[B-Greek] ENEKEN TOU + inf 2Cor 7:12

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Oct 11 06:48:03 EDT 2009


On Oct 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

> 2Cor. 7:12 ἄρα εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, οὐχ
> ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος οὐδὲ  
> ἕνεκεν
> τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος ἀλλ᾿ ἕνεκεν τοῦ
> φανερωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν
> ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνώπιον τοῦ
> θεοῦ.
> .
> 2COR. 7:12 ARA EI KAI EGRAYA hUMIN, OUC hENEKEN TOU ADIKHSANTOS OUDE
> hENEKEN TOU ADIKHQENTOS ALL᾿ hENEKEN TOU FANERWQHNAI THN SPOUDHN
> hUMWN THN hUPER hHMWN PROS hUMAS ENWPION TOU QEOU.
> .
> Seems to be some disagreement over what is going on with hENEKEN TOU
> FANERWQHNAI. Did Paul repeat hENEKEN a third time just so it would
> sound good? (cf. BDF 403, Turner 144.9)  Is hENEKEN TOU FANERWQHNAI
> final (BDAG 334.2) or are all three causative (ATR, 1073)?

I think this is a matter of rhetorical emphasis: "the explanation is  
not X and the explanation is not Y either; the explanation is Z"
It seems to me that there's a looseness in Koine Greek usage of  
expressions of "explanation" or what Greeks termed  
αἰτιάτικον [AITIATIKON]: purpose, result," explanatory  
factor" (that's how I'd prefer to English Aristotle's technical  
philosophical term αἱτία [AITIA], usually conveyed by "cause." We  
find hENEKA with genitive, DIA with accusative, EIS TO with  
infinitive, hOTI with indicative clause, hINA with subjunctive clause  
-- to name a few. In the text at hand  the question Paul seeks to  
answer is "Why did I write to you?" His answer: "It wasn't a matter of  
someone giving offense nor a matter of someone taking offense; rather  
it was a matter of your own coming to see the intensity of your  
feelings for me before God."

hENEKA (with its variants, hENEKEN, hEINEKA, hOUNEKA) regularly  
construes with a genitive, which in older or more literary Greek often  
precedes it. It's hard to pinpoint the sense: "because of," "on  
account of," "for the sake of," "with the intention of," etc. I think  
that the BDAG entry on this word deals with it well enough, but I  
think that the effort to disambiguate usage of this "preposition" is  
rather hopeless, so that BDAG's settling upon "purpose" as what's  
involved in 2 Cor 7:12 is arguable -- as our citation of ATR notes.  
The principle here is "When it doubt between two alternatives, say  
'Yes.'"

Rhetorically this passage reminds me of one that we recently discussed  
in this forum:

John 9:2 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ  
αὐτοῦ λέγοντες· ῥαββί, τίς ἥμαρτεν,  
οὗτος ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς  
γεννηθῇ;  3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· οὔτε  
οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ,  
ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ  
ἐν αὐτῷ.
[KAI HRWTHSAN AUTON hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU LEGONTES· hRABBI, TIS hHMARTEN,  
hOUTOS H hOI GONEIS AUTOU, hINA TUFLOS GENNHQHi;  3 APEKRIQH IHSOUS·  
OUTE hOUTOS hHMARTEN OUTE hOI GONEIS AUTOU, ALL᾿ hINA FANERWQHi TA  
ERGA TOU QEOU EN AUTWi.]

In this instance too we have two rejected reasons -- the reasons  
suggested by the disciples -- followed by the reason Jesus highlights  
by explicitly negating the rejected alternatives: NOT X and NOT Y, but  
RATHER Z. And in this instance the hINA clause is employed. We can  
argue whether Jesus is really asserting that the man's lifelong  
blindness was divinely intended with the healing at this moment in  
view -- as most may prefer to read it -- or whether he is really  
saying something rhetorically comparable to what Paul is saying in 2  
Cor 7:12, namely, "It's not a matter of this man's sin nor of his  
parents' sin; rather it's a matter of God's action coming to light in  
his person."

If Steve Runge has a take on the rhetoric of either or both of these  
texts, I'd welcome any comment, but he needn't feel obliged to respond.

> .
>  hENEKA TOU PROLEGEIN in the following from Josephus. AJ may or may
> not be a similar construction.
> .
> Josephus. AJ 13.311
> μάλιστα δ’ ἄν τις θαυμάσειεν καὶ
> Ἰούδαν τινά, Ἐσσηνὸν 2 μὲν τὸ  
> γένος,
> οὐδέποτε δ’ ἐν οἷς προεῖπεν
> διαψευσάμενον τἀληθές· 3 οὗτος γὰρ
> ἰδὼν τὸν Ἀντίγονον παριόντα τὸ
> ἱερὸν ἀνεβόησεν ἐν 4 τοῖς ἑταίροις
> αὐτοῦ καὶ γνωρίμοις, οἳ  
> διδασκαλίας
> ἕνεκα τοῦ προλέγειν τὰ μέλλοντα
> παρέμενον, ὡς ἀποθανεῖν αὐτῷ καλὸν
> διεψευσμένῳ ζῶντος Ἀντιγόνου,
> .
> MALISTA D' AN TIS QAUMASEIEN KAI IOUDAN TINA, ESSHNON 2 MEN TO GENOS,
> OUDEPOTE D' EN hOIS PROEIPEN DIAYEUSAMENON TA)LHQES· 3 hOUTOS GAR  
> IDWN
> TON ANTIGONON PARIONTA TO hIERON ANEBOHSEN EN 4 TOIS hETAIROIS AUTOU
> KAI GNWRIMOIS, hOI DIDASKALIAS hENEKA TOU PROLEGEIN TA MELLONTA
> PAREMENON, hWS APOQANEIN AUTWi KALON DIEYEUSMENWi ZWNTOS ANTIGONOU,

I don't really think this is quite comparable to the 2 Cor text. Here  
I think that the preceding διδασκαλίας [DIDASKALIAS] is  
directly governed by ἕνεκα [hENEKA] and τοῦ  
προλέγειν τὰ μέλλοντα [TOU PROLEGEIN TA MELLONTA]  
depends upon διδασκαλίας. -- these disciples stayed with him  
for instaruction in predicting the future.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list