. But it seems to me that purpose needs to be forced here and that substantival makes more sense and combines very nicely with other writings of John.
One more proposed authority promised above (the highlighting is mine):
NTFE (by N.T. Wright)
17 After Jesus had said this, he lifted up his eyes to heaven.
“Father,” he said, “the moment has come. Glorify your son, so that your son may glorify you. 2 Do this in the same way as you did when you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he could give the life of God’s coming age to everyone you gave him. 3 And by ‘the life of God’s coming age’
I mean this: that they should know you, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah, the one you sent.
4 “I glorified you on earth, by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me, alongside yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.
6 “I revealed your name to the people you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you; you gave them to me; and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything which you gave me comes from you. 8 I have given them the words you gave me, and they have received them. They have come to know, in truth, that I came from you. They have believed that you sent me.”
"I mean this" is substantival and not purpose.
To conclude this discussion from my end:
We can both pull from lists of fallacies and send them back and forth. There is the one you've posited and there are ones that speak to rejecting all the work and credentials of all others in favor of only oneself.
Firstly, I did not agree with your interpretation by translating myself. To double check myself I referred to some outside resources and found they do not agree with you. To triple check I asked you for an outside resource that agreed with you and the one you supplied does not agree with you.
Unless and until you can substantiate your proposed authority by any other sources, I'll just rest here. and consider the case closed.
Additionally, I stand on the way I read the language of John 6:39-40 and see it conforming to my reasoning above.
