1 Peter 3:20: APEIQHSASIN
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 1 19:48:17 EDT 2000
At 4:49 PM -0600 5/1/00, John Barach wrote:
>Fellow B-Greeks:
>
>I'm working ahead on my exegesis of 1 Peter and I've come to one of the
>stickiest passages in the Bible, I suspect: 1 Peter 3:18ff. While I'd
>appreciate any help you can offer on the difficulties of this passage,
>I'm particularly interested in the participle APEIQHSASIN in 3:20.
>
>Here it is in context:
>
>EN hWi KAI TOIS EN FULAKHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN, APEIQHSASIN
>POTE hOTE APEXEDECETO hH TOU QEUO MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWE
>KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU ...
>
>Most translations and commentaries render APEIQHSASIN adjectivally: "to
>the spirits in prison, *who* were disobedient...." APEIQHSASIN,
>however, is anarthrous, and Turner (3:153) comments that the lack of an
>article with this adjectival participle is "unclassical." Elsewhere, he
>says it isn't "good Greek" (4:129).
>
>Wayne Grudem, however, argues that APEIQHSASIN isn't adjectival at all.
>He cites BDF, section 270, where the basic "rule" is stated: an
>attributive adjective used with arthrous substantives when in
>postposition *must* have its own article -- unless it's one of many
>adjectives between the article and the noun (Sec. 269) or it's a
>supplementary participle following a verb of perception or cognition
>(Sec. 416).
>
>He notes that there are no other examples of adjectival anarthrous
>participles with arthrous antecedents. The passages usually listed as
>exceptions usually have the anarthrous participle immediately following
>its antecedent, not separated from it as in 1 Peter 3.
>
>(Grudem argues that in Luke 2:5; 16:14; Acts 24:24; and 1 Pet. 4:12 the
>participles function adverbially, though they are usually translated
>loosely as adjectives.)
>
>Grudem then argues that APEIQHSASIN should be taken averbially and
>circumstantially -- e.g., "preached to the spirits in prison *when* they
>formerly disobeyed." The subsequent time reference ("when God's
>patience waited") doesn't invalidate this interpretation, since there
>are two or more time references in a row in passages such as Col. 3:7.
>
>No other commentator that I've seen takes this position, however. Your
>evaluation would be greatly appreciated. If you think APEIQHSASIN
>should be taken adjectivally, could you please explain why you think
>that.
>
>Your help would be greatly appreciated.
I don't really want to get involved in this immediately, but I frankly
believe that the several problems involved with this passage were hashed
out at great length in January of 1998 (sometime back in the last
century?): Jan 11-14, 1998 with subject-header: "POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN
APEIQHSASIN in 1Peter3:19~20"
Then, Jan 14-16, 1998 with subject-header: "POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN noch
einmal", and finally, Jan 16-17, 1998 with subject-header: "Re: 1 P 3:20;
APEIQHSASIN; Adj or adv?" You might consult the archives, and I think this
would be the older archives prior to the move from our previous site at
<majordomo at virginia.edu> to <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list