[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 17:37:18 EST 2010
(I am sorry, I sent this message with the wrong subject line, so I am
sending it with the correct one.)
I said: "Apart from the reading, there would be no experience of the veil"
Elizabeth said: "How about "apart from Moses there is no experience of the
veil" so reading the prophets they understood them clearly but when they
read Moses and just didn't get it. Is this valid?"
My respone: No, it would not be valid, but that is because it is a matter of
common and exegetical sense. Moses and the prophets amount to the same thing
conceptually for Paul--the word of God. You could add the Writings in there
too and it would not change the matter. My point was that experience of the
veil Paul refers to is contingent on the reading of Moses (or any portion of
what Paul considered to be the word of God). Let me give you an example
(this is in English, but it is my contention that English and Greek usage
are the same here). Say there were a picture hanging in the living room of a
friend's house that I frequent, a painting which I hate because it makes me
feel really uncomfortable because of the way it looks, and I said something
like: "Whenever I go into his living room, that painting is there making me
feel uncomfortable." I would not mean that my going into the living room
brings the painting to be there and to make me feel uncomfortable. Of course
the painting is there when I am not in the room. But the "whenever" clause
subordinates the painting's presence in the room to my entering due to the
fact that it is my entering the room that brings the experience of the
presence of the painting and its discomforting effects. I would not mean
that my entrance into the room and the painting's presence and discomforting
effects on me are merely coincidental with no particuluar logical
connection.
Elizabeth said: "It seems to me that Paul's though on spiritual blindness of
both Jews and Gentiles in his other letters is a valid cognitive framework
to be applied to the veil metaphor in this passage. You are making the
metaphor "walk on all four". You are claiming that Paul is affirming a
negative proposition "no spiritual blindness except when they read Torah".
Paul isn't affirming that. He wouldn't affirm that."
My Response: I didn't say that at all. I am saying that the construction he
uses to connect the reading of Moses with the veil on their heart, a
construction which everywhere else in the Bible presents the action as in
some way determinative for a subordinate contingent action, highlights the
fact that the reading of Moses brings about experience of the veil on their
heart. So I am expressly NOT claiming that Paul is affirming a negative
proposition "no spiritual blindness except when they read Torah". I am
saying that Paul is affimring a positive proposition: "whenever they read
Torah, the veil on their heart is actively experienced."
Elizabeth said: "Your are correct that the text under discussion does not
address spiritual blindness in general, but focuses only on the the reading
of Moses. But if we used your logic, we might state that this metaphor
implies that while reading the Prophets the veil was lifted because it is
only stated in this text that they were under veil while reading Moses."
My Response: I addressed this above. That would simply be an overly literal
and rigid reading of the text. Moses and the Prophets are conceptually
equivalent for Paul. My point was that the text does not make any assertions
about the veil apart from the reading of Moses (or any part of the Bible)
and so this text cannot be used to make assertions about the veil apart from
the reading of Moses (and anything conceptually equivalent to it for Paul,
i.e., the word of God).
Elizabeth said: "Once again, I agree with Donald Cobb's analysis, point by
point."
My Response: Ok, but one of Donald's main points is that Ex 34:34 stands in
back of Paul's usage and is determinative for it here. I agree. But Donald
also agrees that it is obvious that Moses's entrance into the tent was the
cause/reason/condition of him removing the veil, and thinks so *based on the
temporal expression given*, but then for some reason denies that the
temporal expression implies conditionality. This seems untrenable to me.
I remain in complete agreement with Carl's assessment: "Temporal but
generalizing; but I think I'd have to say that it is implicitly conditional,
that "whenever" = "if at any time." "
God bless,
Brian Abasciano
**********************
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: <833D2A22-291F-49F7-88B4-5E5973A04CEE at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Brian,
On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
>
> As for my statement that "Apart from the reading, there would be no
> experience of the veil", I think that is one sound way of expressing what
> the text itself says. It only links the veil with the reading of Moses:
> "Until today, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart" (2 Cor
> 3:15). The text itself only gives us information about the veil in
> connection with the reading of Moses/the Old Covenant. The same is true of
> 3:14 as well. If anything is "going beyond the text", it would be to make
> conclusions about the veil that concern it apart from the reading of Moses
> (or tunring to the Lord). I am not saying it is invalid to do so, but it
> is more of a theological exercise than is stating that that the text only
> presents the veil as active in connection with the reading of Moses. This
> latter point seems undeniable based on the wording of the text itself,
> *precisely due to the **temporal** expression we are discussing.* The text
> does not concern itself with the veil oth
er than its relationship to the reading of Moses (and of course, its
removal upon turning to the Lord). There might be other things to discern
validly about it theologically etc., but that is not specifically mentioned
by the text as is the veil's relationship to the reading of Moses.
>
> "Apart from the reading, there would be no experience of the veil"
How about "apart from Moses there is no experience of the veil" so reading
the prophets they understood them clearly but when they read Moses and just
didn't get it. Is this valid?
It seems to me that Paul's though on spiritual blindness of both Jews and
Gentiles in his other letters is a valid cognitive framework to be applied
to the veil metaphor in this passage. You are making the metaphor "walk on
all four". You are claiming that Paul is affirming a negative proposition
"no spiritual blindness except when they read Torah". Paul isn't affirming
that. He wouldn't affirm that.
Your are correct that the text under discussion does not address spiritual
blindness in general, but focuses only on the the reading of Moses. But if
we used your logic, we might state that this metaphor implies that while
reading the Prophets the veil was lifted because it is only stated in this
text that they were under veil while reading Moses.
Once again, I agree with Donald Cobb's analysis, point by point.
I think we have pretty well exhausted this question. Once again, thanks to
everyone who participated.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list