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

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Oct 11 18:14:01 EDT 2009


On Oct 11, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

> 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.

Probably true, although I've always assumed that the genitive of the  
articular infinitive to express purpose originated from a hENEKA  
expression requiring a genitive; I don't think there's any reason for  
the articular genitive infinitive to express purpose in itself -- why  
genitive? I don't know. Cf. Smyth §2032.

>
>
>> 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" ... .

Well, I wouldn't put the apparent contradiction beyond Paul; I do  
think this phraseology is heavy-handed rhetoric: "It was NOT X, NOR  
was it Y, BUT RATHER it wsa Z."

>
>>
>> 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:

Right, and here hENEKEN follows immediately upon its governed  
genitive; EQNOUS depends upon SWTHRIAS. I think the word order is  
comparable to the obligatory postpositive GAR -- you wouldn't see  
SWTHRIAS TOU EQNOUS hENEKA, I don't think.

> .
> 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

Here the hENEKA phrase is explanatory: "because they took captive ... "
> .
> 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

This is just like Amos 1:6, explanatory hENEKA + aorist infinitive:  
"because they rejected ... " It looks to me like the hENEKA + aor.  
infi. was used as an equivalent of the Hebrew AL + infinitive.




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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list