From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 15:34:48 EST
Dear Paul,
In a message dated 98-01-14 10:31:13 EST, you write:
> >> Pete Dixon
>
> Hey, the signature really through me for a loop here. I do have a
> brother named Pete. Could I have accidentally signed his name, perhaps
> thinking about him? Could Cindy have accidentally erased my real name,
> then tried to salvage it by renaming me? Yes, yes, that was it. I am
> not getting so forgetful, after all.
I just knew how close you and Pete were, and I didn't want him to feel left
out of the discussion. Tell him 'hi' for me. We met in California in the
'60s, which is why he may not remember me (or is it why I do remember him?)
Now, those of you who read my previous posting to b-greek will have to apply
source criticism and figure out why my posting to b-greek clearly said "Paul",
but Paul quotes my letter as signing off as "Pete". Which is the textus
receptus?
>
> >Thanks for your reply. I had the chance to check a couple of
> commentaries, >as well as Wallace after asking the question. 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'), refering back to the entire clause, or temporal, or having an
> >adverbial/conjunctive force. He concludes his discussion with saying
> >that every other time EN hWi is used in I Peter, it bears an
> >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 too
> strong since the sample is so narrow. >However, I think that the
> consistency of usage in I Peter raises all kinds of >flags (although I
> agree that in 4:4, the string of datives appear to be >antecedents, it
> would be redundant since they are referred to in the sentence >as THN
> AUTHN THS ASWTIAS).
> >
> >If PNEUMATI (or the entire clause) is not the antecedent, then it opens
> up a
> >number of other options for interpreting 3:19.
>
> Such as?
One view: Wallace seems to think this is temporal adverbial kind of
conjunction.
I may rave a bit in this answer, since I just finished skimming the book of
Enoch (in an English translation--don't yet know Aramaic, and don't have the
Gk on hand) . There is no question in my mind that 3:19 is associated in some
way with the angels which are referred to over and over again in the 100+
chapters. However, though there are many references that I think the early
church would take as Messianic, they didn't have the figure (which was
predicted, but was also a type of Enoch) preaching to them. However, Enoch
was a preacher to the Watchers/disobedient angels. But, chapter 107 ties in
with Noah. Even more interesting, Noah is the speaker and preacher in
chapters 65 on until perhaps chapter 70. 2 Peter 2:4-5, and a couple of
reference in I Clement (which I don't have on hand) also focus on Noah as the
preacher during this time. This is a stronger witness that the one reference
in Jude to Enoch--but then I don't know all of the references to Jude in the
patriarchal material that is available .
Besides that, William Dalton emphasizes that for a long period of time, the
early church literature did not cite 3:19 as a support for the descent of
Christ into Hades, even though the triidum mortis was upheld.
Since I think that the theme of this passage is speaking, giving an account
and preaching, I think that Noah is the subject of EKHRUXEN (hey, its
kataphoric, but its a lot closer to the verb than XRISTOS, and it seems to
have a powerful position in the presuppositional pool). I'll suggest that the
subject of the verb was not explicitly expressed not only because of the
presuppositional pool, but because the writer's focus was on the theme of
preaching, and was expanding the topic of the audience and the results.
In the structure of the passage the thematic would be the exhortation in
3:15-16, and the rest is support material signalled by GAR. In v. 17, we have
a general principle, v. 18 the model (repeated and distilled from 2:21ff), v.
19 an example of preacher and audience, v. 20 an antitype which corresponds to
the readers
Well, as Clayton said once, I'm flying this up there like a kite without all
of the evidence--it is a bit more complicated than that.
But there are other options besides this one that have been suggested. One
hot one is that this refers to Christ's proclamation of victory over the
angels after the resurrection.
Cindy Westfall
Doctoral Student, Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT