[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Mon Feb 8 18:33:05 EST 2010
Carl: What I am questioning is not the appropriateness of AN with an
imperfect or other indicatives. That would indeed be rather futile,
since there is plenty of attestation. What I am questioning is whether
AN should ever be spoken of as being "iterative" in view of its common
description as a MODAL particle. As I see it, that is a rather
different issue, but possibly not suited to this forum.
Al
On Feb 8, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Carl Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Albert Pietersma wrote:
>>
>> The use of a1n in Ex 34:34 seems to be a good example of so-called
>> iterative a1n (cf. Smyth §1790). Since other uses of a1n are
>> regarded as a MODAL, iterative a1n is anomalous since "repeated
>> or customary past action" (to use Smyth's description) is normally
>> associated with ASPECT. Might it be that this anomaly is at the
>> heart of Brian and Donald's terminological difficulty? In order
>> words, the label "iterative a1n " is a confusing misnomer. If that
>> is correct, the notion of "repeated or customary
>> action" ("iterativity") in Ex 34:34 is not signaled by a1n but
>> rather by ei0sporeu/eto, a past imperfect indicative. As a MODAL
>> particle, a1n qualifies the indicative and gives it a conditional
>> force. The sense would thus be: "But if Moyses should enter ... he
>> would remove the covering ...."
>
> I think that the iterative AN is appropriate to an independent
> imperfect; what we have here, however, is an imperfect in a temporal
> (conditional) clause introduced by hHNIKA. I really think that the
> hHNIKA AN was intended to indicate a PAST generalizing temporal
> condition comparable to a PRESENT generalizing temporal condition
> with hHNIKA AN + present subjunctive. If I am right, this is a Koine
> simplification of the earlier past general construction with hOTE or
> hHNIKA + optative in the dependent whenever/if ever clause. Smyth
> doesn't really deal with the Koine usage and I don't find it
> discussed in BDF, but in Conybeaare & Stock §104 points to instances
> of EAN with the indicative and of EI with the subjunctive; in (d) he
> adds, regarding past indicative forms with AN or EAN:
>
> d. Under the same head come the following:
> Ex 33:8, 34:34 ἡνίκα δ’ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο
> Μωσῆς hHNIKA D' AN EISEPOREUETO MWSHS', 40:30 ἡνίκα δ’
> ἂν ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς ἡ νεφέλη
> [hHNIKA D' AN ANEBH APO THS SKHNHS hH NEFELH].
> Tobit 7:11 ὁπότε ἐὰν εἰσεπορεύοντο [hOPOTE
> EAN EISEPOREUONTO]. Cp. Barn. Ep. 12:3 ὁπόταν
> καθεῖλεν [hOPOTAN KAQEILEN].
>
> All these examples involve the AN element with a past indicative
> verb in the protasis of a temporal-conditional construction.
>
> CWC
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:30 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
>>>> Hello Donald,
>>>>
>>>> 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 just want to interject here that, in my opinion, the formulation
>>> in Exodus 34:34 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] is, after all, a conditional sentence. In Classical
>>> Attic EISEPOREUETO would be an optative (EISPOREUOITO) but there
>>> would be no AN; I think that the AN is retained with hHNIKA here
>>> to indicate that this is in fact simply the past generalizing
>>> temporal condition: "Whenever/every time/if ever ... he entered,
>>> the veil was (would be) lifted until his departure."
>>>
>>>>
>> Albert Pietersma PhD
>> 21 Cross Street,
>> Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
>> Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
>> Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
>>
>
>
>
—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list