[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Donald Cobb
docobb at orange.fr
Mon Feb 8 02:51:04 EST 2010
Brian,
Here again, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for
the discussion.
Blessings,
Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France
Brian Abasciano a écrit :
> Hello Donald,
>
> Donald said: "It seems to me that one of the difficulties in our
> difference over interpretation is partly due to the use of terms."
>
> My Response: That could very well be true. I have not been using the
> term "conditional" in a grammatical sense, but in a semantic/logical
> sense, of one thing being dependent in some way on another. However,
> the point is that the syntax of hHNIKA AN + subjunctive implies this
> conditional sense.
>
> Donald said: "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, 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.*"
>
> My Response: Ah but the point is that whether or not the contingency
> is the *focus* of the sentence or the grammar, it is stil legitimately
> implied by the sentence and grammar. I am not sure how you could infer
> from the sentence that buying the eggs is contingent on going to the
> store apart from the "whenever/everytime" construction (for greater
> precision, let me mention that it is not just that buying the eggs is
> contingent on going to the store in the sense that going to the store
> enables you to buy the eggs, but in with this type of construction, if
> you go to the store, then it is also certainly true that you buy the
> eggs; as Carl put it, "whenever" = "if at any time").
>
> Donald said: "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.
>
> My Response: It is not a formal/explicit conditional sentence, but an
> informal/implicit one. As Wallace notes, conditions can be either
> formal (marked by formal structural markers such as EI and EAN ["if"])
> or informal (without forml structural markers). He does not mention
> hHNIKA AN + subjunctive as an informal marker of conditionality, but
> his discussion is not exhaustive, and hHNIKA AN is rare in the NT,
> indeed only in 2 Cor 3:15-16. He does mention an informal marker of
> conditionality that is basically parallel to the one we are
> discussing, use of a relative clause of the type "whoever", which he
> takes to be equivalent to "if anyone". I think Carl was dead on when
> he suggested that "whenever" = "if at any time".
>
> Donald said: "*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.
>
> My Response: Again, I have not claimed that the sentence is
> grammatically a formal conditional, but that it is an implicit one.
> This is not a misuse of categories. Moreover, grmmatical or
> syntactical constructions can imply certain logical or semantic
> senses, and that can be very important for meaning. In this case, you
> draw the conclusion that logically, "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." This conclusion is based largely on
> the use of hHNIKA AN ! If the temporal phrase implies a condition,
> then it is hard to see how you could object to my saying this very
> thing. And if one looks at other uses of the phrase in the OT, it
> happens to be true in every instance.
>
> Donald said: "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."
>
> My response: The sentence is making more than one point. It implies
> conditionality, and it also speaks explicitly of concomitance (indeed,
> the specific type of concomitance indicated is also what implies
> conditionality). Your suggestion that conditionality is somwehow ruled
> out by description of a past factual event strikes me as completely
> arbitrary and without basis. It is easy to think of past factual
> events that were conditional. One could say, "If Moses went into the
> tent, then he took off his veil." I don't see how that is invalid.
> Moreover, as I mentioned, we are not talking about a grammatically
> formal conditional, but syntactical structure that implies conditionality.
>
> I said: "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."
>
> Donald said: "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)."
>
> My Response: IMO, Ex 34:34 strongly supports Carl's statement, and as
> I have pointed out, your own reasoning seems to prove the point. You
> infer based on the use of the hHNIKA AN phrase that Moses' removal of
> the veil was contingent on his going into the tent. I am not sure how
> there could be stronger evidence that the phrase does imply
> conditionality there. As for LS and BDAG, they seek to give the
> lexical meaning of the words, not necessarily their logical
> implications. They might sometimes do this, but they cannot be counted
> on to provide such information.
>
> God bless,
>
> Brian Abasciano
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Donald Cobb <mailto:docobb at orange.fr>
> *To:* Brian Abasciano <mailto:bvabasciano at gmail.com> ; B-Greek
> <mailto:b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2010 12:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
>
> 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, 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
>
>
>
> 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