2Pet 3:6 DI' hWV

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Sep 6 14:06:18 EDT 2001

Thank you Thomas and Bryant,

After a few days to think this over I currently leaning toward Mayor's

LOGWi - JB Mayor who reads hON rather than hWN.

I don't attach any superstitious level of significance to the reading
adopted in the Editio Critica Maior (Muenster)  DI´hON (P 69vid 398 876 945
vg.mss al), however this solution seems to be the most economical which of
course doesn't make it right.

Thomas and also Bryant's reading which is also preferred by R. Bauckham is
very credible:

Thomas Kraus wrote:

> 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.

However, this appears to have one draw back which Bacukham mentions, the
hUDATI in 2Pet3:6 looks redundant. I am sure that Mayor's position also has
faults, and perhaps more serious ones.

Since this thread has been dormant for a while I have quoted the relevant
posts below.

Many thanks for the substantive discussion on this question.



Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

> --------- 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:
> 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).

on 9/2/01 1:02 PM, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:
> 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

on 9/2/01 11:11 PM, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III wrote:

> I laid out the Greek as follows without the verse markers beginning in verse
> 5:
> 3.        KAI GH EX hUDATOS
> Three times hUDWR is used in the last three lines. The relevant allusion in
> the OT is Gen 1:1ff and Gen 6-9. Creation of the world by the Word (LOGWi -
> the LOGOS?) of God AND its destruction by the Great Flood (hUDATI), thus
> Judgement. It seems to me that DI' WN in line 5 is relating back to DI'
> UDATOS in line 4. I do like the logical parallelism from line 3 to line 5. I
> am also inclined to think that DI' WN could be referring back to both DI'
> hUDATOS and TOU QEOU LOGWi. My reasoning, although not full-proof, is that
> the destruction of the whole earth was by water and by the command of God
> (see the parallelism of LOGWi in verse 5 with EPANGELIA in verse 3). If I am
> correct, then DI' WN is actually referring to the entire phrase of line 4
> above.
> En Xpistw,
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

More information about the B-Greek mailing list