Tuesday, May 19, 2020

A.T. Hanson on 1 Peter 3-4 and the descensus ad inferos


Commenting on 1 Peter 3:19 in light of scholars such as William Joseph Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 (who denies that the texts are presenting Jesus as preaching to the dead, but instead, proclaiming to the condemned angels in the heavens post-resurrection), A.T. Hanson wrote the following:

What is the meaning of εν ω in 3.19?

Scholars fall into two camps: one group holds that εν ω refers to πνευμα and therefore means that it was in the dimension or realm of spirit that Christ preached to the spirits in prison . . . According to this interpretation the author is still maintaining in verse 19 the σαρξ-πνευμα distinction which he makes in verse 18, and is saying that Christ’s death deprived him of flesh, but that his life continued in the Spirit in which he rose on the third day . . . The other group of scholars holds that εν ω means something like ‘in these circumstances’ . . . [these scholars argue] that Christ being εν πνευματι does not mean the same thing as πνευμασιν in verse 19; εν must therefore be either a temporal or a causal conjunction. 1 Peter uses εν ω four times elsewhere as a conjunction, so [Selwyn] concludes that we have here a temporal conjunction indicating the period during which Christ preached to the spirits. Dalton, though he takes εν ω as ‘in which Spirit’, would make the phrase apply not to the descensus but to the resurrection of Christ (pp. 124ff; 138). He lays much stress on ζωοποιηθεις, claiming that this must refer to resurrection and not just to continued existence in the world of the dead. Lundberg agrees that the word refers to the resurrection, but merely concludes that it is mentioned out of order, since there is certainly a reference to the descensus here(pp. 106-7). Bieder (op. cit., p. 107), who denies that there is a conscious reference to a descensus at all in this passage, claims that, had the author meant to imply a descensus, he would have used katabas not poreutheis. But we may point out that in 3.21, where he certainly means a going up, he uses poreutheis not anabas, so no capital can be made for Bieder’s view from the word-usage here. As for Lundberg’s argument, ζωοποιηθεις πνευματι is a strange way to describe the resurrection of Christ’s body. In fact our author is probably rather embarrassed as to what language he is to use to describe the mode of existence of Christ during the descensus. The σαρξ-πνευμα contrast was all he had; a Platonic σωμα-ψυχη contrast was quite alien to his thought-world. I incline to think that εν ω probably should be taken as meaning ‘in which dimension of Spirit’, despite Reicke’s well-marshalled arguments. The parallel with Romans 6.1-11 , and perhaps the Christian interpretation of Psalm 88.6 (87.5 LXX) εν νεκροις ελευθερος, suggest that our author thought of Christ as having died to the flesh (and thereby to sin) but as continuing to live in the Spirit as he enters the abode of the dead. We may note also that the author of the Hodayoth, when he echoes Psalm 88.6 in 1 QH viii.28-9, can say that his spirit (rwḥy) is among the dead. (Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture [London: SPCK, 1980], 128, 129)

Elsewhere, addressing the question of “Where did the preaching take place?” Hanson wrote:

On this point Dalton finds himself in a relatively small minority. But he does have the support of H. Schlier in Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tūbingen 1930), p. 15. Most scholars conclude that this passage does intend to describe a descensus ad inferos, and that therefore the preaching must have taken place in the land of the dead, the underworld. Dalton (p. 33) holds that ζωοποιηθεις πνευματι in 3.18 refers to Christ’s bodily resurrection at the end of the triduum, and hence that the preaching to the spirits took place after that, that is during the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension (p. 186). This preaching took place in the realm of the air, which, according to him, is where the rebellious angels were confined (pp. 165f). We have already argued the point about the meaning of ζωοποιηθεις πνευματι, but we might add here that Dalton’s view seems to depend on the acceptance of the Lukan schema of a forty days’ interval between resurrection and ascension, of which there is no sign in 1 Peter. Also, Dalton is led to his argument to deny that the concept of the Church as the ark of salvation is to be found in verses 20-21; this is because he wants to avoid any suggestion of Christians dying with Christ in baptism, as that would point too clearly towards a descensus scheme here (p. 207). Moreover, he himself points out certain parallels between this passage and Jonah 1.2; 3.4, where the words πορευθητι, κηρυξον, and εκηρυξε in the LXX seem to have an echo in 1 Peter 3.19 (pp. 150-51). But if there is a link with the story of Jonah this is a strong argument in favour of a descensus being intended here . . . (Ibid., 130-31)