05_Tack_copiaaaaa_85-112 28/04/15 12:35 Pagina 90 90 LAURA TACK 1. To Behold as in a Mirror The translation “to behold as in a mirror” has received considerable support. N. Hugedé gave a comprehensive overview of the argu- ments in favour of this translation in his 1957 monograph La mé- taphore du miroir dans les Epîtres de saint Paul aux Corinthiens. 1. The first argument is of a philological nature. The middle form of the verb katoptri,zomai appears in texts in which it either denotes “con- templating oneself in a mirror” 19 or “seeing an object in a mirror” 20. There are no existing texts in which the middle form of the verb means “to reflect”. However, the active form of the verb is used in some texts to describe the reflection of light beams by a mirror 21. 2. The second argument concerns the syntax of 2 Cor 3,18. According to Hugedé, the translation “to behold as in a mirror” is just as much possible on a grammatical level as the translation “to reflect as a mirror”. If one understands the dative avnakekalumme,nw| prosw,pw| as an adjunct of manner, it stresses the moment of unveiling and thus denotes the way in which the Christians are able to see, i.e., without being hindered by the veil 22. 3. According to Hugedé, 2 Corinthians 3 focuses on the juxtaposition of oi` ui`oi. VIsrah,l and all Christians (h`mei/j de. pa,ntej, v. 18). This third chapter characterizes the Israelites as being unable to see the glory (vv. 7, 13). Vv. 14-15 mention the veil as a symbol of their in- ability to see. By way of contrast, the absence of the veil characterizes the situation of the Christians. It suggests that the Christians have in- stead an unimpeded view of the divine glory. The contrast in 2 Corinthians 3 is based, according to Hugedé, on the (in)ability to see. Hugedé therefore thinks that the translation “to behold as in a mirror” matches the supposed contradistinction between the veiled ui`oi. VIsrah,l who cannot see and the unveiled Christians who can 23. 19 DIOGENES LAERTIUS (II, 33. III, 39.VII, 16); ARTEMIDORUS, Onirocriticon II, 7; SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, Pyrrh. Hypotyp., I, 48; ATHENAEUS: 15 p. 687 C. See HUGEDÉ, Métaphore, 20-21. 20 GREGORIUS THAUMATURGOS, Panegyrique d’Origenes (c. XI) PG X 1084 C; PHILO JUDAEOS, Leg. III, 101. See HUGEDÉ, Métaphore, 21. 21 PSEUDO-PLUTARCH, Plac., 3.5. HUGEDÉ, Métaphore, 20. 22 HUGEDÉ, Métaphore, 25. 23 Ibid., 25-28. This is also the opinion of J. Lambrecht in his study on transformation in 2 Cor 3,18 (LAMBRECHT, “Transformation”, 247-250). This third significant argument is still put forward in the recent publications by R. Schwindt and T. Schmeller (R. SCHWINDT, Gesichte der Herrlichkeit. Eine