[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