[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Donald Cobb
docobb at orange.fr
Mon Feb 8 00:44:05 EST 2010
Hello Brian,
It seems to me that one of the difficulties in our difference over
interpretation is partly due to the use of terms.
What is the difference between "whenever" (?????, hNIKA) and "if" (??,
EI or ???, EAN)? Does it become clearer if we take an example from
modern usage? (granted, the overlap may not be total, but I think the
use of ????? hHNIKA in Ex 34:34, the starting point of our analyses, is
close enough.) In the sentence, "If I go to the store I will buy some
eggs", we understand that the events described are not certain to
happen. It is conditional. The thrust of the sentence is that my going
to the store is not certain and that, therefore, my buying eggs may or
may not happen. I think we can safely say that the way of describing
that in Greek would be to say something along the lines of: ??? ??
???????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????????? ?? ???????,
or some such.
On the other hand, if I say, "Everytime I go to the store, I buy some
eggs", we understand that 1) I am in the habit of going to the store,
and 2) when I do that, I habitually buy eggs. The semantic focus is
totally different, and it would be a misuse of language to say that this
sentence is conditional. It's not. Yes, of course my buying eggs is
contingent on my going to the store--*but that is not the focus of the
sentence and it is not the content that the grammar of the sentence is
communicating.*
When Exodus 34:34 says ????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ??????
?????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????????????, hHNIKA D? AN
EISEPOREUETO MWUSHS ENANTI KURIOU LALEIN AUTWi PERIHiREITO TO KALUMMA
hEWS TOU EKPOREUESQAI, this is not, grammatically, a conditional
sentence, and its content it is not speaking of a conditional event, it
is describing a reccurrent one. *Logically*, yes, of course, if Moses
did not go into the tent, he did not remove the veil, etc. But that does
not make the statement a conditional one, and to try to do so is a
misuse of categories, IMO. The sentence is making another point.
Especially when it is describing a past factual event, the idea of
conditionality becomes very strained, and it is preferable to speak of a
reference to habitual concomitant events. I do believe that the same can
be said for the use of hHNIKA in the OT generally. Since, as we are both
agreed, Ex 34:34 provides the starting point for Paul's inhabitual use
of hHNIKA in 2 Cor 3:15-16, I think it is safe to say that we can also
say the same for these two verses.
< 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. >
I could be wrong, but don't think Carl's definition took into
consideration the reference to Ex 34 (that element of this thread came
into the discussion later), and, at any rate, I repeat that
conditionality is not mentioned in the LS or BDAG entries; what is
mentioned is the notion of habitual action (cf. my previous post).
In summary, I don't think we can legitimately say that Paul is trying to
convey a notion of conditionality in these two verses. I think his
thoughts go in another direction, that of "what is happening" 1) in the
context of Ist century Judaism that does not understand the disappearing
glory of the old covenant due to Christ's coming, and 2) in the context
of the new covenant, where the factual experience is the removal of the
veil (cf. v. 18).
Blessings,
Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France
Brian Abasciano a écrit :
> (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
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list