ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by cwconrad »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ... Perhaps "natural sense" is something akin to prototypical but no one is disputing the prototypical meaning of ἐνέστηκεν. Arguments that claim ἐνέστηκεν always means present vs. immanent don't hold up because they are circular. The samples which are ambiguous are assumed to be examples of present which ignores the fact that in a number of places immanent is the reading adopted by competent scholars (e.g. "immanent" Conzelman on 1Cor 7:26, see A.Thiselton p575, Robertson - Plummer ICC p.152, "very near but not yet present" cf. 2 Thes. 2.2).

RE: ἐνέστηκεν in 1Cor 7:26; A.Thiselton (1Cor 7:26 p575) suggests that the ambiguity between present and immanent reflects a tension also found in the eschatology of the synoptic gospels. The attempt to remove the ambiguity is counter productive. Semantic ambiguity is not the enemy of exegesis.
For the sake of my sanity, may I ask whether "immanent" above may perhaps really mean "imminent", as I'd rather think?
my dictionary wrote:immanent: existing or operating within; inherent: the protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements.
imminent: about to happen: they were in imminent danger of being swept away.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Perhaps "natural sense" is something akin to prototypical but no one is disputing the prototypical meaning of ἐνέστηκεν. Arguments that claim ἐνέστηκεν always means present vs. immanent don't hold up because they are circular. The samples which are ambiguous are assumed to be examples of present which ignores the fact that in a number of places immanent is the reading adopted by competent scholars (e.g. "immanent" Conzelman on 1Cor 7:26, see A.Thiselton p575, Robertson - Plummer ICC p.152, "very near but not yet present" cf. 2 Thes. 2.2).
My impression is that sometimes competent scholars don't have the time to check whether the definitions they find in the lexicons are actually soundly based. In this case, I haven't yet found a single case with the verb in the perfect where the meaning 'present' is not at least as suitable as the meaning 'imminent'. I am not saying that such cases don't exist, they may well do. Here is one with the imperfect, from L&S, B.III:
συνέβαινε δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τἀναντία: μείζονος γὰρ ἐνίστατο πολέμου καταρχὴ καὶ φοβερωτέρου. [Polybius 1.71.4]

and what happened was just the reverse, as they were now threatened by the outbreak of a greater and more formidable war. [Loeb, Paton]
Andrew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Andrew Chapman wrote: My impression is that sometimes competent scholars don't have the time to check whether the definitions they find in the lexicons are actually soundly based. In this case, I haven't yet found a single case with the verb in the perfect where the meaning 'present' is not at least as suitable as the meaning 'imminent'. I am not saying that such cases don't exist, they may well do.
Andrew
I did yet another tour of the Lexicons including BAGD, BDAG, Grimm-Thayer, L&N, LSJ, LEH(LXX), Danker (abbreviated) … is it really probable that all of these lexicons were edited by slackers? This discussion seems to me mired down in a lexical fallacy, that the semantic prototype for ἐνέστηκεν can be directly mapped to a semantic prototype in English; that we are faced with an either/or choice between the English words "pending" and "present" which must be resolved. A. Thiselton[1] (1Cor p.575) suggests that this choice may not be necessary. The apparent ambiguity of ἐνέστηκεν is a side effect of English lexical semantics.


[1]A. Thiselton, he is considered by some an expert on hermeneutics. I have certain reservations about that but this isn't the place to talk about it.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by cwconrad »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote: My impression is that sometimes competent scholars don't have the time to check whether the definitions they find in the lexicons are actually soundly based. In this case, I haven't yet found a single case with the verb in the perfect where the meaning 'present' is not at least as suitable as the meaning 'imminent'. I am not saying that such cases don't exist, they may well do.
Andrew
I did yet another tour of the Lexicons including BAGD, BDAG, Grimm-Thayer, L&N, LSJ, LEH(LXX), Danker (abbreviated) … is it really probable that all of these lexicons were edited by slackers? This discussion seems to me mired down in a lexical fallacy, that the semantic prototype for ἐνέστηκεν can be directly mapped to a semantic prototype in English; that we are faced with an either/or choice between the English words "pending" and "present" which must be resolved. A. Thiselton[1] (1Cor p.575) suggests that this choice may not be necessary. The apparent ambiguity of ἐνέστηκεν is a side effect of English lexical semantics.


[1]A. Thiselton, he is considered by some an expert on hermeneutics. I have certain reservations about that but this isn't the place to talk about it.
I think Clay is right on target here. I've been thinking about "present" and "imminent" and ἐνέστηκεν -- and the opening of T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets comes to mind:
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
It seems to me that we're talking about a καιρός. I don't know where this came from, but I recall:
χρόνος ἐστὶν ἐν ᾧ πολλοὶ καιροί·
καιρός ἐστιν ἐν ᾧ οὐ πολύς χρόνος
A καιρός is a moment in time calling for a response -- an opportunity, a warning. It's a time to take action.
Jesus' initial proclamation,
πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.
is a declaration and a challenge.

Eschatological time in theological discussion always seems to hover precariously between “already” and “not yet.” There are those who would argue that Olam-ha-ba has already begun, even though we still live in Olam-ha-zeh. On the other hand, this is where sectarian believers are often at greatest odds: some insist that these words — ἤγγικεν and ἐνέστηκεν refer to an imminent future others to an immediately confronting present. Insofar as these are addressed to individuals or groups to elicit an immediate decision, they mean “Don’t put off your choice one moment longer! Now is the acceptable time!”
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote: is it really probable that all of these lexicons were edited by slackers?
Obviously not, but I have noticed that it seems to be the lexicographers themselves who are the most aware of the deficiencies of the lexicons. For example, John Lee (of the Macquarrie Moulton and Milligan project) in his chapter 'The Present State of Lexicography..' in the Danker festschrift 'Biblical Greek Language..', p. 66:
if one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the [lexicon].

Yet this trust is misplaced. The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - .. above all, dependence on predecessors.
Likewise, see John Chadwick and Peter Glare on Liddell and Scott. Chadwick: 'Only if you have yourself wrestled with these problems [of lexicography] will you how deficient the articles [ie the entries, in L&S] before you are.' [In 'The Case for Replacing Liddell and Scott', BICS 1994].

Needless to say, I am full of admiration, even awe, of their achievements. But surely this doesn't preclude examining individual entries, especially when they seem surprising. I looked up LEH, and the example they give under the meaning 'to be at hand, to arise' is an aorist subjunctive:
ἐὰν δὲ ἐνστῇ πόλεμος Ῥώμῃ προτέρᾳ .. [1 Maccabees 8.24]

If there come first any war upon the Romans .. [Brenton]

But if war should come to Rome first .. [NETS]
I don't think 'at hand' would be correct here (it seems closer to 'arise'). It's the terms of a mutual assistance treaty, which surely would come into force if a war actually came, not if it was only imminent.

LEH also give an example with the perfect, and give it the meaning 'threatening', but both Brenton and NETS have a simple present:
Ἵνα τί ἐκόπωσας πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον πολέμου μὴ ἐνεστηκότος ἡμῖν; 

'when there is no war threatening us' [LEH]

Why hast thou put all this people to so great trouble, seeing there is no war betwixt us? [Brenton]

Why have you wearied all these people without there being a war with us? [NETS]
The present here seems simpler. Surely Tryphon can just be saying to Jonathan, 'why have you come with so great an army, when we are not at war with each other?'.

Andrew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Andrew,

I should clarify that I am not really arguing for any particular "reading" of ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thes. 2.2, present, pending or whatever. My concern is over using one of these readings in an argument regarding Eschatology. So when and if the smoke clears we might end up with the same conclusion.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Complicating the question is that pending has different meanings in English. It could mean "ongoing"; it could mean "awaiting decision"; it could mean "imminent". What meaning is meant by the gloss of pending?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I should clarify that I am not really arguing for any particular "reading" of ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thes. 2.2, present, pending or whatever. My concern is over using one of these readings in an argument regarding Eschatology. So when and if the smoke clears we might end up with the same conclusion.
Thanks, Clay. I am not personally driven by any strong commitment to either side in the debate; I was driven by a desire to give as accurate information as possible to my friend as to the range of possible meanings for the word.

Frame in the ICC says:
'That ἐνέστηκεν = “is present” is recognised by many commentators (Oecumenius, Kern, .. Alford, Ellicott, Lillie..). Many other interpreters, however, perhaps “from the supposed necessity of the case rather than any grammatical compulsion” (Lillie), are inclined to explain “is present” to mean “is at hand”. .. see Lillie's exhaustive note in defence of the translation “is present.”'
John Lillie (Thessalonians, translated from the Greek, with notes, American Bible Union) has a very long note on the subject, and has this to say:
As it is difficult to conceive on what grounds, except those of rhetorical hyperbole, the perfect of ἐνίστημι could be predicated of that which, however near, is still future, so, as far as I can trace the form, it never is so employed, but invariably denotes actual presence.
He goes on to look at both classical, LXX and NT usage, without finding any evidence for a future meaning.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Complicating the question is that pending has different meanings in English. It could mean "ongoing"; it could mean "awaiting decision"; it could mean "imminent". What meaning is meant by the gloss of pending?
Thanks, Stephen, I had meant to look the word up. The OED says that its first meaning as a preposition is 'during; throughout the continuance of', but adds that the meaning is 'now rare'. They claim the following as a recent instance:

'1988, K. Amis 'Difficulties with Girls' iv. 49 'The old board-room across the landing from his own office was closed pending redecoration.'

I would certainly have read this as 'awaiting redecoration', but perhaps looking it up would prove otherwise. If the gloss dates from Liddell and Scott, then they may have had the earlier meaning in mind.

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”