[B-Greek] Romans 4:1

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Thu Jul 27 12:32:54 EDT 2006


Dear Harold,

I am undecided on how to translate Rom 4:1; I have not studied the verse 
enough. But there are good exegetical reasons for the translation Hays 
offers (also supported by N.T. Wright). I think you may misunderstand the 
thrust of the proposed exegesis when you say:

[ The idea is supposed to be that the Jews did not find Abraham their
> forefather according to the flesh necessarily, for unless there was
> faith in God, one was not the seed of Abraham. This idea supposedly
> anticipates Romans 9:6-9 later in the letter.
>
> The problem I have with this theory is that Roman 9:6-8 is speaking in
> somewhat spiritual terms. Ishmael remained Abraham's son according to
> the flesh, didn't he? It was according to God's spiritual intentions
> that he was not a son of the covenant. I can see that someone could
> argue he was disinherited, but the phrase KATA SARKA in Rom 4:1 seems
> awfully strong as indicating simple physical descent, which was present
> in Ishmael's case whether he was disinherited or not. So I find the
> exegesis hard to accept.]

The point of this type of exegesis is to claim that the issue of physical 
descent and its relationship to covenant membership is exactly the point of 
concern for Paul. This is a strong theme in Rom 9. So there would be no 
denial of physical descent (KATA SARKA) in Ishmael's case in Rom 9 or as a 
topic in Rom 4, but that Paul is arguing that physical descent is not 
sufficient, nor is it necessary, to be a true covenant descendant of Abraham 
(as illustrated by Ishamel e.g.). In Rom 4 Paul actually argues that Abe is 
the father of all who believe whether Jew or Gentile. So there is no denial 
of the strong emphasis on physical descent in KATA SARKA in Rom 4:1.

God bless,

Brian Abasciano

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: B-Greek Digest, Vol 43, Issue 30


> Send B-Greek mailing list submissions to
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-greek-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of B-Greek digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
>      (Elizabeth Kline)
>   2. Re: Romans 4:1 (Stephen Payne)
>   3. Re: Romans 4:1 (Harold Holmyard)
>   4. The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
>      (Leonard Jayawardena)
>   5. The use of EN in 2 Cor 8:7 (Chet Creider)
>   6. "attain" for "find"? (Fridolin Janzen)
>   7. Re: "attain" for "find"? (Carl W. Conrad)
>   8. Re: "attain" for "find"? (Stephen C. Carlson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:29:32 -0700
> From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
> To: Jeffrey B.Gibson <jgibson000 at comcast.net>
> Cc: greek <B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <99AB6AE8-FE08-46CE-ABDC-1397CF0C8ABE at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>
>> So far as I can see, QEOPNEUSTOS does not appear anywhere in
>> Plato.  In fact, it doesn't seem to be
>> used in Greek literature before the 3rd century BCE in Oracula
>> Sibyllina 5.308 and 5. 406  and then
>> again outside of its appearance in  2 Tim, not until the 2nd
>> century CE.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>
>
> Well, we have eliminated the Menetho's use QEOPNEUSTOS which upon
> closer observation is clearly from George
> Syncellus not Menetho. We have also eliminated Alford's (also
> Warfield) citation from Phocylides and it appears that books four and
> five of Oracula Sibyllina are dated after the fall of Jerusalem in
> AD70 (Oxford Dict. Christian Church, p.1496). So we are back to where
> we started. What does Mounce have in mind (Past. Ep. WBC p565 bottom)
> "QEOPNEUSTOS ... found rarely in pre-Christian literature"? His
> sources MM 287 and TDNT 6:453-455 do not appear to support his
> statement.
>
>
> Thank you Jeffery and Harold for your helpful participation.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:46:02 -0400
> From: "Stephen Payne" <spayneop at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 4:1
> To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <BAY102-F105684D611F13DD8D9D65BC05B0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Harold,
>
> After checking the surrounding verses, I realized I misidentified
> hEURHKENAI: its a perfect infinitive, not a present, and it can make sense
> for ABRAAM to be its subject and "our forefather according to flesh" 
> remains
> in apposition to it.  With this in mind, there is hardly any distinction
> between (1) and (2) below.  Earlier I didn't have my GNT with me, and I
> shouldn't have replied just from a quick glance at the text.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen Payne
>
>
>>From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>
>>To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 4:1
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:53:39 -0500
>>
>>Dear Stephen,
>>
>> >Yes, since ABRAAM is indeclinable it "could" serve as subject for
>> >hEURHKENAI, but then the sentence would make little or no sense.  (1)
>>"What
>> >then shall we say (that) Abraham finds our forefather according to
>>flesh?"
>> >or (2) "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, finds
>> >according to flesh?" We can certainly rule out (2) since hEURHKENAI is
>> >transitive, but there is nothing to provide an object.  And (1) is just
>> >nonsensical, since Abraham obviously is the forefather under issue.
>> >Therefore, I think one can rule out ABRAAM as subject for hEURHKENAI.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>HH: Maybe I just don't understand you, but option 2 above is that taken
>>by nearly every major translation of the Bible and makes perfect sense.
>>The object of the transitive verb is "what," since this is a question.
>>The object is TI.
>>
>>TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA
>>
>>
>>However, the textual evidence favors to a consider extent that
>>"according to the flesh" goes with "forefather":
>>
>>"What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather according to the
>>flesh, has found?
>>
>>
>>Yours,
>>Harold Holmyard
>>---
>>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>>B-Greek mailing list
>>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:23:25 -0500
> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 4:1
> To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <44C7B31D.1080505 at ont.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>>
>>> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA
>>>
>>> What then shall we say, Have we found Abraham to be our forefather
>>> according to the flesh?
>>>
>>>
>>> HH: Another person on another list said that he found the translation
>>> impossible. I tend to find it impossible, too, Perhaps one could think
>>> of the words as:
>>>
>>> What then shall we say -- to have found Abraham to be our forefather
>>> according to the flesh?
>>>
>>> HH: But it seems very odd to me. What do people with more  experience in
>>> Greek feel?
>>
>>
>> I don't know whether that includes me or not; I will say this much: I
>> have, occasionally, when coming back to this text in a sequential
>> reading, seriously considered that sense -- but then I could not get
>> past the thought: "Did we ever LOSE our fleshly forefather Abraham ?"
>
>
> HH: The basis of the interpretation is a rhetorical question expecting a
> "no" answer. It evidently came up in a discussion in 2002:
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-January/019973.html
>
> Richard Hays offered a translation like this:
>
> Ti oun eroumen? [Eroumen] heurekenai Abraam ton propatora hemon kata 
> sarka?
>
> What then shall we say? [Shall we say]  to have found Abraham [to be]
> our forefather according to flesh?
>
> There was mention of James Dunn offering a corrective on the original
> translation:
>
> TI OUN? EROUMEN EURHKENAI ABRAAM PROPATORA HMWN KATA SARKA?
>
> "In this case, the accusative (semantic subject) for infinitival clause
> EURHKENAI ABRAAM PROPATORA HMWN KATA SARKA can be readily supplied from
> the main verb EROUMEN."
>
> "What then? Shall we say to have found Abraham (to be) our forefather
> according to the flesh?
>
> You seem to be saying that if that is what the Greek meant, why didn't
> Paul insert the infinitive EINAI or an equivalent.
>
> The idea is supposed to be that the Jews did not find Abraham their
> forefather according to the flesh necessarily, for unless there was
> faith in God, one was not the seed of Abraham. This idea supposedly
> anticipates Romans 9:6-9 later in the letter.
>
> The problem I have with this theory is that Roman 9:6-8 is speaking in
> somewhat spiritual terms. Ishmael remained Abraham's son according to
> the flesh, didn't he? It was according to God's spiritual intentions
> that he was not a son of the covenant. I can see that someone could
> argue he was disinherited, but the phrase KATA SARKA in Rom 4:1 seems
> awfully strong as indicating simple physical descent, which was present
> in Ishmael's case whether he was disinherited or not. So I find the
> exegesis hard to accept.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl W. Conrad
>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
>> cwconrad2 at mac.com
>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:21:46 +0600
> From: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at sltnet.lk>
> Subject: [B-Greek] The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Message-ID: <002901c6b155$b577c660$8c0dfea9 at alpha>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:25:12 -0400
> From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000001c6afdd$001865f0$2f01a8c0 at barry>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]
>> On Behalf Of Leonard Jayawardena
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:39 AM
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: [B-Greek] The meaning of "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16
>> Importance: High
>
>
>> Therefore "breathing the breath of God" means to speak or declare the 
>> word
> of
>> God.  Paul says in vs.15, "...from childhood you [Timothy] have been
> acquainted
>> with the sacred writings [OT] which are able to instruct you for 
>> salvation
> through
>> faith in Christ Jesus."  I think what Paul probably means is  "Every
> scripture which
>> declares the word of God is profitable, just as the Old Testament is, for
> doctrine,
>> reproof, etc."  On this interpretation "every scripture" refers to
> scripture other
>> than the Old Testament which is equally "God-breathing" and profitable
> with the
>> Old Testament. The Scriptures are "God-breathing" by virtue of the fact
> that they
>> contain the word of God and so declare it.  By "word of God" I mean any
> message
>> in the Scriptures which has God as the ultimate source, e.g. the ten
>> commandments, the prophecies of Daniel, the Christian gospel, but not, 
>> for
>> example, pure historical narratives of the OT.
>>
>> Is it possible to understand "theopneustos" in this way, i.e. "speaking 
>> or
> declaring
>> the word of God"?
>
> Probably not.
>
> 1) QEOPNEUSTOS -- the -TOS ending is a passive morpheme (cf. BDF 65.3, 
> 112),
> so your translation of it as active won't work.
>
> 2) You translate it as an attributive rather than a predicate, which the
> syntax will not allow.
>
> 3) I think the considerations above preclude your interpretation, but
> another aspect is the extent of PASA GRAFH.  What did that mean for the
> writer of the epistle?  In general, the NT authors quote nearly the 
> complete
> range of the canonical OT as authoritative, which would suggest that for
> this writer at least that collection would be considered as included in
> PASA.
>
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Adjunct Faculty & IT Support
> The Center for Urban Theological Studies
> http://www.cuts.edu
> Classics Instructor, The American Academy
> http://www.theamericanacademy.net
>
>
> 1.  According to two articles I have read, Professor Hermann Cremer, 
> though advocating a passive sense for QEOPNEUSTOS at first, in later 
> stages had argued for an active meaning for it ("Biblico-Theological 
> Lexicon of NT Greek," 4th edition).  He had understood the word as meaning 
> "breathing the Spirit of God" or "spirit-filled."  If the full article of 
> Prof. Cremer is available on the Web, I would greatly appreciate a link to 
> it as unfortunately I don't have access to his "Lexicon."  I would greatly 
> benefit from a discussion among the list members on how the Professor 
> defended an active meaning for QEOPNEUSTOS (i.e. "God-breathing" rather 
> than "God-breathed").  As my knowledge of Greek is rather basic, I would 
> find it helpful if such a discussion began with a detailed explanation of 
> how QEOPNEUSTOS is derived from QEOS and PNEO.
>
> 2. The American Standard Version and the New English Bible take 
> QEOPNEUSTOS as an attributive adjective.
>
> 3.  In my first post I wrote what I think Paul probably meant in 2 Timothy 
> 3:16-17: "Every God-breathing scripture is profitable, just as the Old 
> Testament is, for doctrine, reproof, etc."  On this interpretation, it is 
> implied that the OT is "God-breathing," which I understand, with Professor 
> Cremer, as meaning "breathing the spirit of God." On the strength of Psalm 
> 33:6 and other passages, I equate "the spirit of God" with the word of 
> God, which results in the construction I have placed on QEOPNEUSTOS: 
> "speaking or declaring the word of God."
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> Colombo, Sri Lanka
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:59:03 -0400
> From: Chet Creider <creider at uwo.ca>
> Subject: [B-Greek] The use of EN in 2 Cor 8:7
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <44C8AA87.2050500 at uwo.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> This is a question about how the Greek in 2 Cor 8:7 is to be construed. 
> The
> question is followed by a brief appendix on the history of the 
> understanding
> of the Greek as evidenced in selected translations.  It is not a question,
> however, about the translation of the Greek -- once the Greek is 
> understood,
> the way it may be translated is not of any particular interest.
>
> The passage: ALL' hWSPER EN PANTI PERISSEUETE, PISTEI KAI LOGWi KAI GNWSEI
> KAI PASHi SPOUDHi KAI THi EX hHMWN EN hUMIN AGAPHi, hINA KAI EN TAUTHi THi
> CARITI PERISSEUHTE
>
> It is THi EX hHMWN EN hUMIN AGAPHi which is the subject of my question,
> and more specificically EN hUMIN.  There are two possible readings here,
> one "dative/accusative" and one locative.  (I write "dative/accusative"
> because what is meant here is the sense in which hUMIN is the object of
> love and I do not know whether the dative is simply the default for this
> noun or if there would be another way of expressing the object sense
> (another preposition, the genitive case); compare English "love of
> you"/"love for you".)
>
> (1) and (in) the love (which is) from us (pl.) (which is) to/for/of you
> (pl.)
> (2) and (in) the love (which is) from us (pl.) (which is) in you (pl.)
>
> I would be grateful for any thoughts/evidence on which construal seems
> the most likely.  Evidence might take the form of a tabulation of the
> frequency of  occurrence of sense (1) vs. sense (2) in the epistles of
> Paul with EN.
>
> Appendix on the history of the translation of this phrase:
>
> It will be very clear from what follows that this has been an
> extraordinarily
> difficult passage to deal with.  First let me note that there is no
> agreement
> as to what the original text was.  There are four variants:
> (a) EX hHMWN EN hUMIN
> (b) EX hUMWN EN hHMIN
> (c) EX hUMWN EN hUMIN
> (d) EX hHMWN EN hHMIN
> There are very few mss. with (c) and (d) but about equally many (including
> equally early) mss. for (a) and (b).  The Textus Receptus has (b) but most
> modern editions have (a) (my earliest modern edition, the 1958 BFBS 2nd
> edition, has it).  In his _Textual Commentary_ Bruce Metzger wrote that
> the committee felt that there was a slight preference for (a) because it 
> was
> the more difficult reading.  For (b) he wrote that it was "superficially
> more appropriate".
>
> I. the AV > RSV > NRVS tradition
> The AV (KJV) takes the (a) variant and interestingly translates not from 
> the
> Greek but from the Latin Vulgate.  Wordsworth-White, the Stuttgart 
> Vulgate,
> the Clementina Vulgate, etc. all have:
>
> et caritate(ablative) vestra(ablative) in nos(accusative) "and (with 
> respect
> to) your (pl.) love to/for us" (only sense (1) is possible with the
> accusative)
>
> This is translated by the AV as: "Therefore, as ye abound in every
> _thing_, ...
> and in your love to us, ...".  The RVS has "Now as you excel in
> everything, ...
> and in your love for us, ...".  The NRVS is asleep on this one as they
> accept
> the modern version of the Greek text and translate by simply changing 
> "your"
> to "our" and "us" to "you", producing nonsense: "Now as you excel in
> everything,
> ... and in our love for you".
>
> II. modern examples
> At least a couple of able modern translators/translations choose sense
> (2).
> Thus Ralph Kilpatrick in the BFBS's diglot (1964) gives, "in the love 
> which
> we have awakened in you", and the NASB has "in the love we inspired in 
> you".
>
> The Nova Vulgata changes the Latin to match the Greek: et
> carite(ablative) ex nobis(ablative/dative) in vobis(ablative/dative).
> Due to the syncretism of the ablative and the dative in the plural, this
> Latin translation perhaps will allow for either sense (1)
> ("dative/accusative") or sense (2) (locative).  (My source is the 1986
> version given in Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Latine.)
>
> Chet Creider
>
> P.S.  The only significant discussion of this passage which I could find
> in the B-Greek archives was made in passing by Iver Larsen ("use of EK
> in 1 John 4.13 and EN in v16", 24 Feb 2003).  Iver doesn't discuss the
> locative meaning but, assuming the "accusative" meaning, notes that Paul
> uses EIS 5 times to express this meaning and EN 1 time (in the passage
> under consideration here).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:24:55 -0400
> From: "Fridolin Janzen" <fjanzen at gmx.net>
> Subject: [B-Greek] "attain" for "find"?
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <001e01c6b180$11f580b0$35e08210$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> What if the word ?find?, ?heurisko?? would simply be translated with one 
> of its secondary meanings (according to Thayer: obtain, attain), instead 
> of with its primary meaning, as the italian Riveduta Luzzi does, using 
> ?attained?:
>
>
>
> Rom 4:1  Che diremo dunque che l'antenato nostro Abramo abbia ottenuto 
> secondo la carne?
>
>
>
>
>
> "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, attained according 
> to the flesh??
>
>
>
> According to the flesh Abraham attained the Middle East conflict. 
> According to faith he attained the Lord? righteousness.
>
>
>
> Pastor Fridolin Janzen
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 7
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:53:39 -0500
>
> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 4:1
>
> To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> Message-ID: <44C79003.9050103 at ont.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
>
>
>>Yes, since ABRAAM is indeclinable it "could" serve as subject for
>
>>hEURHKENAI, but then the sentence would make little or no sense.  (1) 
>>"What
>
>>then shall we say (that) Abraham finds our forefather according to flesh?"
>
>>or (2) "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, finds
>
>>according to flesh?" We can certainly rule out (2) since hEURHKENAI is
>
>>transitive, but there is nothing to provide an object.  And (1) is just
>
>>nonsensical, since Abraham obviously is the forefather under issue.
>
>>Therefore, I think one can rule out ABRAAM as subject for hEURHKENAI.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
> HH: Maybe I just don't understand you, but option 2 above is that taken
>
> by nearly every major translation of the Bible and makes perfect sense.
>
> The object of the transitive verb is "what," since this is a question.
>
> The object is TI.
>
>
>
> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA
>
>
>
>
>
> However, the textual evidence favors to a consider extent that
>
> "according to the flesh" goes with "forefather":
>
>
>
> "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather according to the 
> flesh, has found?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> B-Greek mailing list
>
> <mailto:B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 43, Issue 29
>
> ***********
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:38:23 -0400
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] "attain" for "find"?
> To: B-Greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <F4A19E07-DBA0-4759-89AE-10EF9CEC7083 at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I would have thought that Italian "ottenuto" would English as
> "OBtained" rather than "ATtained."
>
> On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Fridolin Janzen wrote:
>
>> What if the word ?find?, ?heurisko?? would simply be
>> translated with one of its secondary meanings (according to Thayer:
>> obtain, attain), instead of with its primary meaning, as the
>> italian Riveduta Luzzi does, using ?attained?:
>>
>>
>>
>> Rom 4:1  Che diremo dunque che l'antenato nostro Abramo abbia
>> ottenuto secondo la carne?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, attained
>> according to the flesh??
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the flesh Abraham attained the Middle East conflict.
>> According to faith he attained the Lord? righteousness.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pastor Fridolin Janzen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Message: 7
>>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:53:39 -0500
>>
>> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 4:1
>>
>> To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> Message-ID: <44C79003.9050103 at ont.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, since ABRAAM is indeclinable it "could" serve as subject for
>>
>>> hEURHKENAI, but then the sentence would make little or no sense.
>>> (1) "What
>>
>>> then shall we say (that) Abraham finds our forefather according to
>>> flesh?"
>>
>>> or (2) "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, finds
>>
>>> according to flesh?" We can certainly rule out (2) since
>>> hEURHKENAI is
>>
>>> transitive, but there is nothing to provide an object.  And (1) is
>>> just
>>
>>> nonsensical, since Abraham obviously is the forefather under issue.
>>
>>> Therefore, I think one can rule out ABRAAM as subject for hEURHKENAI.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> HH: Maybe I just don't understand you, but option 2 above is that
>> taken
>>
>> by nearly every major translation of the Bible and makes perfect
>> sense.
>>
>> The object of the transitive verb is "what," since this is a question.
>>
>> The object is TI.
>>
>>
>>
>> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the textual evidence favors to a consider extent that
>>
>> "according to the flesh" goes with "forefather":
>>
>>
>>
>> "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather according to
>> the flesh, has found?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Harold Holmyard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> B-Greek mailing list
>>
>>  <mailto:B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>>  <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek> http://
>> lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>>
>>
>> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 43, Issue 29
>>
>> ***********
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:02:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
> From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] "attain" for "find"?
> To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>, B-Greek B-Greek
> <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <22876734.1154012557840.JavaMail.root at mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>>On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Fridolin Janzen wrote:
>>> Rom 4:1  Che diremo dunque che l'antenato nostro Abramo abbia
>>> ottenuto secondo la carne?
>>>
>>> "What then shall we say (that) Abraham, our forefather, attained
>>> according to the flesh??
>>
>>I would have thought that Italian "ottenuto" would English as
>>"OBtained" rather than "ATtained."
>
> I don't think I would have rendered "ottenuto" as "attained"
> here either, but the semantic range of the Italian "ottenere"
> seems to have been taking over the active senses of "attenere"
> (= "attain") while latter verb has been specializing in the
> reflexive form "attenersi a".  (The so-called reflexive in Italian
> and other Romance languages functions in many respects like
> the Greek middle--much more similar than the English reflexive.)
>
> See, e.g,
>
> http://www.wordreference.com/enit/attain
> http://www.wordreference.com/iten/ottenere
> http://www.wordreference.com/iten/attenersi
>
> Stephen Carlson
>
> --
> Stephen C. Carlson,
> mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
> "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 43, Issue 30
> *************************************** 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list