[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 14:53:11 EST 2010
Elizabeth,
I don't think that the use of hHNIKA in 3:15 gainsays my position. For one,
while Paul is not saying that the veil is lifted when they stopped reading,
I think he is saying that the veil comes into play at the reading of Moses.
So there is a sort of priority given to ANAGINWSKHTAI MWUSHS that brings
about the significance of KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN AUTWN KEITAI, or one might
even say activates it. The veiledness of heart that Paul refers to there is
irrelevant, and in a way, non-existant apart from the reading of Moses/the
Old Covenant. That's why Paul states 3:15 as he does. Second, and perhaps
more importantly from a grammatical point of view, the statement of 3:15 and
3:16 differ in a critical way. In the former, there is a stative situation
suggested by the nature of something lying on something else. (I suppose one
could take this as the veil getting laid at that time, but I am sure you
would agree that is highly unlikely in this context. Besides, that would
bring us to even 3:15 indicating an action contingent on the hHNIKA phrase.)
But 3:16 presents the veil getting removed. This reading is supported by
3:14 which tells us that the veil is removed in Christ, a state resulting
from conversion ( = turning to the Lord). Third, as I mentioned in citation
of my book, In the LXX, hHNIKA with EAN and the subjunctive always presents
the associated action as in some way determinative for a subordinate
contingent action (Gen. 20.13 [without subjunctive]; 24.41; 27.40; Exod.
13.5; Lev. 5.23; Deut. 25.19; 27.3; Josh. 24.20; 24.27; Jdt. 14.2).
Moreover, hHNIKA is so used in every one of its five occurrences in Exodus
32-34 (32.19; 33.8, 22; 34.24, 34), with Exod. 34.34 providing the basis of
Paul's use in 2 Cor. 3.16.
So Don, that addresses a comment you made, that "In the Exodus passage, the
use of hHNIKA D' AN has nothing causal or conditional about it. It merely
states when: "every time that"." I think this is quite incorrect. If one
looks at the Exodus passage, it seems clear that Moses took the veil off
because he was going into the Lord's presence, that going into the Lord's
presence occasioned his removing the veil. This is substantiated by the fact
that he left the veil off until he came out, when he would put the veil back
on again.
*************
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:08:05 -0800
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <70E07ED9-7476-418E-B58A-3477D272D0B6 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
It seems to me that 2Cor. 3:15 undermines Brian's reading:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
> I actually think it is pretty certain that a causal/conditional
> relationship
> is implied.
There doesn't seem to be any conditional or causal element in 2Cor. 3:15
ALL? hEWS SHMERON hHNIKA AN ANAGINWSKHTAI MWUSHS, KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN
AUTWN KEITAI?
Paul isn't saying that the KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN AUTWN KEITAI is somehow
contingent on ANAGINWSKHTAI MWUSHS, as if the veil was lifted when they
stopped reading. In English, a straight reading of v16 appears to make
PERIAIREITAI TO KALUMMA contingent of EPISTREYHi PROS KURION. However,
because "we do this in English" it is a good idea to be skeptical about
reading it that way in Greek. It is far too easy to read our native language
habits in to the text.
Re: the Exodus passage, not sure what to do with that. It explains the use
of hHNIKA AN but I not certain how it helps to resolve the issue of
conditional and/or causal semantic features in 2Cor. 3:15-16.
Elizabeth Kline
*****************
From: Donald Cobb <docobb at orange.fr>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Cc: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <4B6A5D2A.8060607 at orange.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Elizabeth,
You raise a good point with v. 15. The connotation there is simply temporal.
I think the Exodus passage really is the key, given the total absence of
hHNIKA elsewhere in Paul and the NT. Paul is quoting/re-rwiting Exodus
to talk about what happens to New Covenant believers. But given that 1)
he doesn't use the term elsewhere, and 2) the fact that he is fairly
clearly quoting, I think it would be unwise to assume that he's giving
any other meaning to hHNIKA AN than what it has in Ex 34.
In the Exodus passage, the use of hHNIKA D' AN has nothing causal or
conditional about it. It merely states when: "every time that". I don't
think we can safely say that Paul has any other meaning in mind.
Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list