[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