[B-Greek] Rom 4:1

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jul 21 03:58:00 EDT 2009


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'Oun Kwon'" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; "'greek B-Greek'" 
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Rom 4:1


> Oun,
>
> Following your reading of the text, ABRAAM would be the "subject" of the 
> infinitive or, in theta role parlance, he is agent or 'actor' of the verbal 
> noun phrase. I think there might be other ways to construe the text, depending 
> upon the textual decision and how the sentence might be grammatically 
> construed. We might see the textual confusion as arising from the general 
> ambiguity of the sentence.
>
> 1. What shall we say we have found? [Is] Abraham our forefather according to 
> the flesh? [i.e. in a way limited only to the flesh, i.e. through circumcision 
> and/or lineage?]
> =a question followed by a question, with implied EINAI. hEUREKENAI before 
> ABRAAM
> 1a. "What shall we say we have found?" [Answer of interlocutor:] "Abraham is 
> our forefather according to the flesh."
> =a question followed by a statement from an interlocutor with implied EINAI. 
> hEUREKENAI before ABRAAM
> 2. What shall we say Abraham our forefather according to the flesh found? 
> [your reading, I think]
> =one long question, hEUREKENAI at the end.
> 2a. What shall we say he found--that is, Abraham our forefather according to 
> the flesh?
> =One long question with a clarification of the subject of hEUREKENAI. 
> hEUREKENAI before ABRAAM.
> 3. What shall we say, then? Have we found Abraham to be [only] our forefather 
> according to the flesh?
> =like 1., but with "the forefather of us" in an exclusive sense.
> 3a What shall we say, then? We have found Abraham to be our forefather [only] 
> according to the flesh.
> =like 1, but with "according to the flesh" in a negative and exclusive sense.
>
> As can be seen, the possibilities could be multiplied. We are dealing with a 
> fairly ambiguous sentence. Isn't it so often the case that Paul is most 
> ambiguous when he is making his most important points?
>
> Yancy

It is interesting to see various creative suggestions.  Thanks. I must admit 
that I do not find the sentence ambiguous, when it is read in the Pauline 
context.
Both your numbers 1 and 3 are twisting the natural and straightforward reading 
of the grammar and they require the addition of a lot of implied words. And they 
make no sense in context.

1. KATA SARKA is the antonym in Paul for KATA PNEUMA, see, for instance, Rom 
8:4,5 and Gal 4:29. It basically means "in a human or physical way" as opposed 
to "spiritually". Paul is here addressing the Jews for whom Abraham was their 
human ancestor, whereas he is the spiritual ancestor of the believers in Christ 
(whether circumcised or not), see 4:11-12. Therefore, KATA SARKA must qualify 
"our father" (whether the original text used PROPATWR or the variant reading 
PATHR makes little difference, and the position of hEURHKENAI is a matter of 
naturalness, and does not alter the sense).

2. TI (OUN) EROUMEN is a hallmark of Paul in Romans. The phrase occurs no less 
than 7 times in Romans and nowhere else in the NT. In most cases it is a 
complete question introducing a point to be developed. However, when it is a 
complete question by itself it is never followed by an infinitive with 
accusative in the following sentence. These are the statements that follow it:
3:5 μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. μὴ γένοιτο·
MH ADIKOS hO QEOS hO EPIFERWN THN ORGHN? KATA ANQRWPON LEGW! MH GENOITO!
6:1 ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; μὴ γένοιτο.
EPIMENWMEN THi hAMARTIAI hINA hH CARIS PLEONASHi? MH GENOITO!
7:7 ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο·
hO NOMOS hAMARTIA? MH GENOITO!
9:14 μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; μὴ γένοιτο·
MH ADIKIA PARA TWi QEWi? MH GENOITO!
8:31 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα; εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ᾽ ἡμῶν;
TI OUN EROUMEN PROS TAUTA? EI hO QEOS hUPER hHMWN, TIS KAQ' hHMWN?
9:30 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην
TI OUN EROUMEN? hOTI EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN

>From this pattern, it is very unlikely that hEUREKENAI is intended to be part of 
the TI OUN EROUMEN clause.  And if it was, then the following clause can not 
have an (implied) infinitive with accusative, unless we posit another "EROUMEN" 
which is very awkward and unlikely, IMO.
The only analysis that makes sense to me is to take the sentence as a question 
consisting of two clauses where the second clause is the complement to EROUMEN:
"What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our human ancestor, has discovered?" 
Paul is here speaking to Jews who put a lot of emphasis on doing the "works of 
the Torah", but - he tells them - our venerable forefather Abraham had already 
discovered (only here is the verb found in the perfect tense) that he was 
accepted as being in right standing with God because of his faith, apart from 
works (CWRIS ERGWN, v. 6).

I am not afraid of challenging traditional analyses and exegeses, but one must 
make a solid case for it, and neither Lenski, Hays nor Wright have been able to 
do so.

I have now read the thread on this topic from October 2001, where Lenski is 
cited as supporting your number 3. His arguments are quite unconvincing, and 
Steve Lo Vullo made some good points in his responses on the list.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list