From: Steven Cox (scox@ns1.chinaonline.com.cn.net)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 11:47:18 EST
Cindy
Thankyou very much for those views below. After reading
the various views re EN hWi in 3:18 I'm leaning towards
PNEUMATI because of context in 1:11 which I didn't take
sufficient account of Peter's earlier comment concerning
prophets:
EN AUTOIS PNEUMA CRISTOU PROMARTUROMENON TA EIS CRISTON
PAQHMATA (1:11)
This is going to sound like a terrible fudge but I'm now
not so sure that my "timing" question that started this
was relevant. Just as 1:11 has reference to crucifixion
preached in OT days, so 3:18~19 could be read as having
referrence to the resurrection preached before the flood.
Though Carl pointed that "in the days of Noah" cannot be
stretched beyond APEIQHSASIN in 3:19.
In any case the time frame of the The Book of Enoch allows
both flood and resurrection reference (the Angels were due
to be in prison from "the days of Jared", Enoch's father,
+ 70 generations, = till about the time Peter was writing).
[If that is relevant]
One other discovery: FULAKH, PNEUMA, DIKAIOS, KHRUSSW were
my potential references to Isaiah 42:5-7 and 61:1 LXX but
following Peter's Noah theme on into 2Pet2:5 it is
interesting that KHRUX and DIKAIOS come up again.
DIKAIOS you'd expect (DIKAIOS is a quote from Genesis 7:1
concerning Noah), but KHRUX is only found in Gen41:43 (of
the herald before Joseph's chariot). Can't help but wonder
if Peter is quoting himself (ie his earlier letter). Was
Noah a KHRUX in 2 Peter? Yes if Noah EN PNEUMATI (CRISTOU)
POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN EN FULAKH PNEUMASIN APEIQHSASIN in 1 Peter.
(How do we feel about NT authors quoting themselves? :-)
The use of KHRUSSW for "preach" stands some chance of pointing
to Is 61:1 as Peter normally (1Pe.1:12, 12:25, 4:6) prefers
EUAGGELIZW.
To just gently put my foot over the line, Chapter 67 of Enoch
describes Noah being shown the prison where the fallen angels
are held and it appears that the waters of the flood also
originate from these pits. Though of course the "Spirit of
Christ" is never mentioned here - this is solely Peter's
contribution.
Gone midnight, time for me to go too.
Steven
At 09:58 98/01/14 EST, CWestf5155 wrote:
>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