email@example.com (Domenico Lembo) writes:
>Needless to say, there is a common usage which gives to "pro-" in
>"prolambano" a temporal or sequential meaning. But this is not our
>point. For here the "lambanein" is no "catching": is no external event.
>Nowhere "prolambanein" (tina) is something like "catching"
>(someone). Nowhere "prolambano" (tina) can mean "I catch in
>advance" (someone). Is it so difficult to grasp?
If "common usage" of a word cannot be admitted, then what does constitute
admissible evidence? The statement "For here the 'lambanein' is no
'catching': is no external event." strikes me as a purely dogmatic assertion.
Can any kind of sound exegesis be offered to support this view? As I have
mentioned more than once before, Liddell and Scott give several instances in
which PROLAMBANEIN means "take _or_ seize beforehand." One of these is in
the passive as is the instance of PROLAMBANW we are discussing in Gal. 6:1.
It reads SWMA PROEILHMMENON U(PO NOSOU which seems to refer to a body
already infected by disease. If such usage was current in Paul's time, it
should not seem odd that he speak of those who had fallen into the judaizers'
error with the words EAN KAI PROLHMFQH ANQRWPOS EN TINI PARAPTWMATI...
meaning "even if somone has already gotten involved in some trespass...."
Other points of exegesis that support this view are included in my first
post on this subject.