[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 5 15:06:47 EST 2010
On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Donald Cobb wrote:
> 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.
This has been an interesting thread. I have too distracted by other things to participate. I am in more or less complete agreement with Donald Cobb's analysis so I don't need to add a lot of words which would be a duplication of effort.
thanks to all who participated,
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list