[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Feb 8 19:05:32 EST 2010
On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Albert Pietersma wrote:
> 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.
You are right; I did not read your message carefully enough. I think we are in complete agreement here.
> 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.
>>> 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."
More information about the B-Greek