[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Donald Cobb
docobb at orange.fr
Mon Feb 8 00:52:13 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" (ἡνίκα, hNIKA) and "if" (εἰ,
EI or ἐάν, 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 ἡνίκα 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: Ἐὰν δὲ
εἰσπορεύηται Μωϋσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου λαλεῖν αὐτῷ περιαιρήσεται τὸ κάλυμμα,
κτλ., EAN DE EISPOREUHTAI MWU+SHS ENANTI KURIOU LALEIN AUTWi
PERIAIRHSETAI TO KALUMMA, KTL., 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 ἡνίκα δ᾽ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο Μωυσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου
λαλεῖν αὐτῷ περιῃρεῖτο τὸ κάλυμμα ἕως τοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, 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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list