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.

the critique is getting better ...

The Touchstone "Mere Comment" The Gospel of Mark (Driscoll) & His Critics by Justin D. Barnard June 29, 2009 is certainly one the better readings of Driscoll's exegetical travesty on the Song of Songs.

I am glad to see some people probing a little deeper in the analysis of what is wrong with the guy in Ballard. I wonder if some philosophy professor might do a short piece on Driscoll's pragmatism, perhaps a comparison with Albert Finney.

Heb. 11:11 Sarah, the founding mother ...

Iver Larsen (SIL) has posted recently on the crux in Hebrews 11:11. Iver Larsen is a veteran bible translation consultant. One highly significant insight Iver brings to the discussion of biblical exegesis is the power of tradition to mold our understanding of the text. Iver Larsen's proposal for Heb. 11:11 illustrates how much control the English bible tradition has had over the way this text is understood.


Here is his summary:

Note: A little cleaner format can be found by reading it here KATABOLH SPERMATOS/WN

Thanks to Elizabeth and Carl for these citations and to Yancy Smith for helpful comments that he had
trouble getting through to the list, so he sent them to me. I am not getting much support, but I
would still like to present my views, not expecting many to agree. Please bear with me if this goes
somewhat into translation, but any translation reflects a particular understanding of the Greek text
and context.

As a Bible translator, my quest into Hebrews 11:11 has had two main areas of interest.
1. What is the most likely intended meaning of the verse?
2. Why have the English Bible translation tradition gone in one particular direction, different from
the tradition in some other Bible translation circles?

I believe the main reason for 2. is the Vulgate translation
DUNAMIN EIS KATABOLHN SPERMATOS ELABEN - >
virtutem in conceptionem seminis accepit.

This questionable translation is more or less copied in the Geneva Bible and the KJV:
"Sara herself received strength to conceive seed".

KJV has the same phrase "conceive seed" in
Lev 12:2 "If a woman have conceived seed" LXX: GUHN hHTIS EAN SPERMATISQHI

Num 5:28: "then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed."
LXX: KAI EKSPERMATIEI SPERMA

The various non-Biblical citations show that KATABOLH can in certain contexts refer to the
"planting/laying down" of seed(s) both in the ground and in the womb. Normally "seeds" occur in the
plural as can be expected. If the reference is to seed from plants, both plural and singular may be
used, but the singular is rarely used for the human "seeds".

The KJV translation makes no sense in modern English, so RSV dropped the "seed" and said:
"Sarah herself received power to conceive."

The problem with that is that KATABOLH SPERMATOS cannot by any reasonable stretch of the imagination
mean "conceive". As many have pointed out, the laying down of the seed(s) is the prerogative of the
man, not the woman.

By the way, the common word for "conceive" in the LXX is SULLAMBANEIN. In the NT it is at times
clarified by the addition of (EN) GASTRI/KOILIAi, because the word has other common senses. To
become pregnant is LAMBANEIN EN GASTRI and to be pregnant is ECEI EN GASTRI.

The problem of "conceive" has been handled (or mishandled) in various ways in English versions:
Change the subject to Abraham as in NET: "By faith, even though Sarah herself was barren and he was
too old, he received the ability to procreate", or in NRSV: "By faith he received power of
procreation, even though he was too old" or in TEV: "It was faith that made Abraham able to become a
father," or NIV: "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was
enabled to become a father." (The TNIV changed the subject back to Sarah and avoided the conception
word: "And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children.")

These are all questionable, because the subject in the Greek sentence has to be Sarah, and the
phrase in question does not mean "bear children", although the TNIV might be an acceptable idiomatic
translation and it is not far from the intended meaning.

I think it would be possible to construe EIS KATABOLHN SPERMATOS in such a way that the implied
agent for KATABOLH is still Abraham, but it seems unlikely. (She received power towards/enabling a
laying down of seed (by Abraham).)

Another reason for the questionable English tradition is that some basic exegetical principles seem
to be overlooked. The immediate or close context is always more important and relevant than a
distant context. By the immediate context I mean the verse itself and surrounding verses. Since the
subject is Sarah and Sarah cannot be the subject of "planting/sowing a seed", the suggestion that
this is the meaning of the Greek phrase is not likely to be correct.
By close context, I refer to the NT and the LXX, because Hebrews was written to an audience who was
stooped in the LXX and familiar with the NT. For this audience, Biblical Greek is more relevant than
secular Greek. Similarly, people need to learn Biblical English to understand some of the English
versions and
they would be floundering if they relied too much on secular English.

In the LXX and in the NT SPERMA has two meanings (corresponding to Hebrew zera'):
1. Seed of a plant
2. Offspring

In sense 1 it may be used in plural, e.g. Mat 13:32, Mrk 4:31, and 1 Co 15:58. Gal 3:16 is a special
play on words of sense 2, where Paul interprets the singular use of SPERMA to refer to ONE
descendant rather than a group of descendants, even though the Hebrew Zera' can refer to both a
singular offspring and a group of descendants. This is prophetic argumentation, or Jewish
contemporary logic, not modern logic.

SPERMA occurs no less than 280 times in the LXX (214 in Genesis-Malachi), so it is not a rare word
where we have to search in extra-biblical sources for its meaning. It does not occur in the plural,
but that is in part a reflection of the Hebrew singular form Zera', because when the reference is to
seeds from plants as is the case in 14 out of 59 occurrences in Genesis and a few other places, a
plural could have been used in at least some of the Greek expressions. (There are two plurals in
4Macc 18:1 - offsprings - and Dnt 1:12 ?).
Sense 2 first occurs in Gen 3:15. Based on the glosses in my computer version of the Hebrew, sense 1
occurs about 70 times in the OT and sense 2 about 135 times. (A thorough study of all occurrences
would render more accurate figures, since the glosses are not always reliable.) The word occurs 21
times in Sirach, all in sense 2.

There is a third sense, but for that to come into effect, another word has to be added. This is the
sense of "sperm" or "human seeds".
The Hebrew expression is "laying of seed" (shikbat zera') and this is consistently translated as
KOITH SPERMATOS in this special sense in order not to confuse it with sense 1 or 2 which are the
common senses.
This expression occurs 8 times in the LXX corresponding exactly to the 8 times where this Hebrew
expression is used: Lev 15:16,17,18,32; 18:20; 19:20; 22:4; Num 5:22.

So, notwithstanding the usage in non-Biblical Greek, the Jewish and Greek speaking readers of
Hebrews would naturally use their knowledge of the LXX to interpret Heb 11:11. They would be used to
SPERMA in sense 1 and 2 above, but for sense 3 would have expected an expanded phrase or other clear
clues in the context that this was the intended meaning. KATABOLH is not a sufficient clue to lead
in that direction, since it has many other senses.

They would also come to the text with the knowledge of common phrases like SPERMA ABRAAM (not SPERMA
SARRA) and TWi DAVID KAI TWI SPERMATI AUTOU.

What Hebrews 11:11 is telling us is not only was Abraham the founding father of the Hebrews, but
that Sarah by faith became the founding mother of the Hebrews. KATABOLH refers to foundation in all
other usages in the Greek NT, so the phrase probably means "foundation of offspring." By faith she
was given the power to give offspring (a son) to Abraham. That is close to the meaning of several
English
versions, too, but they miss the concept of foundation, the "mother of the Hebrews", parallel to
Abraham as the father of the Hebrews.

Notice also the only other two usages of SPERMA in Hebrews:
2:16 ALLA SPERMATOS ABRAAM EPILAMBANETAI
11:18 EN ISAAK KLHQHSETAI SOI SPERMA

SPERMA is a Biblical technical term for "offspring/descendant(s)" and this is by far the most common
usage of the word. That is in my view the best foundation for understanding Heb 11:11.

Many translations who are not dependent on English tradition have taken this exegetical route,
including the revised Luther Bible: Durch den Glauben empfing auch Sara, die unfruchtbar war, Kraft,
Nachkommen hervorzubringen trotz ihres Alters. (to bring forth descendants).
Münster: "Durch Glauben empfing auch selbst (die) unfruchtbare Sarra Kraft zur Grundlegung von
Nachkommenschaft".

I could cite many other non-English versions, such as a Swedish one:
Genom tron fick jämväl Sara, fastän överårig, kraft att bliva stammoder för en avkomma
(Through faith even Sara, even though too old, received power to become founding-mother for a
descendant).
A Norwegian one: Ved tro fikk også Sara kraft til å bli mor for en ætt, og det til tross for sin
høye alder
(By faith Sara, too, received power to become mother for a group of descendants, and that in spite
of her old age.)

Iver Larsen