thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12 part three

The text:
1Pet. 1:9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 10 περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, 11 ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12 οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς [ἐν] πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.

Verse eleven begins with a participle ἐραυνῶντες of the verb ἐξηραύνησαν we read in v10. Dropping the preposition from a compound verb or noun when it is repeated in the immediate co-text is a classical pattern (A.T. Robertson p. 563.h, J.H. Moulton Prolegomona p. 115).

Euripides, Bacchae 1065 κατῆγεν ἦγεν ἦγεν
1063-1067
τοὐντεῦθεν ἤδη τοῦ ξένου θαυμάσθ' ὁρῶ·
λαβὼν γὰρ ἐλάτης οὐράνιον ἄκρον κλάδον
κατῆγεν ἦγεν ἦγεν ἐς μέλαν πέδον·
κυκλοῦτο δ' ὥστε τόξον ἢ κυρτὸς τροχὸς
τόρνωι γραφόμενος περιφορὰν ἑλικοδρόμον·

Plato Phil., Euthyphro 14.a.6 τῆς ἀπεργασίας … τῆς ἐργασίας

{ΕΥΘ.} Πῶς δ' οὔ;
{ΣΩ.} Πολλὰ δέ γ', οἶμαι, καὶ καλὰ καὶ οἱ γεωργοί· ἀλλ'
ὅμως τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτῶν ἐστιν τῆς ἀπεργασίας ἡ ἐκ τῆς
γῆς τροφή.
{ΕΥΘ.} Πάνυ γε.
{ΣΩ.} Τί δὲ δὴ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἃ οἱ θεοὶ ἀπεργά-
ζονται; τί τὸ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τῆς ἐργασίας;

Plato Phil., Euthydemus 281.b.8 ἐξαμαρτάνοι … ἁμαρτάνων
οὐκ ἐλάττω πράττων
ἐλάττω ἂν ἐξαμαρτάνοι, ἐλάττω δὲ ἁμαρτάνων ἧττον ἂν
κακῶς πράττοι, ἧττον δὲ κακῶς πράττων ἄθλιος ἧττον ἂν
εἴη;

Examples from the GNT can be found Jn 1:11, Rom 15:4, 1Pet 1:9-10, Rev 10:10 and some possible examples 1Cor 10:9, 2Cor 5:3, Eph 6:13, Phil 1:24.

John 1:11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,

Rom. 15:4 ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν.

Rev. 10:10 Καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου καὶ κατέφαγον αὐτό, καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ στόματί μου ὡς μέλι γλυκὺ καὶ ὅτε ἔφαγον αὐτό, ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλία μου.

thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12 part two

The text:
1Pet. 1:9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 10 περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, 11 ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12 οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς [ἐν] πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.

In verse ten the sentence begins with a prepositional phrase περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας. The relative pronoun ἧς with the antecedent σωτηρίας following (A.T. Robertson pp. 719, 721). The antecedent σωτηρίαν in v9 is repeated in περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας where the relative probably functions like a demonstrative, the whole phrase serving as a “title” (J.R. Michaels 1Peter WBC) for what follows. The repetition of the noun σωτηρίαν … σωτηρίας, like all repetition, draws attention to the idea providing some rhetorical underlining. It also removes all possibility of an ambiguous antecedent. It might be argued that this repetition of the noun reduces textual cohesion[1] since the use of an anaphoric pronoun serves to increase textual cohesion when the antecedent is in the preceding co-text. In other words, if the reader/auditor is required to make the link between ἧς and σωτηρίαν that increases textual cohesion but if the the noun is repeated the reader isn’t required to find an antecedent. However, if we view the relative as a functional demonstrative, this problem disappears since the demonstrative expression requires an antecedent. I would argue that the cohesion is actually enhanced by the repetition of the noun, since word repetition is another factor in textual cohesion[1].


[1] MAK Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. Longman, London,. 1976.

some thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12

The text:
1Pet. 1:9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 10 περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, 11 ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12 οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς [ἐν] πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι. 13 Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν νήφοντες τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

In v10 we see two verbs joined with a conjunction ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν where one verb would have done the job. What is the difference between the two verbs? If Peter used two words, then there must be some subtle point he is trying to make by the addition of the second verb, some sort of contrast to the first verb; Right? Probably not. The combination of two compound verbs starting with the same preposition with the same morphological form looks good on the page and more importantly it sounds good. At the beginning of v11 we see ἐραυνῶντες a participle of the second verb minus the preposition. Does this verb mean something different than the compound form? Probably not.

The word (constituent) order of v10-11 is noteworthy. The sentence begins with an adverbial prepositional phrase περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας which has an embedded relative pronoun ἧς with the antecedent σωτηρίας following the pronoun, coreferential with σωτηρίαν in v9. This prepositional phrase functions as a discourse link to the preceding co-text, anchoring the sentence with the two finite verbs ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν to the preceding sentence ending with σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. The subject προφῆται which follows the two verbs is qualified by a participle clause οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες where the article οἱ is separated from the participle προφητεύσαντες by an adverbial prepositional phrase περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος with an embedded second prepositional phrase εἰς ὑμᾶς. One might be tempted to say something at this point about the style. Let’s just say that the author here is demonstrating some skill.

more thoughts later.

Is Ἐν ἀρχῇ a temporal locator in Genesis 1:1?

In response to comments on a recent post concerning Rashi’s treatment of Genesis 1:1 Rashi’s treatment of Genesis 1:1 Joel M. Hoffman said “I think that b’reishit is a sentence level adverb here, and that it answers the question ‘when?’”. Mulling this over, I was wondering if clause initial adverbial expressions were commonplace at the beginning of an ancient narrative text. In other words, is the temporal locator in a narrative text typically the very first thing we encounter in the text. I looked at a small sample of ancient texts including narrative prose, gospels, tragic drama, and prophetic writings. I used the Greek version of the Old Testament just to speed up the process.

In the five books of Moses, Genesis 1:1 is the only place where we find an adverbial expression at the very beginning of the text. In Josua 1:1 we read

Josh. 1:1 καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων

This is a relative temporal locator using the death of Moses as a point of reference. This is a common pattern in biblical narrative. The temporal locator is not often the very first thing we encounter (1Kings, 2Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah). In Jeremiah the temporal locator doesn't show up until the middle of the second verse and it is quite elaborate.

Jeremiah 1:1 τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Ιερεμιαν τὸν τοῦ Χελκιου ἐκ τῶν ἱερέων ὃς κατῴκει ἐν Αναθωθ ἐν γῇ Βενιαμιν 2 ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ιωσια υἱοῦ Αμως βασιλέως Ιουδα ἔτους τρισκαιδεκάτου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ 3 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ιωακιμ υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα ἕως ἑνδεκάτου ἔτους Σεδεκια υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα ἕως τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας Ιερουσαλημ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ μηνί

In Haggai and Daniel the relative temporal locator is not only clause initial it is a prepositional phrase similar to Gen. 1:1.

Haggai 1:1 ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ἔτει ἐπὶ Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνὸς ἐγένετο λόγος κύριου ἐν χειρὶ Αγγαιου τοῦ προφήτου λέγων εἰπὸν δὴ πρὸς Ζοροβαβελ τὸν τοῦ Σαλαθιηλ ἐκ φυλῆς Ιουδα καὶ πρὸς Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τὸν ἱερέα τὸν μέγαν λέγων

Daniel 1:1 ἐπὶ βασιλέως Ιωακιμ τῆς Ιουδαίας ἔτους τρίτου παραγενόμενος Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ιερουσαλημ ἐπολιόρκει αὐτήν

In Attic tragedy, the only example is found in Euripides Heraclidae which is vague without an explicit point of reference. The inferred point of reference is the time of speaking.

Euripides Heraclidae 1-5
{ΙΟΛΑΟΣ}
Πάλαι ποτ' ἐστὶ τοῦτ' ἐμοὶ δεδογμένον·
ὁ μὲν δίκαιος τοῖς πέλας πέφυκ' ἀνήρ,
ὁ δ' ἐς τὸ κέρδος λῆμ' ἔχων ἀνειμένον
πόλει τ' ἄχρηστος καὶ συναλλάσσειν βαρύς,
αὑτῶι δ' ἄριστος· οἶδα δ' οὐ λόγωι μαθών.


