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

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 11 15:12:06 EDT 2009


Thank you Carl,

I have interspersed some comments below.

On Oct 11, 2009, at 3:48 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:

>
> 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 (, 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.'"
>

BDF #403 indicates that the third hEINEKA in 2Cor 7:12 is  
[grammatically] "superfluous" Turner 144.9 "redundant". The repetition  
of  hENEKEN TOU makes a pleasing to the ear three fold repetition. So  
I would assume we have no well established pattern of  ENEKEN TOU +  
inf marking final clauses.


> 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."

> ... NOT X and NOT Y, but RATHER Z.


Several commentators have suggested  we have a Hebrew idiom in  2Cor  
7:12, not an absolute rejection of X and Y but something like "not  
primarily X or Y, but mostly Z" but stated in manner that would sound  
like an absolute contrast to some greek speaking gentile who didn't  
know the idiom. This sounds to me like a somewhat desperate attempt to  
avoid an apparent contradiction between two statements of Paul's  
concerning his purpose in writing the previous letter. I am not saying  
the Hebrew idiom didn't exist, I am just a little leery of the common  
refrain "here we have a semitism" ... .

>
> 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]

Thank you, that is what I wanted to know, hENEKA follows the case.

> and τοῦ προλέγειν τὰ μέλλοντα [TOU  
> PROLEGEIN TA MELLONTA] depends upon διδασκαλίας. -- these  
> disciples stayed with him for instaruction in predicting the future.

BDF 403 suggests we find examples of ENEKA TOU + inf in Jos.,   
searching for this pattern[1] AJ 13.311 was the only one that looked  
remotely possible. Turner cites Jos. AJ 11.293 which does not really  
look like an example, SWTHRIAS hENEKEN TOU EQNOUS ... gentitives on  
both sides of hENEKEN, TOU obviously with EQNOUS, not a following  
infintive:
.
Jos. AJ 11.293
δοὺς δὲ 2 αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀντίγραφον  
τῶν ἐν Σούσοις προτεθέντων κομίσαι  
τῇ 3 Ἐσθῆρι καὶ περὶ τούτων  
δεηθῆναι τοῦ βασιλέως ἐνετέλλετο  
καὶ 4 σωτηρίας ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἔθνους μὴ  
ἀδοξῆσαι λαβεῖν σχῆμα ταπεινόν, 5 ᾧ  
παραιτήσεται τοὺς Ἰουδαίους  
κινδυνεύοντας ἀπολέσθαι·
.
DOUS DE 2 AUTWi KAI TO ANTIGRAFON TWN EN SOUSOIS PROTEQENTWN KOMISAI  
THi 3 ESQHRI KAI PERI TOUTWN DEHQHNAI TOU BASILEWS ENETELLETO KAI 4  
SWTHRIAS hENEKEN TOU EQNOUS MH ADOXHSAI LABEIN SCHMA TAPEINON, 5 hWi  
PARAITHSETAI TOUS IOUDAIOUS KINDUNEUONTAS APOLESQAI·

Turner's references from the LXX are somewhat more promising. In  
1Esdr. 8:21 hENEKA TOU MH GENESQAI ORGHN ... looks like either a final  
clause or perhaps presentational (cf. M.Sim on  hINA).
.
1Esdr. 8:21 πάντα τὰ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ  
νόμον ἐπιτελεσθήτω ἐπιμελῶς τῷ θεῷ  
τῷ ὑψίστῳ ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ γενέσθαι  
ὀργὴν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ  
βασιλέως καὶ τῶν υἱῶν
.
1ESDR. 8:21 PANTA TA KATA TON TOU QEOU NOMON EPITELESQHTW EPIMELWS TWi  
QEWi TWi hUYISTWi hENEKA TOU MH GENESQAI ORGHN EIS THN BASILEIAN TOU  
BASILEWS KAI TWN hUIWN
.
Amos 1:6 τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐπὶ ταῖς  
τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις Γάζης καὶ ἐπὶ  
ταῖς τέσσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι  
αὐτούς ἕνεκεν τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι  
αὐτοὺς αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ Σαλωμων τοῦ  
συγκλεῖσαι εἰς τὴν Ιδουμαίαν
.
AMOS 1:6 TADE LEGEI KURIOS EPI TAIS TRISIN ASEBEIAIS GAZHS KAI EPI  
TAIS TESSARSIN OUK APOSTRAFHSOMAI AUTOUS hENEKEN TOU AICMALWTEUSAI  
AUTOUS AICMALWSIAN TOU SALWMWN TOU SUGKLEISAI EIS THN IDOUMAIAN
.
Amos 2:4 τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐπὶ ταῖς  
τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις υἱῶν Ιουδα καὶ  
ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσσαρσιν οὐκ  
ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν ἕνεκα τοῦ  
ἀπώσασθαι αὐτοὺς τὸν νόμον κυρίου  
καὶ τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ  
ἐφυλάξαντο καὶ ἐπλάνησεν αὐτοὺς  
τὰ μάταια αὐτῶν ἃ ἐποίησαν οἷς  
ἐξηκολούθησαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν  
ὀπίσω αὐτῶν
.
  AMOS 2:4 TADE LEGEI KURIOS EPI TAIS TRISIN ASEBEIAIS hUIWN IOUDA KAI  
EPI TAIS TESSARSIN OUK APOSTRAFHSOMAI AUTON hENEKA TOU APWSASQAI  
AUTOUS TON NOMON KURIOU KAI TA PROSTAGMATA AUTOU OUK EFULAXANTO KAI  
EPLANHSEN AUTOUS TA MATAIA AUTWN hA EPOIHSAN hOIS EXHKOLOUQHSAN hOI  
PATERES AUTWN OPISW AUTWN



Elizabeth Kline

[1] ENEKA with its variants within five words of TOU





More information about the B-Greek mailing list