Rev. 3, 9 ἰδοὺ ποιήσω αὐτοὺς ἵνα ἥξουσιν;
Luke, 1, 43 καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ
Yes it’s the same ἵνα, what else?, but the word has expanded its syntactic and semantic range. The subjunctive in Luke anticipates the use of να in modern Greek.
Funny this should come up. This article suggests that Latin might have influenced that development:
http://bagl.org/files/volume9/BAGL_9-3_Papademetriou.pdf
Abstract: The use of ἵνα in Hellenistic Koine and in the New Testament texts has been sufficiently investigated and its linguistic development from Classical Greek to Modern Greek has been outlined. This paper intends to contribute to this discussion, drawing attention to the syntax of the substantive clauses in Latin introduced with the conjunction ut, and suggesting a similar syntax of ἵνα employed as a novel volitional expression in Hellenistic Koine. Concretely, while the prevailing view is that there is an independent parallel development, the present paper aims to reinforce the view that there is a Latin influence in this particular case. The socio- linguistic factors of bilingualism and language interference are highlighted, and for the first time, as far as we know, the Latin translation practice practiced widely in the Roman Empire is suggested as an argument to support this view.
Latin? That’s a surprise. I was thinking about Mark 4:21 last week, and I wanted to ask you, Barry, whether there was some Semitic usage underlying the ἵνα:
Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην, οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ;
The LSJ section points to LXX Ge.22.14 as an example of the ὥστε use of ἵνα.
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Αβρααμ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου κύριος εἶδεν ἵνα εἴπωσιν σήμερον ἐν τῷ ὄρει κύριος ὤφθη
Apparently translating “asher”, according to the internet?
The influence of Latin ut on the evolution of ινα has always seemed obvious to me (as already to Blass over a century ago?), on historical-sociolinguistic grounds. Does anyone these days think the koine use of ινα is a semiticism, Barry? I thought that went out the window long ago in the wake of the papyri.
please pardon my ignorance but should the clauses I mentioned be considered as final or what?
It still crops up occasionally from people who spend too much time in the OT while reading their NT (and rarely read anything else outside of it). What’s nice about the article is that it gives quite a bit of data on the subject.
No, I don’t think so, since there is plenty of parallel development indicated in Hellenistic and Koine texts without any Semitic influence (and I think outside of the LXX Semitic influence is vastly overrated). אשר is a relative conjunction with a fairly wide range of usage that can include adverbial but is most often the relative pronoun. אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם could easily be rendered “which is said even today…” but it’s obvious that the LXX translator felt more comfortable with a result clause, which is also a possibility.