[B-Greek] Rom 4:1

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Jul 20 23:17:35 EDT 2009


The reading of Wright and Hays assumes an implied EINAI, as Carl has
shown. And there's nothing wrong with that, of course. But then, wouldn't
we expect ABRAAM to be articulate as the subject of EINAI and PROPATORA
to be anarthrous as the predicate, like so:

TI OUN EROUMEN; hEURHKENAI TON ABRAAM PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA;

Or possibly, ABRAAM PROPATORA -- no articles
Or, TON ABRAAM TON PROPATORA -- both articulate

In fact, shouldn't we expect any one of these three, but definitely not
the actual text -- TON ABRAAM PROPATORA -- IF Wright and Hays are
correct?

Yours in His grace,

Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA

=======================================================================

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:51:03 -0500 "Yancy Smith"
<yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net> writes:
> His reading is not so peculiar to him. Richard Hays, Echoes of 
> Scripture in the Letters of Paul, p. 54 has, "The RSV translates 
> Rom. 4:1 as follows, 'What then shall we say about Abraham our 
> forefather according to the flesh?' Such a rendering, however, runs 
> recklessly over the Greek text. For a formidable series of reasons 
> having to do with the manuscript evidence, with Greek syntax, and 
> with Pauline style, the verse must instead be translated, 'What then 
> shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according 
> to the flesh?' The answer demanded by this rhetorical question, as 
> by other similar questions in Romans (3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14) is an 
> emphatic negative." Hays gives a more technical explanation and 
> defense of this reading in "'Have We Found Abraham To Be Our 
> Forefather According to the Flesh?': A Reconsideration of Rom. 4.1," 
> NTS 27 (1985): 76-98.
> 
> Of course context is everything here, and a clear understanding of 
> what Paul is arguing and how he is arguing it should guide and shape 
> how we disambiguate the grammar.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl Conrad
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:28 PM
> To: Iver Larsen
> Cc: BG
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Rom 4:1
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> 
> > While reading N.T. Wright I came to his peculiar understanding of  
> 
> > Rom 4:1.
> >
> > The text is:
> >
> > ?? ??? ????µe? e??????a? ?ß?a?µ 
>  
> > t?? p??p?t??a ?µ?? ?at? s???a;
> > TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA?
> >
> > He says that the following translation "works extremely well with  
> 
> > the Greek":
> > "What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our 
> forefather  
> > according to
> > the flesh?"
> >
>  Can anyone explain to me how he can suggest "we" as implicit subject 
>  
> > for the
> > perfect infinitive? I assume that Wright is not a member of 
> b-Greek,  
> > but maybe
> > some one else has accepted his exegesis and can defend it?
> >
> > How can he cut the sentence into two with an indicative form of  
> > "found" when the
> > infinitive depends on EIPON? And how does that work extremely well 
>  
> > with the
> > Greek?
> 
> I would not advocate that reading of the text, but I see no reason 
> why  
> the text couldn't be punctuated (as a question) after TI OUN or 
> after  
> EROUMEN..
> TI OUN as a stand-alone introduction to a rhetorical question is by 
> no  
> means uncommon (BDAG 1.a.ß.???.  elliptical expressions:). If  
> 
> after EROUMEN, one would still say, I think, that an elliptical  
> repeated EROUMEN governs the infinitive hEURHKENAI, no subject of 
> the  
> infinitive needing to be stated since it's identical with that of  
> EROUMEN. Moreover, I see no real objection to understanding TON  
> PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA as predicative to ABRAAM.
> 
> I would suppose that his version, "What then shall we say? Have we  
> found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?", is not  
> 
> intended to be literal, a literal version being rather, "What then  
> shall we say? [Shall we say that] we have found Abraham [to be] our  
> 
> forefather according to the flesh?"
> 
> I don't see any reason why that isn't a legitimate way of 
> punctuating  
> and reading the text, although, as I stated at the outset, it is not 
> a  
> way I would advocate.
> 
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
Workers Compensation Legal Advice. Click here
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOcqHkL1WONhoJmg34uVyv3wpq9hrNFXZIK78Ws0xQiuFLHp7ustK/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list