[B-Greek] APWSATO PROEGNW functional antonyms in ROM. 11:2 ?
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 8 23:01:31 EST 2007
If we examine Paul's argument in Rom 11.1-2, it seems to be that the existence of a subgroup which remains associated with God indicates that God has not abandoned the group as a whole. This is the case in regard to the Elijah account and Paul maintains that his being an Israelite is another example of the same thing. In Rom 8.29 I think we have a similar type of relationship in that those who are "selected" are also "ordained" to be conformed to his son. There is no reason to suppose that each individual of that group must be included just as not each and every Israelite is considered to be included in Rom 11.1-2. In other words the "remnant" and the "ordained" are subsets of the "selected" and to Paul would not deny his general proposition. If I haven't already transgressed the limits of discussion according to b-greek protocol, I am skirting very close so I will stop at this point.
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: Friday, December 7, 2007 4:45:03 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] APWSATO PROEGNW functional antonyms in ROM. 11:2 ?
Thank you Iver and George for your helpful replies. Here are some
further questions.
As you read the following bear in mind that we are talking here about
issues of lexical reference and semantics in the Greek text of Romans
11:1-2, not reformed dogmatics. [1]
I am having a difficult time making sense out of Shreiner's treatment
of Rom. 11:1-2 (Rom. BECNT p.578-80). On page 578 he seems to agree
that referent of TON LAON AUTOU "refers to Israel as a whole, not
merely the elect."[1] While discussing the meaning of PROEGNW p.580
he states "As in [Romans] 8:29 ... the word PROGINWSKEIN ... does not
merely connote foreknowledge but also implies foreordination, with
the emphasis being on God's covenantal love for his people ...
PROEGNW clearly functions as the antonym of APWSATO. The later verb
means 'rejected' and thus the former means 'selected.'"
Shreiner claims that PROEGNW has the same meaning in Rom 8:29 and
11:2. On this point J.Murray 1965:68 n6 disagrees. Murray takes
PROEGNW in 11:2 as EGNWN is used in Amos 3:2 with the object of EGNWN
not being limited to the righteous remnant.
AMOS 3:2 PLHN hUMAS EGNWN EK PASWN FULWN THS GHS DIA TOUTO EKDIKHSW
EF' hUMAS PASAS TAS hAMARTIAS hUMWN
Once again, Shreiner on p580 claims PROEGNW in Rom 8:29 and 11:2 has
the same meaning but on p578 he appears to agree that the referent of
TON LAON AUTOU "refers to Israel as a whole". I don't see how these
two propositions can be reconciled. J.Murray apparently didn't think
they could be reconciled so he choose to understand PROEGNW in 11:2
as having a more general meaning than in 8:29.
If we accept that TON LAON AUTOU refers to Israel as a whole in Rom.
11:1-2 how are we going to explain the the lexical semantics of
PROEGNW in 11:2 in relation to 8:29? Do we follow J.Murray? Does
PROEGNW in 11:2 compel us to rethink PROEGNW in 8:29?
Fitzmmeyer (Rom. AB p523) on PROEGNW in 8:29 Paul's "anthropomorphic
language should not be facilely transposed into the signa rationis of
later theological systems of predestination. ... PROGINWSKEIN, ...
that recurs in 11:2 and reflects the OT use of yd' as in Gen 18:19,
Jer 1:5, Amos 3:2, Ps 1:6, meaning to 'know' as to 'know with
affection, predilection'; it is not a purely speculative knowledge
but refers not only to God's knowledge prior to human love of God,
but even to his eternal foreknowledge."
On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
> The way to zero in on the meaning of PROEGNW can hardly be to start
> off with the assumption that it is an antonym for APWSATO, but
> should be based on usage of this word elsewhere. In my
> understanding of the Biblical and Jewish context of "knowing"
> somebody, it has more to do with a close relationship than with
> simple intellectual knowledge. So, I would understand PROEGNW to
> mean that God has had a close (but turbulent) relationship with hO
> LAOS AUTOU (his people - the Jewish nation) for a very long time
> already, and he is not just going to turn his back on them or
> completely reject them og give up on them - APWQEW, even if the
> majority of them have rejected him.
> Yes, somebody might think that God ought to give up after having
> tried so many times with little success, but Paul is saying no, and
> he offers at least two reasons. First, Paul himself is an example
> of an antagonist that God did not give up on. The second reason is
> that Elijah once gave up on them, but in spite of that, God didn't
> (1 Kings 19)
> Most English versions give the literal translation "foreknew" which
> I don't understand the meaning of. REB seems to be close when it
> says: "God has not rejected the people *he acknowledged of old as
> his own.*" I can see that this is not far from "chose" as some
> other versions have it, but I don't think "select" is quite the
> right sense for this word in this context.
>
> Iver Larsen
Fitzmeyer and I.Larsen seem to be pointing in a direction that solves
the problem.
It is entirely possible that I don't understand some subtle detail of
Shreiner's argument. After several days of reading and rereading the
secondary literature [2] on Rom 8:19, 11:1-2 I still cannot come up
with a reading of Shreiner that makes sense. His use of dogmatic
terminology is a major contributing factor [1].
[OFF TOPIC]
Why does this matter? Shreiner seems to have established himself in
the minds of some students of biblical literature as a expert on
Pauline literature. I have been asked to give him a close reading but
will mercifully supplied with an excuse to drop the project when the
books become due next week.
Elizabeth Kline
[1] Shreiner's tendency to introduce technical terminology and ideas
from dogmatics into his exegetical comments is highly confusing
because you never know from one phrase to the next if the referent of
a term is something Pauline or something from Luther, Calvin, Beza ... .
[2] Fitzmyer, Cranfield, Murray, Calvin, Shreiner, Morris, Sanday &
Hedlam, Meyer, Alford ...
On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:06 PM, George F Somsel wrote:
> 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. Ifτὸν 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
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Elizabeth Kline
> 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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list