From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 1998 - 10:52:24 EST
Dear Paul,
In a message dated 98-01-11 21:27:29 EST, you write:
> Please forgive me for not clarifying my interpretation. Perhaps this is
> new to some. Let me assure you it is not original with me. First, try
> envisioning no chronological progression between verses 18 and 19. The
> connection is merely EN hWi, referring back to PNEUMATI, by which we are
> to see that in the days of Noah Jesus in the Spirit (undoubtedly through
> the preaching of Noah) went and preached to disobedient men who are now
> spirits in prison. Of course, when He preached to them, they were not
> spirits in prison, but they are now, so writes Peter.
>
I like the trend of your observations and suggestions in questioning the
punctuation. What I would like to ask all the participants in this thread
is: does EN hWi have to refer to PNEUMATI as an antecedent? Could it be
referring to the same thing as the EN hWi in 3:16? I've skimmed the usage of
EN hWi in I Peter (1:6, 3:16, 4:4). It does not seem that they refer to
immediate antecedents in this way. Can EN hWi be a reference to the topic at
hand (behavior backing good character, including PRAUTHTOS KAI FOBOU: the
attitude of a preacher towards a tough audience). This would make me want to
opt for a full stop after PNEUMATI.
Cindy Westfall
Doctoral student at Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT