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.

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.