Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Zerwick and John 17:3

Zerwick-Grosvenor (A Grammatical Analysis of the GNT, page 336) understands hINA + subjunctive (John 17:3) to be/function as an epexegetical infinitive that explains hAUTH (the demonstrative), which = "namely (that)."

Cf. sec. 410 of Zerwick's Biblical Greek.

I understand Zerwick-Grosvenor to be saying that we possibly do not have periphrasis for the (non-epexegetical) infinitive at 17:3; however, while Rogers and Rogers understand this verse to be epexegetical like Zerwick-Grosvenor, they seem to allow for the possibility that it could be periphrastic for an infinitive that is not explanatory.

As I read Zerwick and Grosvenor further, I guess we could have hINA + the subjunctive mood as periphrasis for the infinitive, but that only seems to tell the reader how the demonstrative is to be understood. I don't see how the epexegetical use of hINA explains anything but how we might construe the demonstrative hAUTH.


Duncan said...

It appears from this that there must be others who read 17:3 in a similar way to the NWT:-


Duncan said...

Also from here it seems the NRSV needs examination:-


Duncan said...

Sorry, nor NRSV but "kleist and lilly"

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, Duncan. Kleist and Lilly is a somewhat "free" handling of the passage, but the translation certainly uses "their" like NWT does. Also, the passage from Aquinas is interesting.

Here is how the Douay-Rheims and Vg handle the verse:

"Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (DR).

"Haec est autem vita aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum" (Vg).

Appreciate the references.

Duncan said...

I do not have access to the Kleist & Lilly translation but there is a version entitled, "The New Testament: Rendered from the Original Greek With Explanatory Notes", so It might give some justification for this word option.