[B-Greek] 2Cor 4:3-4 (was 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN)
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 14:22:49 EST 2010
Elizabeth said: "In 2Cor 3:15-16 I don't think Paul is using the Exodus
34:34... passage in any direct manner. There is no direct citation. He
borrows some terminology to transform it into a visual metaphor for his own
use. The connection is very loose. So regardless of how we "parse" Exodus
34:34... we need to read 2Cor 3:15-16 in light of Paul's thoughts not the
LXX."
My Response: Ok, but you had said that you agree with Donald point by point,
and the point you now reject was one of his main points. I do think that Ex
34:34 is the basis of Paul's articulation there (is it an accident that
hHNIKA AN occurs nowhere in the NT or Paul except exactly here?), and I
believe that is the standard view; most commentaries will state it in one
way or another. When the depth of Paul's interaction with the OT is taken
into account in 2 Cor 3, it seems almost certain to me that most scholars
are correct to see him drawing his language from Ex 34:34. In any case, I
think the general use of the construction itself in the Bible, not least Ex
34, makes clear that it is as Carl said, "Temporal but generalizing; but I
think I'd have to say that it is implicitly conditional, that "whenever" =
"if at any time." " (Sorry to quote it again, but I think it captures the
sense perfectly.)
Elizabeth said: "IMO, this is an incorrect reading. Look at the immediate
context.
.
2Cor. 4:3 ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ????, ?? ????
???????????? ????? ????????????, 4 ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ?????? ??????
????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???
?????????? ??? ????? ??? ???????, ?? ????? ????? ??? ????.
.
2Cor. 4:3 EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS
APOLLUMENOIS ESTIN KEKALUMMENON, 4 EN hOIS hO QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU
ETUFLWSEN TA NOHMATA TWN APISTWN EIS TO MH AUGASAI TON FWTISMON TOU
EUAGGELIOU THS DOXHS TOU CRISTOU, hOS ESTIN EIKWN TOU QEOU."
My Response: First, before moving on to your assessment of this context, I
gave you *more immediate context* that supports my reading, 2 Cor 3:14 (yes,
the immediately preceding verse): ALLA EPWRWQH TA NOHMATA AUTWN. AXRI GAR
THS SHMERON hHMERAS TO AUTO KALUMMA EPI THi ANAGNWSEI THS PALAIAS DIAQHKHS
MENEI, MH ANAKALUPTOMENON hOTI EN XRISTWi KATARGEITAI·
We are told here that the veil is only removed EN XRISTWi ("in Christ"),
which is a state that is post conversion (= turning to the Lord), the
automatic and immediate result of conversion.
Elizabeth said: "The periphrastic constituent ESTIN KEKALUMMENON (used
twice) appears to be stative. Here the veil metaphor is applied to the TO
EUAGGELION illustrating Paul's artful play on the Exodus 34:34 imagery
(terminology). Then he goes on to explain what this means EN hOIS hO QEOS
TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU ETUFLWSEN TA NOHMATA TWN APISTWN. So the immediate context
explains the notion of the veil over the TO EUAGGELION as a state brought
about an agent hO QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU."
My Response: I am not sure how any of this conflicts with what I have said.
I was probably the first in this conversation to explicitly suggest that the
veil lying on the heart in 3:15 is stative. The fact that an agent brings it
about is irrelevant as far as I can tell. That says nothing about how it is
removed or of how it is experienced. And I would say that 4:3 supports my
reading because it again links the veil (if one is inclined to see the veil
referenced here by spiritual blindness) to the word of God, in 3:15 with
respect to Moses, and here, with respect to the gospel, which Paul saw as
proclaimed in the OT. Yet again the veil comes into play with respect to the
word of God, whether Moses or the gospel, which only supports my statement
that, "Apart from the reading, there would be no experience of the veil". Do
you see 4:3 as somehow describing an experience of the veil apart from the
word of God? I have stated that I am not saying that the veil is removed
when the word of God is not read/spoken, but that it is not really active in
the way that Paul is speaking about it here apart from experience of the
word. Its affects as Paul is portraying them are not felt/experienced, as
they have to do here with interaction with the word of God. It is like the
illustration about the painting I gave you. It is not that the painting is
not there when I am not in the room; it;s that I don't experience its
affects when I am not in the room. hHNIKA AN + subjunctive in 2 Cor 3:15
highlights this conditional aspect of the veil, that its effects (at least
those that Paul is specifying here in this context) come into play upon
reading/hearing the word of God, whether that be Moses of the gospel of
Christ. If at any time they hear Moses read, then a veil lies over their
hearts hindering their understanding of the word.
God bless,
Brian Abasciano
***********************
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:16:49 -0800
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 4:3-4 (was 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN)
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <19CA3ED6-929F-42AB-B755-1FF887B076D1 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In 2Cor 3:15-16 I don't think Paul is using the Exodus 34:34... passage in
any direct manner. There is no direct citation. He borrows some terminology
to transform it into a visual metaphor for his own use. The connection is
very loose. So regardless of how we "parse" Exodus 34:34... we need to read
2Cor 3:15-16 in light of Paul's thoughts not the LXX.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
> 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.
IMO, this is an incorrect reading. Look at the immediate context.
.
2Cor. 4:3 ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ????, ?? ????
???????????? ????? ????????????, 4 ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ?????? ??????
????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???
?????????? ??? ????? ??? ???????, ?? ????? ????? ??? ????.
.
2Cor. 4:3 EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS
APOLLUMENOIS ESTIN KEKALUMMENON, 4 EN hOIS hO QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU
ETUFLWSEN TA NOHMATA TWN APISTWN EIS TO MH AUGASAI TON FWTISMON TOU
EUAGGELIOU THS DOXHS TOU CRISTOU, hOS ESTIN EIKWN TOU QEOU.
.
The periphrastic constituent ESTIN KEKALUMMENON (used twice) appears to be
stative. Here the veil metaphor is applied to the TO EUAGGELION illustrating
Paul's artful play on the Exodus 34:34 imagery (terminology). Then he goes
on to explain what this means EN hOIS hO QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU ETUFLWSEN TA
NOHMATA TWN APISTWN. So the immediate context explains the notion of the
veil over the TO EUAGGELION as a state brought about an agent hO QEOS TOU
AIWNOS TOUTOU.
All of this is hard reconcile with:
> "Apart from the reading, there would be no experience of the veil"
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list