From: Christopher Hutson (crhutson@salisbury.net)
Date: Wed Jul 01 1998 - 15:14:24 EDT
B-Greeksters,
I wrote:
>> Let me just
>>add a suggestion that you might want to look at
>>
>>Troy W. Martin. By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as
>>Response to a Cynic Critique. JSNTSS 118; Sheffield: Sheffield
>>Academic Press, 1996.
>>
>>Martin's own reading of this difficult passage is a radical
departure
>>(an "ingenious translation"?) from traditional readings.
>
and Jonathan Robie asked,
>Wanna share his translation with us, along with its justification?
>
>Jonathan
I was afraid you would ask that. I don't have my own copy of the
book, and it's been a year since I read it. Here is an excerpt from a
review that is forthcoming in _Restoration Quarterly_. My apologyies
that the transliteration in this exerpt does not follow B-Greek
conventions.
------
...[snip]...
Part I establishes the opponents as Cynics. Martin appropriates the
path breaking work of Jerry Sumney (Identifying PaulÕs Opponents
[Sheffield, 1990]) but sharpens SumneyÕs method at crucial points
(23-24, and 170, n. 2).
Martin shows that an outsider had Òentered inÓ (2:18) to the
Colossian worship and criticized (2:16, 18) what he saw (2:18).
...[snip--Martin identifies those outsiders as Cynic critics of the
Christian community, and I discuss some strengths and weaknesses of
his argument]...
A strength of this book is scrupulous attention to grammatical
details. Although the syntax of 2:16-23 is admittedly difficult,
Martin shows how interpreters run roughshod over the grammar. For
example, apo never occurs with the verb apothneiskein to express
separation (38). Therefore, apo in 2:20 belongs with dogmatizesthe,
and the verse should read, ÒIf you died with Christ, why do you
dogmatize from the elements of the cosmos as if living in the cosmos?Ó
Part II is a painstaking exegesis of Colossians 2:16-23, which
describes the Cynic critique of Christians for their food and drink
and their calendar (2:16), as well as for their view of humility and
their worship received from messengers (2:18).
MartinÕs careful reading produces a number of surprises. For
example, according to Martin threskeia ton angelon (2:18) is neither a
subjective nor an objective genitive. The popular understanding that
conflates ÒangelsÓ here with Òrules and authoritiesÓ (2:15) and with
Òelements of the cosmosÓ (2:8, 20) anachronistically introduces
second-century syncretism into the text. Martin treats this as a
genitive of source that refers to worship received from human
messengers such as Paul and Epaphras. Because Cynics adhered to a
natural theology and placed a premium on self-sufficiency, they
spurned human mediators of religion.
...[and so on]...
-------------
Does that give you an idea? Since I don't have Martin's book at hand,
I can't very well defend or discuss the details, but I maintain that
Timo and others who are interested in the grammar of Colossians 2 will
find grist for their mills in Martin's discussion.
XPIC
------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
Hood Theological Seminary
Salisbury, NC 28144
crhutson@salisbury.net
------------------------------------
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:51 EDT