From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 02 1997 - 11:34:04 EST
Dear Rick,
You wrote:
>> I read recently a very short article by Rendel Harris in which he argues
that the
>subject of the verb EKHRUXEN has been inadvertently omitted from I Pet 3:19
>but understandably so, and that the text should read
>ENWKAIENWCTOISENFULAKH.... I trust you can see his point. An error in
>copying saw the omission of the second ENW[C]. Rendel Harris thinks the
Enoch
>tradition (see I Enoch 12) supports his claim and, besides, his reading
removes
>some of the exegetical difficulties such as treating EN hWi as a relative to
the >previous PNEUMATI - rather, it introduces, awkwardly, a new sentence as
in I Pet
>4:4.
Would you please send me the bibliographical information on Harris' article?
That is an interesting theory.
As far as I can see more consistent with the flow of the discourse as opposed
to taking the EN hWi in I Peter 3:18 as referring to PNEUMATI (3:17). I take
the general theme as suffering for good (I Pet 1:6, 2:11, 3:14, etc.) which
is examined from various perspectives. I Peter 3:13-4:6 are dealing with the
particular application of suffering for what is right in the context of
"giving an answer" or "preaching" in with an abusive and/or unresponsive and
disobedient target audience.
The parallel of 3:19 with 4:4 is significant. However, the subject of the
verb in 4:4 is also *omitted* in the immediate context, but probably TWN
EQNWN should be supplied as the subject from the previous sentence. But the
use of EN hWi in 4:4
appears to apply as a whole to the string of dative plurals in v. 3. If
Enoch is the subject in 3:19, there has to be more of an explanation for the
EN hWi than saying it starts a new sentence awkwardly. I'm exploring the
idea that it is an anaphoric reference to the theme of the preceding passage
(similar to 4:4) rather than the preceding word.
Another problem is the temporal placement of the preaching in 3:20: POTE...EN
hHMERAIS NWE KATASKUEZOMENHS KIBWTOU (when in the days [while] the ark was
being built) . Enoch was dead at least four years before Noah was born, and
Noah probably didn't start the ark until after he was 500 (Gen. 5:21-32).
Perhaps the 3rd person plural EKHRUXEN is kataphoric in terms of subject, and
points to NWE. True, NWE would be a genetive, but then so is the referent
TWN EQNWN.
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT