I’ve discovered still another German scholar who prefers the genitivus qualitatis of ‘evpistolh. Cristou/’ in 2 Cor 3:3. We have truly stumbled upon a German exegetical tradition here. This time I refer to Gruber, M. Margareta, Herrlichkeit in Schwachheit: Eine Auslegung der Apologie des Zweiten Korintherbriefs 2 Kor 2,14-6,13 (FzB 89; Würzburg: Echter, 1998). I found the reference in Klaus Scholtissek’s detailed article, ‘Ihr seid ein Brief Christi’ (2 Kor 3,3). Zur einer ekklesiologischen Metapher bei Paulus (BZ 44, 2000). He, like another of his compatriots, namely Eve-Marie Becker in Schreiben und Verstehen, 2002, prefers to understand the genitive in both an objective and subjective sense (though Becker uses different terminology). I’ve mentioned before, I’m not sure we should speak of this genitive in terms of objective or subjective at all.Let’s face it, there is no blog in the whole world to compare with mine when it comes to the genitive evpistolh. Cristou/ in 2 Cor 3:3!
Image from http://www.german-business-etiquette.com/
8 comments:
Chris, I never compare any other blog to yours.
That would be just plain rude to them.
;-)
Wie sonst einmal in München, so heute auch das Bildchen sagt's ganz: "Mir bleibm beim Bier."
I don't know whether I've mentioned it here -- I probably have -- as I have on several other blogs where the subject has come up, but a pet peeve of mine is the endeavor to pinpoint "subjective," "objective," or even (so Wallace) "plenary" genitives. These designations are essentially translator attempts at self-justification for making a specification in the translation that is simply not there in the Greek construction. It would be more honest to write "Christ-letter" and not attempt to force an interpretation where the context of the Greek doesn't make it any clearer.
"Let’s face it, there is no blog in the whole world to compare with mine when it comes to the genitive evpistolh. Cristou/ in 2 Cor 3:3!"
How proud you must be. ;)
"Christ-faith"?
Carl, great thought on trans. How would you handle pistis Xpristou?
My genitive is always objective, though sometimes it's experienced as a subjective by my wife.
Tortoise,
Oi!
Jamie,
Oi again!
Thanks for your helpful comments, Carl.
You write: “These designations are essentially translator attempts at self-justification for making a specification in the translation that is simply not there in the Greek construction. It would be more honest to write "Christ-letter" and not attempt to force an interpretation where the context of the Greek doesn't make it any clearer.”
I think your line of reasoning ought to promote an appropriate humility in this particular debate concerning the genitive in 2 Cor 3:3 (even if it employs ‘worst-case scenario’ logic), but arguably certain contextual matters do tip the exegetical balance in favour of a more specific translation, namely the genitivus auctoris. Furthermore, it is not clear that the passage reads very easily if one leaves the matter as ‘Christ-letter’. Rather than claiming that more precision in translation is ‘self-justification’, it is better, isn’t it, when there is i) contextual evidence in favour of one reading and ii) a translation decision that avoids a clumsy reading, to see such precision as the goal and job of the translation procedure.
Thoughts?
Chris, I would agree that, when there are CLEAR contextual indicators, these should govern how one translates an adnominal genitive. What I object to is (a) designating the Greek construction itself by one of these titles as if the construction itself has one semantic value rather than another, and (b) tipping the balance by translating one way rather than the other when there are NOT -- or NOT CLEAR -- contextual indicators present; that, in my judgment, is eisegesis.
Hi Carl,
I suppose it depends what one considers clear conextual reasons, and even what one considers to be included when one speaks of 'context'. I think, though I'm not sure, that there is enough reason to read the 2 Cor 3:3 genitive as a genitivus auctoris, as I think that makes sense of the context. But your point is well taken. Though you mentioned Wallace in this regard before. But he is not particularly unusual in this respect, as Moule and BDF etc have similarly detailed genitive patterns, and he makes clear that it is not formal but merely to aid translation. As I'm sure you know, its the whole verbal aspect debate that he would be less popular on, at least here in Europe.
All the very best,
Chris
Post a Comment