Historical narrative is where we would expect to find temporal expressions with a fixed point of reference. In Herodotus and Thucydides there are plenty of temporal locators but not at the beginning of the text. In the new testament, the gospels of Mark and John both use Ἀρχὴ the word found at the beginning of Genesis 1:1.

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Mark 1:1 Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].

Are these temporal locators? Neither of them use an historical point of reference to anchor them, e.g. after the death of Moses. John’s Ἐν ἀρχῇ is absolute an echo of Genesis 1:1 LXX which is also absolute. In Mark however Ἀρχὴ is the beginning of something, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Both begin at the beginning, the question is what beginning?

This post isn’t intended to answer those questions. I set out to see if clause initial adverbial expressions used as temporal locators at the very beginning of the text are common in ancient narrative. I only looked at a small sample and included some non-narrative texts (Homer, Attic Tragedy, Hebrew Prophets). What I discovered is, temporal locators in clause initial position at the very beginning of the text is not a typical pattern. The two examples from the gospels, Mark and John are somewhat complex, both remind us somewhat of Genesis, John more so than Mark. Haggai and Daniel seem to fit the pattern. Not exactly the pattern in Genesis but the pattern for narrative temporal locators. Unlike Genesis, they use a relative reference to a reigning monarch to anchor them in history.

What I conclude from a brief review of a limited sample is there are complex issues that need to be sorted out in regard to Ἐν ἀρχῇ in Genesis 1:1

βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα What is going on here?

1Pet. 2:9 ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

LXX OG Exodus 19:6 ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ

J.W. Wevers (Notes on Greek Text Exodus, 295) points out that this is a chaistic construction; adjective noun conjunction noun adjective; βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον. Wevers notes this is not a common pattern in Exodus LXX OG.

J.N.D. Kelly (1Peter BNTC 1969) calls this into question. He points out that βασίλειον as an adjective is extremely rare in biblical Greek. He prefers to read βασίλειον as an independent neuter collective noun referring to “a royal household” followed by another collective noun ἱεράτευμα in series of several collectives βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν. In support for reading βασίλειον as a collective noun Kelly points out the Hebrew (MT) behind the Exodus 19:6 LXX OG is comprised of two nouns. However he chooses to ignore that MT does not show two independent nouns. It has a noun in construct state followed by a noun in the “genitive”. Aquila renders this βασιλεία ἱερέων. We probably don’t know how the various readings represent by Aquila, LXX, Theodotian and Symmachus, Jubilees came into existence but it isn’t really valid to use the MT reading mamleket kohanim as support for understanding βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα as two independent nouns.

The most recent translation of the Exodus 19:6 LXX by Larry J. Perkins in NETS reads βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα as an adjective followed by a collective noun.

And you shall be for me a royal priesthood and a holy nation. These words you shall say to the sons of
Israel.

I do not know what reading is behind this translation but it appears that J.W. Wevers , the editor of the Göttingen Septuagint Exodus, accepted the reading βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. I could ask Albert Pietersma, the general editor of NETS, and update this post later. Here is a general comment from Larry J. Perkins introduction to Exodus NETS:

The NETS translation of the book of Exodus has followed the edition of the Greek text prepared by John William Wevers (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis ed- itum II.1: Exodus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991]).
This English translation has not altered Wevers’ edited Greek text of Exodus, except infrequently in re- lation to punctuation..

Once again, here are the different forms of the text:

βασιλεία ἱερέων - Aquila

βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς - Theodotian and Symmachus, Rev. 1:6

βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς - Rev. 5:10, Jubilees 16:18 (R.H. Charles Rev. ICC v1 p118)

βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα - LXX OG 1Peter 2:9

Cataloging the readings from the Greek versions does not in and of itself settle the question about how the text is being used in 1Peter 2:9 and Rev. 1:6, 5:10. The form of this text in Revelation 1:6, 5:10 lends some support to the Kellly's suggestion that we have here two independent nouns. Aquila's version βασιλεία ἱερέων is only one which could not be read as two independent nouns. This form of the text is not found in the New Testament.

