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.

2 Cor 3:14b-c information structure

Today I have been looking at exegtical problems in 2 Cor 3:14, here is the context:

2Cor. 3:12 Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα 13 καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου. 14 ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται· 15 ἀλλ᾿ ἕως σήμερον ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται Μωϋσῆς, κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται· 16 ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα.

While contemplating Paul's argument where he uses the Moses' veil as a metaphor for the inability of those under the old covenant to see the glory of Paul's gospel, after working through all the traditional exegetical options, I decided rather arbitrarily to attempt an analysis of the information structure in verse 14b-c, not because it was a passage particularly suited for this kind of analysis but just to see if I could make any sense out it using a nontraditional framework. The text segment for analysis is:

2 Cor 3:14b-c ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·

The first finite verb is μένει. I would suggest this is the focus, the most salient constituent. In other words the verb μένει is what this clause/sentence asserts. The initial constituent ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας is a temporal orienter and a contextualizer. The noun phrase τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα is the topic which also serves as a contextualizer tying this clause to the veil κάλυμμα mentioned in v.13. My notion of a contextualizer is intentionally inclusive. Context is both textual and situational which includes temporal, local, cultural aspects. The separation of co-text from context is intentionally avoided.

The prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης is a setting identifier (another contextualizer) for the core clause τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ... μένει. I would suggest that the position of this phrase makes it less salient than ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας which is more inherently newsworthy and for that reason fronted.

An alternative approach might assign focus to the core clause τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ... μένει rather than the finite verb alone. What is salient is the relationship between the presupposition (the veil and the old covenant) and the current assertion that the veil remains even "today" when the old covenant is read. For that reason some might prefer to assign focus to the core clause.


The constituents following μένει raise a number of traditional exegetical problems. Here is what M.J. Harris (2Cor NIGTC 2005, p. 303) has to say about it.



more on this later ...