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

Donald Cobb docobb at orange.fr
Fri Feb 5 03:23:07 EST 2010


Dear Brian,

I think we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree. Let me just restate 
the elements that lead me to my conclusions that will hopefully, at the 
very least, clarify the issue:

i) hNIKA being only used in these verses in Paul is, in my mind a fairly 
clear indication that in both verses, his use of it is determined by the 
expression in Exodus 34. Verse 15 sets up v. 16 proleptically, but the 
ultimate source in both cases is the Exodus text. The meaning Paul gives 
to the term is thus dependant on its use in that passage.

ii) It seems to me that a natural reading of Ex 34 (LXX and MT) doesn't 
highlight a conditional or causal element. It merely states that every 
time Moses went into the tent, he removed the veil. This is 
straightforward in the MT (inf + Be: "in Moses' going") and the LXX 
translates accordingly. Of course (!), Moses took of the veil because of 
his entering into the tent and, of course, if he did not enter into the 
tent, he did not take it off. But seeing those elements as inherently 
part of the expression hHNIKA AN, I think, confuses logical deductions 
with semantic categories.

iii) My take on hHNIKA AN in the OT passages where it is found is that 
it refers to concomital actions in regular ongoing situations or 
repeated occurences. That's the way both LS and BDAG define them (LS: 
"at the time when..., whenever... to denote an uncertain or repeated 
occurrence in past time, whenever..."; BDAG: "particle denoting time; 
when, at the time when w. pres. subj. and ἄν AN whenever 2 Cor 3:15; 
when, as soon as").

iv) I therefore have a difficult time seeing hHINKA AN in 2 Cor 3:15-16 
as stressing a causal connection. Paul is picking up on the text of 
Exodus to describe what does happen 1) "whenever" Moses is read (i.e., 
in the synagogue) and 2) "whenever" one turns to the Lord. The force of 
the expression is temporal in connection with concomitant events and not 
on the causes of them or the conditions implied therein. His concern in 
the use of the expression is not there.

There could well be more to the passage (I actually think there is), but 
I would be wary, again, of overloading a fairly straightforward 
expression with heavy theological conceptions. It seems to me that to 
say "Apart from the reading, there would be no experience of the veil" 
goes well beyond the semantic range of the expression and draws 
theological conclusions that the expression cannot support.

Blessings,

Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France


Brian Abasciano a écrit :
>
> 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