[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 02:32:54 EST 2010


Hello Donald. I respectfully disagree. While there certainly is a difference 
between mere concomitance and contingency, I believe hHNIKA AN is almost 
always used for more than mere concomitance. I think condition has it right 
generally whereas "cause" may be too strong for some cases. I stated in my 
comments to Elizabeth why I think even 2 Cor 3:15 supports this, but that if 
that is rejected, there is a critical difference between 3:15 and 3:16 that 
would make 3:15 an exception. It is suprising that you think Englishing 3:15 
this way does not work: "if Moses is read, (then) a veil is placed on their 
hearts"; I think it works fine except that I think it incorrectly represents 
the action of "placing" the veil as in process. That would actually support 
my view more. If the placing of the veil were in view, it would make great 
sense to say that the reading of Moses triggers it, serves as a condition 
for it. However, as I mentioned to Elizabeth, I think it is far more likely 
that we have a stative idea here, "if Moses is read, (then) a veil lies on 
their heart". I htink the idea is that if and when Moses is read, then the 
veil's action comes into play. Apart from the reading, there would be no 
experience of the veil.

But even more critical for our disagreement, since 3:15 can be taken as an 
exception precisely because of the stative idea, is Ex 34:34. I really am 
suprised that you do not see Moses' entering into the Lord's presence as a 
condition for his removing his veil. That seems very obviously implied to 
me. Moses did not take off his veil until he went into the Lord's presence. 
Then, if and when he went into the Lord's presence, he took off the veil. 
Then when he jeft the Lord's presence he would put the veil back on again. 
If that's not conditional, I am not sure what it is. Surely you are not 
suggesting that his entrance into the Lord's presence and his taking off the 
veil were just completely unconnected occurrences that just happened to 
occur together every time one of them happened, are you? Indeed, in this 
case, I think we are dealing with something that clearly implies "because". 
Because Moses went into the presence of the Lord, he removed his veil. 
Entering into the Lord's presence was the reason he took his veil off. And 
as I pointed out, (keeping in mind hHNIKA is only used in the NT in 2 Cor 
3:15-16) every OT occurrence of  hHNIKA with EAN and the subjunctive 
presents the associated action as in some way determinative for a 
subordinate contingent action.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald Cobb" <docobb at orange.fr>
To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; "Elizabeth Kline" 
<kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN


> Hello Brian,
>
> < "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. >
>
> I think a distinction needs to be made between one action contingent on 
> another (= condition or cause) and one action concomitant with another. It 
> is clear that the expression hHNIKA AN in 2 Cor 3 and its various OT 
> occurrences makes reference to an action that accompanies another action, 
> i.e., "when Moses is read a veil is placed on their hearts" (v. 15). But 
> the difficulty of seeing that as inherently causal or conditional becomes 
> evident when you try to english that by saying: "because Moses is read a 
> veil is placed on their hearts" or "if Moses is read, (then) a veil is 
> placed on their hearts", as you pointed out in your remark to Elizabeth.
>
> In Ex 34:34 the focus of the text is concomitance: "When, i.e., each time 
> (not if or because) Moses went into the tent". In that sense, the LXX 
> gives an accurate translation of the Heb (inf. + Be : "in Moses' going").
>
> I would be afraid that trying to put more content into the expression 
> would run the risk of over-reading it, theologically.
>
> Regards,
>
> Donald Cobb
> Aix-en-Provence, France
>
>
> Brian Abasciano a écrit :
>>
>> 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