From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 1998 - 12:08:13 EST
Dear Carl,
In a message dated 98-01-12 07:07:42 EST, you write:
>
> I responded yesterday evening privately to Jonathan on this, noting to him
> that I intended to make no more on-list responses on this thread (which
> seems to me to lend itself to speculation more than to understanding of the
> Greek). My comment was on his view of the Greek, and he asked me, as he is
> leaving to go to my home town of New Orleans for most of this week, to post
> my comment to the list.
I wrote my question before I read your posting. I do respect you wishes,
however, I would really appeciate your observations (off-list if necessary)
about how EN hWi can (or could) function. Because, it appears to me that it
regularly refers to the subject or the topic at hand--or at least that could
be a hot option for its interpretation. I understand your view (that it
refers to PNEUMATI)--and it is the majority view. However, I have trouble
seeing how the majority view tracks with the immediate text.
It occurs to me that 3:17-18 is something of a thematic refrain distilled from
2:19-24, and the EN hWi resumes the specific application of the principle to
generally using the tongue and lips for good (ie. preaching, giving an
account).
Another question for you "in which" I really crave your answer: in I Peter
3:19, EKHRUXEN does not have a pronoun in its immediate clause. Therefore, we
supply the actor/subject from the subject of the previous clause. Of course
this is very standard practice of interpretation. Is it possible in Greek
that the subject could be omitted because the actor is not immediately in
view, but that the topic is actually the verb? That is, that the focus is on
preaching, not on the actor? In 4:6 (to which you referred as interpreting
3:19) the actor is not mentioned in the passive aorist EUHGGELISQH. Isn't
this because the focus is on the verb, the subject (functionally object) of
the verb and the recipients--the dative TOIS NEKROIS?
I understand, of course, that you have been very clear on your position. What
I would like is for you to fill me in on your opinion of the probability of
these two other possibilities (or fill me in on if you think they could even
be possibilies).
Thank you,
Cindy Westfall
Doctoral Student
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT