I’m ill and I feel like crap.
And I'm confused. I still don’t know what way to go with regards the pistis Christou construction in Paul (objective or subjective genitive). After making an extensive lists of pros and cons for each position, downed a few cups of coffee, stared at the evidence again … and again, wrote another list, drunk more coffee, shifted from convinced by the subjective to objective genitive interpretation (at one point in a matter of minutes), and then back again etc. At the end of this tearing-my-hair-out experience, I was left in a sort of miserable ‘post-exegesis’ daze. And I still haven’t frigging made up my mind. To be honest, I don’t see any hope of doing so either, at least not for the next few years. Pity. I’d kind of wanted to at least make a preliminary exegetical decision about this one. I know its the old Fundie in me, but I just can’t be doing with yet another grey-area.
Nevertheless, and here things get decidedly more cheerful: one rather exciting silver-lining to the day is that I may, after all, be getting my hands on a second hand copy of Barth’s entire kirchliche Dogmatik! Oh yes oh yes!
The only obstacle is: I have to get the seller to reduce his offer a tad (surprise). The question that is keeping me awake at night is, of course, how can I get him to lower his price? Violence wouldn’t work as, well, he’d kick my arse all over Tübingen (he’s considerably bigger than me). Plus, violence and Chris Tilling are as far apart as Benny Hinn and Bultmann. Apart from that, the only martial-art manoeuvre I know is the ‘Chinese burn’ (learnt it from the wife). Hardly enough to prise the Church Dogmatics from his grubby hands.
Alternatively, late at night I could ‘ram raid’ the book shop with my car, burst a hole in the wall, stuff the Church Dogmatics in the passenger seat and flee. But I’ve been hovering around Barth’s books, asking the book-shop owner questions etc. for a while now – so if the CDs are the only missing items after the raid it would look a bit suspicious, and so I couldn’t ever return. And that would be a pity. Besides, the shop is a few doors away from the police station, which leads me to point out: if ever I did get caught and thrown into jail, the ‘great Church Dogmatics thief’ is hardly a reputation to get by when rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals. I could sell Anja to some Arabs for some extra cash – but she’d Chinese burn me if I tried. And even I have my limits.
If you’ve actually read through those paragraphs of total crap, I’m sorry you wasted your time. But if you read this bit: Please get on your knees and pray that the book-seller feels awesomely and overwhelmingly generous when I see him next, or that he is smitten with blindness so that I can scarper with the volumes under my arms while he’s fumbling for the light-switch.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Well I know why you are ill--- look at the time man! 1:41 AM. Ouch!!!!
Plus, the Barth lust has hold of you. And just to add another lump to the hemorrhoid, that edition is the very one I own- the 31 volume paperback edition. It's excellent!
;-)
I'll trade ya mine- for a university mug......
Although Barth turned down almost all speaking invitations, he continued to preach regularly in the Basel prison. And so this joking remark circulated: "You must commit a crime in order to hear Karl Barth preach."
So I suppose it would not be entirely inappropriate to end up in prison for the sake of the Church Dogmatics....
Subjective Genitive must prevail! Become a fundie TODAY!
Chris, on the subj gen, I say yes to Eph. 3.12 (definite article + genitive = subjective, hate to say it, but the KJV is right); on Phil. 3.9, a subj gen meshes well with the idea of obedience in Phil. 2.5-11 and the flow of 3.7-9 supports the subj gen. too (see my JETS article). As for Rom. 1.17 could be that my righteousness one (Jesus) will live (i.e. be resurrected) by faithfulness. I'm not sure on other Galatians and Romans passages. I was quite touched by Hurtado's preface in Lord Jesus Christ, which noted how David Juel, in his dying days, entrusted himself to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ! Amen to that one!
Chris,
For what it's worth at this point I would also recommend the later edition of Hay's seminal work.
I've spent some time thinking about the pistis Christou debate and I'm not convinced that it is one which we can completely resolve. Sometimes I think that exegetical situations arise in which contemporary scholarship can only establish the boundaries of a permissible range of meanings (and I say this as one inclined to favour the subjective genitive). Thus both translations could be accepted. In this particular case faithful exegesis does not produce a single meaning (nor does it produce an endless amount of meanings), but a narrowly limited range of meanings.
Peace,
Dan
Man, you're havin' a bad week, huh?
I think I have this figured out for you, Chris. I'll get on a plane to Germany, as soon as I get there we go to the bookstore, I'll distract the guy at the counter you grab the books and take off . . . then, I'll tackle you to the floor, thus acting like I have prevented a theft, you go to jail, but as a reward for "saving the day" I request and get the books. As soon as you get out of jail, I'll give you the books (maybe) . . . sound like a plan?
That wouldn't be another mention of a mug again would it Jim?!!
Consider it in the post ...(especially for that trade!)
You know Ben, this 'Barth frenzy' is largely your fault. If it weren't for all your posts on this dear theologian I wouldn't find him half as interesting as I do ...
what I'm trying to say is that you should finish what you started and fork up the cash for these second hand volumes ...
Sean wrote: Subjective Genitive must prevail! Become a fundie TODAY!
Hi Sean! Become a Fundie? Been there, seen it, and have very definitely done it! I’m still very attracted to the subjective interpretation though, even if Stuhlmacher calls it ‘unambiguously’ wrong, and Esler speaks of it in the order of ‘the emperor has no clothes on’ (cf. his new Roman’s commentary)
Hi Mike,
First, congrats on your forthcoming book. I’ve been thinking about the Eph 3:12 reference. If you are right, that it is good clear evidence of a subjective, then reference to the constructions in Mark and James hardly seem as relevant.
As for the Phil references, I do recommend Koperski’s delightful volume The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, if you don’t know it already. I’ll dig out your article, thanks for that.
The Rom 1:17 case is, I think, a really difficult beast. An Ethiopian has recently written and is presently revising a doctoral dissertation on this very verse (he was initially supervised by Doug Campbell). I have worked through one of his chapters and it was of the ‘my head hurts’ variety! Extremely technical. But, I fear, this whole question cannot avoid such technicalities, hence I think it will be years before I can, or should, come to a conclusion.
And indeed, Amen to Hurtado’s mention of the ‘Faithfulness’!
Hi Dan,
“I'm not convinced that it is one which we can completely resolve”
I tend to agree! And thanks for your thoughts about establishing boundaries. I hadn’t thought of it like that before. I like it.
Pax,
Chris
Hi TB!
Get on that plane instantly, your cunning plan sounds flawless - with one tiny adjustment ...
I’ll do the ‘tackling’, and you end up in prison. I’ll visit, honest.
"You know Ben, this 'Barth frenzy' is largely your fault." Really? You know, that is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me....
Hi there,
I've been enjoying dipping into your blog today.
I would also be interested actually to see the list of pros and cons on the OGR/SGR debate one day.
While we're on that question, isn't Eph. 4:13 even more obvious than Eph. 3:12?
Best,
Douglas Campbell
HI. Any personal progress on the "faith of/in Christ" hair grayer. I'm there (hair grayer) now.
Ron
I agree with Michael (his comment from a long time ago!) that in Phil 3 the "faithfulness of Christ" reading seems right. It appears that Paul is saying that the ground of human faith is Christ's faithfulness.
Post a Comment