ἕνεκα | ἕνεκεν marking a purpose clause
SBLGNT 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.NASB 2Cor 7:12
So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness on our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God.
I looked at all the lexicons & all the grammars[1]. There is nothing special about τοῦ + infinitive used to mark a purpose clause. On the other hand, I am not sure that it is reasonable to conclude that ἕνεκεν is MARKING a purpose clause in 2Cor 7:12 ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι.
Louw & Nida
89.58 ἕνεκεν or ἕνεκα: a marker of purpose, with the frequent implication of some underlying reason — ‘in order that, for the sake of, for.’ ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν ‘in order that your zeal might be made known’ 2Cor 7:12; καὶ οἱ πλείους οὐκ ᾔδεισαν τίνος ἕνεκα συνεληλύθεισαν ‘and most of them did not know for what they had come together’ or ‘… why they had come together’ Ac 19:32.Acts 19:32 ἄλλοι μὲν οὖν ἄλλο τι ἔκραζον· ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη καὶ οἱ πλείους οὐκ ᾔδεισαν τίνος ἕνεκα συνεληλύθεισαν.
Acts 19:32 (NRSV) Meanwhile, some were shouting one thing, some another; for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together
.
Acts 19:32 included to demonstrate that it is not relevant to 2Cor 7:12.
Could find nothing in the classical reference works in support of idea of ἕνεκα marking a purpose clause. See Smyth §2195. The NT lexicons agree with L&N. ATR 1073 is not helpful. C. F. D. Moule (pp 83,140) waffles a little bit “… is practically a final clause.” On the other hand, BDF §402 suggests that the third ἕνεκεν in 2Cor 7:12 is superfluous but was included to establish a pattern. In other words ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι would be a purpose clause without ἕνεκεν. N. Turner p144 doesn’t come out in favor of purpose. He agrees with BDF that ἕνεκεν is redundant in 2Cor 7:12.
[1] ATR 1073; Moule 83,140; Turner 144; Smyth §2195; Cooper; BDF §402; BDAG 334.2; … L&N Grimm-Thayer LSJ LS-mid Cunliffe a few others.
Postscript: While trying to track down the relevant data from Josephus cited in Turner, found a thread on b-greek from a while back.
Carl Conrad in dialog with Kline and others covers the subject. Also he points to Smyth §2032 (g).
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2009-October/050714.html
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.”