ἱεράτευμα in 1Pet. 2:9 a collective noun?

1Pet. 2:9 like Exodus 19:6 LXX reads βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα an adjective with a collective noun. Well thats what J.H. Elliott (1 Peter, Anchor Bible) wants us to believe. He claims that the referent of ἱεράτευμα cannot be individual believers because nouns ending in -ευμα are collectives. That is just one piece of his argument, one scrap of evidence.

Well, when I read something like this, claiming that a noun or adjective suffix has some sort of lexical semantic significance, I am always skeptical. So I searched Liddell & Scott Intermediate for all lexical head words ending with -ευμα. There were about 95 of them. Then I read the definitions for all 95 words and set aside words which would not tolerate a collective sense. I think there were 19 or 20 words. About 75 words would at least have a possibility of being used with a collective sense. They didn’t necessarily require a collective sense but it seemed that they would lend themselves in a suitable context to being understood as a collective or a mass noun. This isn’t science. Very subjective. But at least it suggested that perhaps there is some sort of connection between the suffix and the meaning.

kingdom priests: the use of Exodus 19:6 in the New Testament

The question came up in my current study of 1 Peter because J.H. Elliott (1 Peter, Anchor Bible) has devoted several publications over the last half century to questioning Martin Luther’s reading of 1Peter 3:5,9 in regard to the priesthood of all believers. That isn’t the subject of this post. The aim here is to look at how the Hebrew expression mamleket kohanim in Exodus 19:6 was used and quoted in the greek texts and Jubilees.

A formal equivalence representation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) is found in Aquila: βασιλεία ἱερέων which readers mamleket kohanim, where mamleket is in the construct state. The LXX OG reads βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα which is an interpretive rendering, an adjective with a collective noun. J.W. Wevers (Notes on Greek Text Exodus, 295) points out that this is a chaistic construction; adjective noun conjunction noun adjective; βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον. Wevers notes this is not a common pattern in Exodus LXX OG. Theodotian and Symmachus appear to read mamlekha kohanim where mamlekha is in the absolute state rendering βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς where ἱερεῖς could be read in apposition to βασιλείαν.

In the New Testament, 1Pet. 2:9 reads like the LXX OG, Rev. 1:6 reads like Theodotian and Symmachus, and Rev. 5:10 reads like Jubilees which is not a Greek text.

Here is summary of the data:

1Pet. 2:9 ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

LXX OG Exodus 19:6 ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ

***

Rev. 1:6 καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας [τῶν αἰώνων]· ἀμήν.

Theodotian and Symmachus: βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς

***

Rev. 5:10 καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς - Jubilees 16:18 (R.H. Charles Rev. ICC v1 p118)

***

That is a summary of the problem. The question is: What is going on here?

predicate or attributive participle?

A.T. Robertson (p778) suggests that the lack of the article might make ἀπειθήσασίν “predicate” and claims that the presence of an article would completely change the meaning. N. Turner, Syntax p153 states that the missing article is “unclassical”.

1Pet. 3:19 ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, 20 ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος.

I must confess that I find the terminology of traditional grammars confusing at times. When I read 1Peter 3:19-20 the participle ἀπειθήσασίν in 20a seems natural enough but I did notice the lack of an article, which sent me looking back to τοῖς … πνεύμασιν to evaluate the possibility that τοῖς might belong to ἀπειθήσασίν. Now, having ruled out that analysis, it seems that the participle ἀπειθήσασίν is telling us something about τοῖς … πνεύμασιν. In other words, ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε … introduces a little story about τοῖς … πνεύμασιν. If that is what A.T. Robertson (p778) means by “predicate” then all is well but I don’t have much confidence in my understanding of Robertson’s framework.

What is a predicate participle?

