An odd twist or an ingenious translation?

Christopher Hutson crhutson at salisbury.net
Wed Jul 1 15:14:24 EDT 1998



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 Paul¹s Opponents
[Sheffield, 1990]) but sharpens Sumney¹s method at crucial points
(23-24, and 170, n. 2).  
	Martin shows that an outsider had ³entered in² (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, ³If you died with Christ, why do you
dogmatize from the elements of the cosmos as if living in the cosmos?²
	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).  
	Martin¹s 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 ³angels² here with ³rules and authorities² (2:15) and with
³elements of the cosmos² (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 at salisbury.net
------------------------------------



More information about the B-Greek mailing list