i(/na in Mark 5:23

[Bert]

Mark 5:22,23
καὶ ἔ?χεται εἷς τῶν ἀ?χισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάϊ?ος, καὶ ἰδὼν α?τὸν πίπτει π?ὸς τοὺς πόδας α?τοῦ καὶ πα?ακαλεῖ α?τὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι Τὸ θυγάτ?ιόν μου ?σχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ?λθὼν ?πιθῇς τὰς χεῖ?ας α?τῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ.
What is the meaning of the first i[/na?
It does not seem to make a lot of sense there.

[ThomasGR]

I do not see any difficulty. i(/na can easily be translated with “to, in order to, so as to” and it makes sense. Repeating it just gives more stress to the action. But, I am more alarmed because in my bible there is no second “ina”, but instead I have “o(/pws”. It is not the first time I encounter such differences, I wonder how to explain them.

[Bert]

@ThomasGR

I do not see any difficulty. i(/na can easily be translated with “to, in order to, so as to” and it makes sense. Repeating it just gives more stress to the action.

The way I read it would make that “my daughter is about to die in order that you may come and lay your hands on her…”
You see my difficulty?

@ThomasGR

But, I am more alarmed because in my bible there is no second “ina”, but instead I have “o(/pws”. It is not the first time I encounter such differences, I wonder how to explain them.

That’s strange. I don’t see any notes concerning different manuscripts having different readings.
Kopio may know what’s up here.

[IreneY]

mytiobiblos also has ὅπως (just a side note)

ἵνα can be also translated some times as ‘to’ as in “please to come” if that makes any sense.

I don’t have all my textbooks around so I cannot quote any authority on the following, but I seem to remember that by the time of Koine, ἵνα was used much more oftenly with this meaning too

[Bert]

@IreneY

ἵνα can be also translated some times as ‘to’ as in “please to come” if that makes any sense.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[ThomasGR]

@Bert

The way I read it would make that “my daughter is about to die in order that you may come and lay your hands on her…”
You see my difficulty?

You must consider the word order and the comma. I would translate it this way:
…my little daughter is about to die, do (ina) come (elthon) in order to (ina) put (epithes) your hands (tas xeiras) on her (ayth) so as to (ina) save her (sothe) and she lives (kai zese). That ina comes before elthon and not epithes serves to point the emergency, it stresses “elthon” (firtst action) more than “epithes”, the secondary act. One could also use “ina” before “elthon” and “epithes”. Like “do” in English.

[Kopio]

I think Irene hit it square on the nose.

Robertson states (which by the way is the other, other Greek Grammar besides BDF):

@AT Robertson

hINA seems to be merely an introductory term with the volitive subjuncive (i.e. with imperitival force) in “hINA…EPIQHS” (it is an imperitival hINA, "Do please come and lay your hands)

You can confer also with Moulton section 144 and Turner section 95.

Hope that helps.

BTW Thomas…what Greek Bible do you have?? There is simply no ancient support for the readin of hOPWS. Is this another Modern Greek Version?

[ThomasGR]

My bible comes from “United Blbiel Societies 1967”. Printed and bound in Great Britain by William Clowes(Beccles) Limited. It is a printed edition, there are no more information.

[IreneY]

maybe they are using the Byzantine text as the Greek Orthodox church does

[cmw]

@IreneY

maybe they are using the Byzantine text as the Greek Orthodox church does

You hit it on the nose. The Byzantine tradition, the more corrupt tradition, uses opws, while the older manuscripts have ina twice.