[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 13 11:47:06 EST 2010
Hi Brian –
Thanks for your response.
You stated:
>Please note that for me, it is not a case of either temporal or conditional, but as Carl has called it, a temporal conditional. It is both. The temporal is primary. But it implies a condition.<
Also you stated:
>But again, every use of hHNIKA ... (E)AN plus
subjunctive elsewhere in the Bible always presents the "whenever" action as
in some way determinative for a subordinate contingent action.<
So in conclusion – are you saying that in your study of all those hHNIKA phrases in the LXX and GNT, you found the hHNIKA phrase should "always" be considered a temporal conditional (at least, in the LXX and GNT), or only in those places where the above mentioned parameters are found? I really enjoyed this thread.
Thanks,
Blue Harris
________________________________
From: Brian Abasciano <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, February 13, 2010 5:23:51 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
(This message got bounced because of too much older material still in it because of the reply function, so I am resending.)
Blue,
I see that Yancy has responded, and I agree with him that it is unwise to hinge one's interpretation on that conjectural historical reconstruction. Please note that for me, it is not a case of either temporal or conditional, but as Carl has called it, a temporal conditional. It is both. The temporal is primary. But it implies a condition. You might want to watch for my response to Yancy concerning pragmatic conditional.
Brian Abasciano
----- Original Message -----
From: Blue Meeksbay
To: Brian Abasciano
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
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
---
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