From: Rick Strelan (r.strelan@mailbox.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon Dec 01 1997 - 14:10:36 EST
I enjoy reading the 'old boys',their struggles with the Greek text, and
their speculations. I read recently a very short article by Rendel Harris
in which he argues that the subject of the verb EKHRUXEN has been
inadvertently omitted from 1 Pet 3:19 but understandably so, and that the
text should read ENWKAIENWCTOISENFULAKH....
I trust you can see his point. An error in copying saw the omission of
the 'second' ENW[C]. Rendel Harris thinks the Enoch tradition (see 1 Enoch
12) supports his claim and, besides, his reading removes some of the
exegetical difficulties such as treating EN hWi as a relative to the previous
PNEUMATI - rather, it introduces, awkwardly, a new sentence as in 1 Pet 4:4.
For interest's sake and for what it's worth
Rick Strelan
Brisbane
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT