From: Ben Crick (ben.crick@argonet.co.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 03 1997 - 10:40:45 EST
On Tue 2 Dec 97 (17:49:22), I <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue 2 Dec 97 (04:58:13 +1000), r.strelan@mailbox.uq.edu.au wrote:
> > 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 EN hWi KAI ENWC TOIS EN FULAKHi... [retranscribed for clarity]
> > 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.
>
> Hullo Rick!
>
> Well, well! Could you give us the Rendell Harris reference, please?
>
> Certainly it looks like a bit of haplography (ENWX confused with EN hWi
> and so inadvertently omitted). A scribe taking down oral dictation could
> easily fall into such a trap.
Rick:
On second thoughts, if we are going to supply a subject for the verb
EKHRUXEN, and not make it refer back to CRISTOS in verse 18a:
why don't we supply NWE from verse 20 (in direct context), rather than
gratuitously import ENWC from Jude? Even though Jude has close affinity
with 2 Peter, 2 Peter does not necessarily have any affinity at all
with 1 Peter; it is not a sequel like 1 & 2 Timothy. Noah is the person
under consideration in verses 20-21, with the Flood/Baptism analogy of
Deliverance from Death by the sufferings (18), death (18), resurrection
(18, 21), ascension and session (22) of Jesus Christ.
Cindy Westfall makes a good case for NWE too.
We know that the early church gave very short shrift to Pseudepigrapha
when it came to defining the Canon of Scripture. However popular "Enoch"
was with the 1st century hellenistic Jews, it was never seriously in the
running for Canonical status. The subsequent use made by Gnostic heretics
of "Enoch" (and later, of "2 Enoch") seems to confirm the wisdom and
discernment of the early church fathers in this regard.
NWE isn't quite as near a homophone of EN hWi as ENWC is; but it could
well be. I'm not happy about that strong gutteral C; so much heavier than
a mere rough breathing. I'm told by my Greek Cypriot hairdresser that
modern Greek newspapers have totally abandoned the printing of breathings,
accents and iota subscripts, giving only the alphabetical text: the Greek
equivalent of "unpointed Hebrew". Our local newsagents don't stock Greek
periodicals, so I haven't checked this out yet.
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT