From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 09:58:51 EST
Dear Paul,
In a message dated 98-01-12 17:57:08 EST, you write:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:52:24 EST CWestf5155 <CWestf5155@aol.com> writes:
> >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
>
>
> Hmm, the editors do insert full stop periods before EN hWi in 1:6 and
> 4:4.
> At least in those two passages, however, your suggestion that the
> antecedent
> be to the topic at hand, that is, "behavior backing good character,
> including
> PRAUTHTOS KAI FOBOU," does not seem merited.
>
> In 1:6 the immediately preceding SWTHPIAN ...EN KAIPWi ESCATWi does
> appear to be a better fit. In 4:4 the immediately preceding list of evil
> activities certainly fits well as the antecedent.
>
> Likewise, in 3:19 the immediately preceding PNEUMATI fits well as the
> antecedent.
>
> Paul Dixon
Thanks for your reply. After asking my question on list, I checked a couple
of commentaries and Wallace.
Wallace summarizes the views fairly well. He suggests that the antecedent
isn't at all certain, and that syntax wouldn't exclude PNEUMATI, causal ('for
which reason', 'because of this'), the entire clause, or adverbial/conjunctive
(including temporal). He concludes his discussion with adding that every
other time EN hWi is used in I Peter, it bears and adverbial/conjunctive force
(1:6, 2:12, 3:16, 4:4).
E. G. Selwyn asserted that the antecedent cannot be PNEUMATI, because there is
no other example of a dative of reference as an antecedent to this
construction in the NT. I agree with Grudum that this conclusion is based on
too narrow a sample. However, I think that the consistency of usage in I
Peter raises all kinds of flags (together with the rather bizarre interpretive
result PNUEMATI produces as an antecedent). It does look like 4:4 has the
string of plural datives as an antecedent, but that would be redundant since
they are summarized in the same verse as THN AUTHN THS ASWTIAS.
If one of the other options than PNEUMATI or the entire clause were possible,
then it opens the door to a number of other interpretations for 3:19.
Cindy Westfall
Doctoral student, Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT