[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 12 17:42:10 EST 2010
>Yancy wrote: Nevertheless, the term "conditional" can be applied to hHNIKA AN, but in Exodus 34:34 it is a "course-of-event" conditional. In 2 Cor 3:14-15 it is transposed to the present/future time frame and becomes a hypothetical conditional, even though Paul means to say that "if, whenever" to an event that can frequently occur in the present, has frequently ocurred in the past and may frequently occur in the future. What has plagued this whole discussion has been a use of the conditional as if the only conditionals that count are hypotheticals. What about course of event conditionals or pragmatic conditionals?<
Thank you, good point, but I think I will let others above my paygrade answer that question. Are you saying the "pragmatic conditional" would apply in verse 15, verse 16 or both?
Blue
________________________________
From: "yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 1:45:01 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Blue,
I would not want to pin my hopes on a possibly anachronistic assumption about the ceremonies that vary greatly from place to place and time to time in synagogues. However, I think that, essentially your interpretation of the viel on the heart image might be correct. I had wondered about it myself. Still, when one of them turns to the Lord they are actually doing what Moses himself did when he entered the tent of meeting. The metaphor is dynamic. The important feature is the viel, not who is wearing it. In the typological, midrashic mode, the elements of a narrative are thrown, as it were, into flux and the interpreter can reconnect them at will to correspondences. What matters is the act of drawing the correspondence. And the determination is not final, a more clever correspondence and defeat or trump another. The midrashic play can go on and on.
Nevertheless, the term "conditional" can be applied to hHNIKA AN, but in Exodus 34:34 it is a "course-of-event" conditional. In 2 Cor 3:14-15 it is transposed to the present/future time frame and becomes a hypothetical conditional, even though Paul means to say that "if, whenever" to an event that can frequently occur in the present, has frequently ocurred in the past and may frequently occur in the future. What has plagued this whole discussion has been a use of the conditional as if the only conditionals that count are hypotheticals. What about course of event conditionals or pragmatic conditionals?
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Feb 12, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:
> Dear Brian, Donald or both:
>
> I know this thread has been played out and you may not desire to answer – that is fine, I do not want to start it up again, but this thread was very interesting, and I hope you can address one last question. I hope I correctly understood both of your views. Even though you agreed to disagree, it seems sometimes your points were not that far apart, at least, on some things.
>
> Much has been said about the basis of Paul’s discourse being the account recorded in Ex. 34. One thing has always bothered me about this passage. Why, when we come to the account in II Cor. 3, do we believe the veil is over the hearts Israelites? If we follow the example of Ex. 34, do we not have to conclude that the veil is over the face of Moses? It seems the analogy demands this, and, indeed, this seems to be what Paul emphatically declares in verse 14 – "ACRI GAR THS SHMERON hHMERAS TO AUTO KALUMMA EPI THi ANAGNWSEI THS PALAIAS DIAQHKHS MENEI..." He says TO AUTO KALUMMA (the veil over Moses) remains unlifted. It does not tell us the veil is transferred to the Israelites. Is this not what "TO AUTO KALUMMA" is telling us?
>
> In other words, when Moses spoke to the people he always had his face covered with a veil. At that time, he was speaking to the people verbally. Could not Paul be saying Moses is still veiled, but now, he is not “speaking” to the people verbally, but in written form (cf. Lu. 16:31)? Could not Paul be saying Moses is still symbolically covered with a veil, so that his fellow brethren, according to the flesh, are still not able to see or understand that the glory of the first covenant is not permanent? They still cannot see that it is fading. I am not sure it is right to assume the veil causes blindness on the person wearing it. Moses was not blind when he wore the veil. The hardness or blindness comes from elsewhere. Therefore, could not the force of the phrase KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN AUTWN KEITAI be, “a veil lies upon (against) their heart?”
>
> What I mean by this is the following. Paul may have had in his mind the imagery that is dramatically portrayed in the ceremony of the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. (This, of course, presumes that this reference by Paul is evidence that the later Jewish tradition of carrying the scroll in procession around the synagogue was indeed a first century practice). In this ceremony, as I am sure you both are well aware, the scroll would be taken out of the ark or chest and carried in procession around the synagogue “EPI” "upon" or “against” the breast or heart of the one carrying it – perhaps the hUPHRETHi (cf.Luke 4:16, 17, 20). This imagery would be repeated every Sabbath. Therefore, indeed, one would see the veil still covering Moses, (personified by the scroll), lying upon the heart of the attendant in the “reading ceremony.” Could this not be what Paul is using as his illustration, showing that, at “the reading,” a veil is
> still over Moses (vs. 14)? Of course, he is still giving it a symbolic meaning, but this seems to be the underlying imagery for his example.
>
> Therefore, if this is a possibility, this is my question, “Does the understanding of the hHNIKA phrase have to be an either, or situation?” Could not both senses be seen in this passage? If the imagery above was in Paul’s mind, could not a “temporal” sense be applied to the hHNIKA phrase in verse 15– “Every time (whenever) Moses is read the veil lies against their heart.”
>
> In other words, Moses is always covered, whether he is considered to be speaking verbally (Ex.34) or in written form (II Cor. 3). As such, there would be no “conditional” sense in verse 15 because the focus is not on the Israelites having or not having a veil. Paul is simply stating a fact that Moses is still covered at “the reading” of the old covenant – as such, the veil is lying upon (against) their heart at such a ceremony.
>
> However, in verse 16, could not a “conditional” sense be applied – “When or if [a person] turns to the Lord, the veil is nullified or made of no effect (vs. 14), or pulled aside or back (vs. 16)? In other words, Paul would be saying when one of his brethren, according to the flesh, turns to the Lord, the veil disappears because they are now seeing the “greater glory” of the new covenant; the veil is no longer able to hide the fading glory of the first covenant to one who truly sees the Lord as the mediator of the new covenant. The veil is lifted off Moses, (perhaps by the Spirit), and they are now able to see that the glory of the first covenant is fading.
>
> Therefore, actually, could not both the temporal and conditional senses of the hHNIKA phrase be seen in this passage? If so, would we not have to conclude, (going back to Elizabeth’s original question), the temporal sense “does” seem to exhaust Paul’s meaning in verse 15, but not in verse 16, so that Paul is demonstrating two senses of the hHNIKA phrase in the passage?
>
> Sincerely,
> Blue
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian Abasciano <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
> To: Donald Cobb <docobb at orange.fr>; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 6:28:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
>
> Thank you again for your message. I have inserted responses to your message
> below. But let me say one very important gloabl point up front. No one is
> suggesting that hNIKA with AN plus the subjunctive is a logical rather than
> a temporal expression or that it does not indicate timing. Of course it is a
> temporal expression and we should not expect to find any instances of it
> being translated with a logical term (N.B. Mark Lightman). The point is that
> this sort of temporal expression *implies* conditionality. The reason why
> Elizabeth asked about this in ther first place is because a first blush
> reading of it suggests *implicit* conditionality, at least in English. It
> turns out that when one looks at the usage in Greek, it does too. I agree
> completely with Carl's initial assessment: "Temporal but generalizing; but I
> think I'd have to say that it is implicitly conditional, that "whenever" =
> "if at any time." "
>
>> Dear Brian,
>>
>> I think we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree. Let me just restate
>> the elements that lead me to my conclusions that will hopefully, at the
>> very least, clarify the issue:
>>
>> i) hNIKA being only used in these verses in Paul is, in my mind a fairly
>> clear indication that in both verses, his use of it is determined by the
>> expression in Exodus 34. Verse 15 sets up v. 16 proleptically, but the
>> ultimate source in both cases is the Exodus text. The meaning Paul gives
>> to the term is thus dependant on its use in that passage.
>
> I agree completely. That is evidence for implicit conditionality IMO.
>
>>
>> ii) It seems to me that a natural reading of Ex 34 (LXX and MT) doesn't
>> highlight a conditional or causal element. It merely states that every
>> time Moses went into the tent, he removed the veil. This is
>> straightforward in the MT (inf + Be: "in Moses' going") and the LXX
>> translates accordingly. Of course (!), 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. But seeing those elements as inherently part
>> of the expression hHNIKA AN, I think, confuses logical deductions with
>> semantic categories.
>
> It is surprising to me that you find it obvious that Moses's entrance into
> the tent was the cause/reason/condition of him removing the veil, and think
> so based on the temporal expression given, *but* then refuse to see the
> temporal expression as implying conditionality. It is not that those
> elements are inherently part of the hHNIKA AN expression. It is that the
> kind of temporal relationship indicated by the expression implies
> conditionality, that writers using it, at least in all the examples we have
> in the Bible, used it of a conditional sort of relationship. I believe
> Elizabeth acknowledged that such a temporal expression does so in English.
> In this case, English and Greek usage are the same. In English the
> expression is unquestionably a temporal one. But it is a temporal one that
> implies conditionality of some sort.
>
>>
>> iii) My take on hHNIKA AN in the OT passages where it is found is that it
>> refers to concomital actions in regular ongoing situations or repeated
>> occurences. That's the way both LS and BDAG define them (LS: "at the time
>> when..., whenever... to denote an uncertain or repeated occurrence in past
>> time, whenever..."; BDAG: "particle denoting time; when, at the time when
>> w. pres. subj. and ἄν AN whenever 2 Cor 3:15; when, as soon as").
>>
>
> Again, no one is challenging that the expression indicates time. It is just
> that this sort of timing, "whenever A, (then) B", typically implies
> conditionality.
>
>
>> iv) I therefore have a difficult time seeing hHINKA AN in 2 Cor 3:15-16 as
>> stressing a causal connection. Paul is picking up on the text of Exodus to
>> describe what does happen 1) "whenever" Moses is read (i.e., in the
>> synagogue) and 2) "whenever" one turns to the Lord. The force of the
>> expression is temporal in connection with concomitant events and not on
>> the causes of them or the conditions implied therein. His concern in the
>> use of the expression is not there.
>>
>
> I don't know that hHINKA AN *stresses* causal connection. I am not
> suggesting it should be translated causally. I am simply saying that the
> temporal exprssion implies conditionality.
>
>> There could well be more to the passage (I actually think there is), but I
>> would be wary, again, of overloading a fairly straightforward expression
>> with heavy theological conceptions. It seems to me that to say "Apart from
>> the reading, there would be no experience of the veil" goes well beyond
>> the semantic range of the expression and draws theological conclusions
>> that the expression cannot support.
>>
>
> You have mentioned a theological aspect more than once, and that seems
> strange to me. The text does undoubtedly have theological implications. But
> this is a matter of grammar/syntax/lexicography. It's a fairly simple
> question: does hHINKA AN *imply* some sort of conditional situation? I am
> saying yes, in every instance it occurs in the LXX, it does, and in the very
> verse that serves as Paul's source in 2 Cor 3:16.
>
> 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 other 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.
>
> Again, I think Carl summed it up well: "Temporal but generalizing; but I
> think I'd have to say that it is implicitly conditional, that "whenever" =
> "if at any time." "
>
>
>> Blessings,
>>
>> Donald Cobb
>> Aix-en-Provence, France
>>
>>
>> Brian Abasciano a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hello Donald. I respectfully disagree. While there certainly is a
>>> difference between mere concomitance and contingency, I believe hHNIKA AN
>>> is almost always used for more than mere concomitance. I think condition
>>> has it right generally whereas "cause" may be too strong for some cases.
>>> I stated in my comments to Elizabeth why I think even 2 Cor 3:15 supports
>>> this, but that if that is rejected, there is a critical difference
>>> between 3:15 and 3:16 that would make 3:15 an exception. It is suprising
>>> that you think Englishing 3:15 this way does not work: "if Moses is read,
>>> (then) a veil is placed on their hearts"; I think it works fine except
>>> that I think it incorrectly represents the action of "placing" the veil
>>> as in process. That would actually support my view more. If the placing
>>> of the veil were in view, it would make great sense to say that the
>>> reading of Moses triggers it, serves as a condition for it. However, as I
>>> mentioned to Elizabeth, I think it is far more likely that we have a
>>> stative idea here, "if Moses is read, (then) a veil lies on their heart".