It appears that once again the language of the traditional grammars has lead to confusion. I looked once again at H.W. Smyth, R.J. Young, Dana & Mantey and Burton to see how they were using the qualifier predicate in relation to participles. It seems that predicate when it is used alone means that a participle makes a predication about its substantive. But circumstantial participles are also called predicate and they function as adverbs, qualifying the action of the main verb. D.B. Monro (Homeric Dialect #243) " ... the participle qualifies or forms part of the predication ..." and on page 210 Monro states:"... a Participle construed in 'Apposition' to a Noun in an oblique Case may imply a predication ... ". In our example the participle ἀπειθήσασίν in 20a predicates something about the indirect object τοῖς … πνεύμασιν.

The participle ἀπειθήσασίν in 20a does not cause problems reading, the sense is clear enough. The confusion arises in trying to determine which label to use from the traditional framework. If we can live without the labels perhaps we are better off.

Disobedient Spirits

Having gathered together from various libraries some of the best exegetical works on First Peter I have set out to do a fresh study of the epistle. Twenty years ago I stumbled across a copy of Bo Ivar Reicke’s dissertation on the notorious crux 1Peter 3:19ff [1] and found it a fascinating study. In more recent years some new commentaries have been published on 1Peter, for example Karen Jobes 1Peter BECNT 2005 and J.H. Elliott 1Peter AB 2000.

K. Jobes in regard to authorship, addresses in some detail the question of “good Greek”, that is language too refined by some hypothetical set of standards to be the work of a Galilean fisherman. Jobes’ sets out to measure (quantify) the quality of the Greek by looking for problems of interlingual interference from semitic idioms. I am not convinced that “good Greek” can be reduced to a set of attributes which can be counted and weighed. Beyond that, it seems that “good Greek” is not the absence of interference from another language. “Good Greek” is something positive. For example, hyperbaton or discontinuous syntax is an attribute of exalted style in Greek classics.

1Pet. 3:19 ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, 20 ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος.

In the process of looking for hyperbaton in 1Peter, I ran across a syntax question in 1Peter 3:19-20a, the anarthrous participle ἀπειθήσασίν at the beginning of verse 20. Henry Alford and J.H. Elliott both mention the participle and note that it is dependent on τοῖς … πνεύμασιν but they do not comment on the “missing” article. Turning to the grammars, A.T. Robertson (p778) suggests that the lack of the article might make ἀπειθήσασίν “predicate” and claims that the presence of an article would completely change the meaning. N. Turner, Syntax p153 states that the missing article is “unclassical”.

Looking for an alternative, I tired to read τοῖς … ἀπειθήσασίν as a constituent and understand πνεύμασιν in an adjectival mode, somewhat far fetched, but I was looking for article hyperbaton with the articles removed by various distances from their substantives. J.H. Elliott (1Pt AB p66) lists 23 examples in 1Peter [2] the longest is 1Pet 3:3 ὁ … κόσμος

1Pet. 3:3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος

So with that in mind I tried to join τοῖς … ἀπειθήσασίν. But the punctuation in the UBSGNT3, NA27 and Robinson-Pierpont didn’t support this, with a comma before ἀπειθήσασίν (H. Alford has no comma), also the presence of the adverb ποτε suggests the beginning of a new clause and the substantive πνεύμασιν was right there close at hand. So the best approach was to follow Henry Alford, J.H. Elliott and others in reading ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε as a subordinate clause dependent on τοῖς … πνεύμασιν.



[1] Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism a Study of 1 Pet. III. 19 and Its Context 1946

[2] article hyperbaton in 1Peter, J.H. Elliott (1Pet AB p66): 1Peter 1:10,11a,11b,14,17,21, 2:9,15, 3:1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 4:2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 5:1, 4, 9, 10.

lost link - Lawrence Ferlinghetti

"I have seen the educated armies. on the beach at Dover."

“Autobiography” from A Coney Island of the Mind.

The version found in Jam Session, Ralph J. Gleason, 1958 reads "I have seen the ignorant armies. on the beach at Dover."

This is an obvious borrowing from Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold which I read tonight for the first time and made the connection. I starting reading the Jam Session version of “Autobiography” about fifty years ago when I was very much into Jazz and found the book laying open face down on a wet road on my way home from school.