[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OU+PAS (Romans 9:6 reconsidered)

At 11:43 PM +0100 6/2/97, Jim Beale wrote:
>XAIRETE :-)
>
>I've found two kinds of verses in which OU+PAS is found.  In the
>first kind, OU is construed with PAS.  In these OU negates the
>universal affirmative proposition producing a particular negative
>proposition; ~(All a is b) becomes (Some a is not b).  In the second
>kind, OU is construed with the verb, producing a universal affirmation
>(or negation depending on the way the relation is written).  Of this
>latter class are two important verses: Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16.
>
>This means that OU, in Romans 9:6, is to be construed with PANTES
>to the effect that OU negates the universal affirmative proposition,
>"all who are of ethnic Israel are of elect Israel" to produce the
>particular negative "some who are of ethnic Israel are not of elect
>Israel."  If OU was construed with the implicit verb EISIN, then the
>result would be that no one of ethnic Israel was elect, which is
>clearly not the case.  This is what John Piper did, and I think it
>is a mistake (though he did arrive at the correct result anyway!)

What criteria are you using to determine whether a particular case belongs
to one type or the other? Are you going solely on word order, taking OU to
negate the word immediately adjacent to it, or are you using other
criteria? If so, what are they? Your proposal sounds very interesting. I
would be interested in seening some more of the detail.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer				   mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: