[B-Greek] APWSATO PROEGNW functional antonyms in ROM. 11:2 ?

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 6 00:06:39 EST 2007


I can understand the position that ἀπωθέω [APWQEW] could be an antonym for προγινώσκω [PROGINWSKW], however, to limit τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  [TON LAON AUTOU] to the remnant seems to go against Paul's argument.  The citation of Elijah in parallel with the fact that he is also an Israelite seems to contradict that ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ [APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU] both in the past and in the present.  If τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  [TON LAON AUTOU] were to be considered as the remnant then the argument would have no real point.  The point being, according to Paul, that the existence of a remnant in the time of Elijah as well as in the present with Paul being an example in the present indicates that τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  [TON LAON AUTOU] have not been rejected.  If τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  [TON LAON AUTOU] were to be the remnant itself then we would have what would
 amount to a tautology. Paul is maintaining that so long as a remnant remains God has not rejected his people.
 
george
gfsomsel
 
Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.
 
- Jan Hus
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 4:54:49 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] APWSATO PROEGNW functional antonyms in ROM. 11:2 ?

ROM. 11:1 LEGW OUN, MH APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU; MH GENOITO:  
KAI GAR EGW ISRAHLITHS EIMI, EK SPERMATOS ABRAAM, FULHS BENIAMIN.  2  
OUK APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU hON PROEGNW. H OUK OIDATE EN HLIAi  
TI LEGEI hH GRAFH, hWS ENTUGCANEI TWi QEWi KATA TOU ISRAHL;

T.Shreiner Rom. BECNT p.580 "... PROEGNW clearly functions as the  
antonym of APWSATO. The later verb means 'rejected' and thus the  
former means 'selected.'"

Is Shreiner trying to say that his reading of PROEGNW, as a  
restrictive term limiting TON LAON AUTOU to the righteous remnant,  
makes the proposition APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU impossible? But  
if the proposition is impossible why would Paul bother with it? Straw  
man? Possibly. Also this raises problems with the referent of TON  
LAON AUTOU, what is the referent? Does the referent change within the  
immediate context?

It seems to me that APWSATO and PROEGNW are not functional antonyms  
and the proposition APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU is not impossible.  
It appears that Paul considers APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU a  
viable reading of the history of Israel or he wouldn't be getting so  
worked up to refute it.

The referent of TON LAON AUTOU in 11:1 appears to be the nation not  
the righteous remnant and that would make a switch reference for TON  
LAON AUTOU hON PROEGNW in 11:2 somewhat confusing (see Fitzmyer,  
Cranfield, Sanday & Headlam, Meyer, Alford).



Elizabeth Kline




---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


More information about the B-Greek mailing list