>>> I htink the idea is that if and when Moses is read, then the veil's
>>> action comes into play. Apart from the reading, there would be no
>>> experience of the veil.
>>>
>>> But even more critical for our disagreement, since 3:15 can be taken as
>>> an exception precisely because of the stative idea, is Ex 34:34. I really
>>> am suprised that you do not see Moses' entering into the Lord's presence
>>> as a condition for his removing his veil. That seems very obviously
>>> implied to me. Moses did not take off his veil until he went into the
>>> Lord's presence. Then, if and when he went into the Lord's presence, he
>>> took off the veil. Then when he jeft the Lord's presence he would put the
>>> veil back on again. If that's not conditional, I am not sure what it is.
>>> Surely you are not suggesting that his entrance into the Lord's presence
>>> and his taking off the veil were just completely unconnected occurrences
>>> that just happened to occur together every time one of them happened, are
>>> you? Indeed, in this case, I think we are dealing with something that
>>> clearly implies "because". Because Moses went into the presence of the
>>> Lord, he removed his veil. Entering into the Lord's presence was the
>>> reason he took his veil off. And as I pointed out, (keeping in mind
>>> hHNIKA is only used in the NT in 2 Cor 3:15-16) every OT occurrence of
>>> hHNIKA with EAN and the subjunctive presents the associated action as in
>>> some way determinative for a subordinate contingent action.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Cobb" <docobb at orange.fr>
>>> To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; "Elizabeth Kline"
>>> <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:49 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello Brian,
>>>>
>>>> < "In the Exodus passage, the use of hHNIKA D' AN has nothing causal or
>>>> conditional about it. It merely states when: "every time that"." I think
>>>> this is quite incorrect. If one looks at the Exodus passage, it seems
>>>> clear that Moses took the veil off because he was going into the Lord's
>>>> presence, that going into the Lord's presence occasioned his removing
>>>> the veil. This is substantiated by the fact that he left the veil off
>>>> until he came out, when he would put the veil back on again. >
>>>>
>>>> I think a distinction needs to be made between one action contingent on
>>>> another (= condition or cause) and one action concomitant with another.
>>>> It is clear that the expression hHNIKA AN in 2 Cor 3 and its various OT
>>>> occurrences makes reference to an action that accompanies another
>>>> action, i.e., "when Moses is read a veil is placed on their hearts" (v.
>>>> 15). But the difficulty of seeing that as inherently causal or
>>>> conditional becomes evident when you try to english that by saying:
>>>> "because Moses is read a veil is placed on their hearts" or "if Moses is
>>>> read, (then) a veil is placed on their hearts", as you pointed out in
>>>> your remark to Elizabeth.
>>>>
>>>> In Ex 34:34 the focus of the text is concomitance: "When, i.e., each
>>>> time (not if or because) Moses went into the tent". In that sense, the
>>>> LXX gives an accurate translation of the Heb (inf. + Be : "in Moses'
>>>> going").
>>>>
>>>> I would be afraid that trying to put more content into the expression
>>>> would run the risk of over-reading it, theologically.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Donald Cobb
>>>> Aix-en-Provence, France
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian Abasciano a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Elizabeth,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that the use of hHNIKA in 3:15 gainsays my position. For
>>>>> one, while Paul is not saying that the veil is lifted when they stopped
>>>>> reading, I think he is saying that the veil comes into play at the
>>>>> reading of Moses. So there is a sort of priority given to ANAGINWSKHTAI
>>>>> MWUSHS that brings about the significance of KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN
>>>>> AUTWN KEITAI, or one might even say activates it. The veiledness of
>>>>> heart that Paul refers to there is irrelevant, and in a way,
>>>>> non-existant apart from the reading of Moses/the Old Covenant. That's
>>>>> why Paul states 3:15 as he does. Second, and perhaps more importantly
>>>>> from a grammatical point of view, the statement of 3:15 and 3:16 differ
>>>>> in a critical way. In the former, there is a stative situation
>>>>> suggested by the nature of something lying on something else. (I
>>>>> suppose one could take this as the veil getting laid at that time, but
>>>>> I am sure you would agree that is highly unlikely in this context.
>>>>> Besides, that would bring us to even 3:15 indicating an action
>>>>> contingent on the hHNIKA phrase.) But 3:16 presents the veil getting
>>>>> removed. This reading is supported by 3:14 which tells us that the veil
>>>>> is removed in Christ, a state resulting from conversion ( = turning to
>>>>> the Lord). Third, as I mentioned in citation of my book, In the LXX,
>>>>> hHNIKA with EAN and the subjunctive always presents the associated
>>>>> action as in some way determinative for a subordinate contingent action
>>>>> (Gen. 20.13 [without subjunctive]; 24.41; 27.40; Exod. 13.5; Lev. 5.23;
>>>>> Deut. 25.19; 27.3; Josh. 24.20; 24.27; Jdt. 14.2). Moreover, hHNIKA is
>>>>> so used in every one of its five occurrences in Exodus 32-34 (32.19;
>>>>> 33.8, 22; 34.24, 34), with Exod. 34.34 providing the basis of Paul's
>>>>> use in 2 Cor. 3.16.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Don, that addresses a comment you made, that "In the Exodus passage,
>>>>> the use of hHNIKA D' AN has nothing causal or conditional about it. It
>>>>> merely states when: "every time that"." I think this is quite
>>>>> incorrect. If one looks at the Exodus passage, it seems clear that
>>>>> Moses took the veil off because he was going into the Lord's presence,
>>>>> that going into the Lord's presence occasioned his removing the veil.
>>>>> This is substantiated by the fact that he left the veil off until he
>>>>> came out, when he would put the veil back on again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *************
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:08:05 -0800
>>>>> 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: <70E07ED9-7476-418E-B58A-3477D272D0B6 at earthlink.net>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that 2Cor. 3:15 undermines Brian's reading:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I actually think it is pretty certain that a causal/conditional
>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>> is implied.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There doesn't seem to be any conditional or causal element in 2Cor.
>>>>> 3:15
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL? hEWS SHMERON hHNIKA AN ANAGINWSKHTAI MWUSHS, KALUMMA EPI THN
>>>>> KARDIAN AUTWN KEITAI?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul isn't saying that the KALUMMA EPI THN KARDIAN AUTWN KEITAI is
>>>>> somehow contingent on ANAGINWSKHTAI MWUSHS, as if the veil was lifted
>>>>> when they stopped reading. In English, a straight reading of v16
>>>>> appears to make PERIAIREITAI TO KALUMMA contingent of EPISTREYHi PROS
>>>>> KURION. However, because "we do this in English" it is a good idea to
>>>>> be skeptical about reading it that way in Greek. It is far too easy to
>>>>> read our native language habits in to the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: the Exodus passage, not sure what to do with that. It explains the
>>>>> use of hHNIKA AN but I not certain how it helps to resolve the issue of
>>>>> conditional and/or causal semantic features in 2Cor. 3:15-16.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Elizabeth Kline
>>>>>
>>>>> *****************
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Donald Cobb <docobb at orange.fr>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
>>>>> To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>>>>> Cc: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>>> Message-ID: <4B6A5D2A.8060607 at orange.fr>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>
>>>>> Elizabeth,
>>>>>
>>>>> You raise a good point with v. 15. The connotation there is simply
>>>>> temporal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Exodus passage really is the key, given the total absence
>>>>> of
>>>>> hHNIKA elsewhere in Paul and the NT. Paul is quoting/re-rwiting Exodus
>>>>> to talk about what happens to New Covenant believers. But given that 1)
>>>>> he doesn't use the term elsewhere, and 2) the fact that he is fairly
>>>>> clearly quoting, I think it would be unwise to assume that he's giving
>>>>> any other meaning to hHNIKA AN than what it has in Ex 34.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Exodus passage, the use of hHNIKA D' AN has nothing causal or
>>>>> conditional about it. It merely states when: "every time that". I don't
>>>>> think we can safely say that Paul has any other meaning in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Cobb
>>>>> Aix-en-Provence, France
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
---
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