1 Pet 3:19

From: Rick Strelan (r.strelan@mailbox.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon Dec 01 1997 - 13:58:13 EST


I enjoy reading the 'old boys',their struggles with the Greek text, and
their speculations. I read recently a very short article by Rendel Harris
in which he argues that the subject of the verb EKHRUXEN has been
inadvertently omitted from 1 Pet 3:19 but understandably so, and that the
text should read ENWKAIENWCTOISENFULAKH....
I trust you can see his point. An error in copying saw the omission of the
'second' ENW[C]. Rendel Harris thinks the Enoch tradition (see 1 Enoch 12)
supports his claim and, besides, his reading removes some of the exegetical
difficulties such as treating EN hWi as a relative to the previous PNEUMATI
- rather, it introduces, awkwardly, a new sentence as in 1 Pet 4:4.

For interest's sake and for what it's worth

Rick Strelan
Brisbane



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT