2Pet 3:6 DI' hWV

Thomas J. Kraus tj.kraus at gmx.de
Sun Sep 2 16:02:10 EDT 2001


--------- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew wrote-------------
> After spending about thirty minutes trying without much success to
determine
> the antecedent of DI' hWV in 2Pet 3:6 under my own steam, I grabbed
Huther
> (Meyer's Handbook) and discovered that my difficulty in this matter was
not
> without precedent.
> Some of the suggested antecedents are listed here:
> hUDATOS - Huther and others
> LOGWi - JB Mayor who reads hON (P 69.vid 945 t vg.mss),  rather than hWN.
> OURANOI . . . KAI GH - Bo Reicke and others
> hUDATOS and LOGWi - JND Kelly and others
> A good summary of the views on this question can be found in R.Bauckham
> (2Pt/Jude WBC p. 298).
>
> If any of the b-greek crowd has taken a special interest in this question
> and has some thoughts about it, I am all ears. I probably will not have
much
> more to say about it myself but I would like to hear what anyone who has
> given this text serious consideration has to say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Quite interestingly, the Editio Critica Maior (Muenster) preferred the
reading DI´hON (P 69vid 398 876 945 vg.mss al) to the well established
lectio difficilior DI´hWN (P72 Sin. A B C 048 0156 al). This might be one
attestation of the difficulty this section provides. Some scholars tried to
solve the mystery by "correcting" the section under discussion in order to
clarify its antecedent (conjectures):
DI´hOU -> Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, 101.
DH WN -> Wohlenberg, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 252s.
and note 58.

Maybe, a look at 2Peter 1:4 might be helpful: here, DI´hWN refers back to
1:3. hWN could direct us to DOXA and ARETH (see Bigg, Mayor, James,
Schelkle, Grundmann), but then what should we do with those two used as
datives indicating purpose (or instrument). Why not take PANTA into
consideration then even if it is quite far away (the sentence structure in
2Peter is a fascinosum on its own)? Included in PANTA we may think of
EPAGGELMATA which somehow is prolonged with TA PROS ZWHN KAI EUSEBEIAN.
Then the verb DWREOMAI might also function as a bracket between the two
verses 1:3-4, strengthen the assumption of identifying the above mentioned
row of qualifying ideas in hWN. Grammatically, the antecedent would be
PANTA (including EPAGGELMATA and TA PROS ...).
The issue of 2Peter 3:6 is a similar one: the only plural noun available -
OURANOI - provides serious difficulties in interpreting the verse. The
phrase EX hUDATOS KAI DI´hUDATOS (ie. two different `waters´) is satisfying
only from a formal point of view. It opposes the idea of a the singular
instrumental hUDATI in 3:6. Personally I prefer the causing word of God TWi
TOU QEOU LOGWi being taken together with hUDWR as antecedents in hWN: God´s
word brought into existence, God´s word may cause destruction (the deluge).
The instrument then is water.

2Peter contains some major syntactical challenges. But luckily in 3:6 you
find a relativum which is refering to an antecedent. Take 1:9 (hWi GAR MH
...) or 2:3 (hOIS TO KRIMA), for instance, and you won´t identify a clearly
discernible antecedent. Of course, for 1:9 the 3rd person singular
contained in ESTIN could be taken as the most probable reference, and for
2:3 the 3rd person plural, but from a grammatical view a real antecedent is
missing (see Kuehner-Gerth, Schwyzer, Blass-Debrunner al).

Well, and here I flush a little bit (shy :-)): please, allow me to point to
my "Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. WUNT
2.136. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck 2001" where I tried to describe the language
and style of 2Peter in detail (as I hope so) in order to characterize and
evaluate this text.

Hope this is good for anything at all!?

Thomas J. Kraus




More information about the B-Greek mailing list