[B-Greek] Rom 4:1 - what shall we say? - warning: a bit long
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Sep 26 04:40:11 EDT 2010
By the help of friends, I have now had an opportunity to study Hays' article in
detail. Thanks. Most of his arguments are theological and rooted in one
particular tradition. I will try to steer clear of those arguments which to me
are quite unconvincing anyway. He also makes many claims which I'll try not to
comment on unless they relate to the Greek text of Rom 4:1.
He starts out with a translation similar to the one below, but he leaves out
"has" before found, possibly because part of his claim is that with this
understanding an aorist verb should have been used instead of a perfective.
4:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA?
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has
found? (NASB)
He then suggests 4 "difficulties" with this rendering:
a) The allusion to Genesis 18:3 is opaque and awkward, because nothing in the
foregoing discussion prepares the reader for it.
Now, an allusion can be opaque, but not awkward. That Hays sees a difficulty
here is probably because he has not understood the pragmatic function of Paul's
rhetorical question. And it seems that he has misjudged the intended audience.
As Relevance Theory has pointed out, one often needs to know the intended
audience to understand what the author intended to communicate and why he chose
his words the way he did. Paul's audience in the whole of chapter 4 (and chapter
7 and most of 2-3) is his fellow Jews in Rome who like Peter and most Jewish
(Christian?) leaders at the time found it difficult to comprehend that even Jews
need to be saved by faith in Jesus apart from the law. Jews would be familiar
with Abraham, "our" Jewish founding father. Most if not all were reading the OT
in the LXX version and would be familiar with the famous words of Abraham in Gen
18:3: Κύριε, εἰ ἄρα εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου.. KURIE, EI ARA hEURON CARIN
ENANTION SOU... (Lord, if I may have found favor with you...) It is possible,
but by no means certain, that there is a verbal link intended by way of the same
word "find", but that is not crucial for understanding Paul's words. I would
rather say that Paul expects his readers to be very familiar with Abraham and
his life, including his servant attitude in Gen 18 and the outstanding obedience
and faith which he demonstrated in Gen 22 as well as in Gen 15:6 which Paul
quotes in 4:3.
That nothing in the foregoing discussion has prepared the reader is not correct
nor is it a difficulty. The purpose of the rhetorical question is to start a new
line of arguments and Abraham is always in the mind of every Jew. Jews do not
need to be "prepared" to think of Abraham. Of course, there is a connection to
the foregoing text. In fact, Paul is taking up the topic he introduced in 3:21
and supporting his main point by different arguments and several Scripture
references in the following verses of chapter 4. That crucial topic for Paul
from 3:21 was: "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made
known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." (NIV). I know that N.T.
Wright and others, apparently inspired by Hays, have claimed that Paul is not
speaking about a righteousness from God in v. 21, but God's righteousness or
Jesus' faithfulness. That is a serious misunderstanding that it would take too
long to discuss here. Hays is the translator of Romans in the new Common English
Bible, so if you want to study Hays' theology, it is reflected in his
translation of the book.
Hays suggests another "difficulty":
b) The expression hEURISKEIN CARIN occurs nowhere in the Pauline Corpus.
Why should it? Did anyone say or imply that it did? If Hays wanted to find the
meaning of hEURISKEIN in Rom 4:1, he could have looked at the other occurrences
of the word as in Rom 7:10 and 21 where it is used in the same sense as in 4:1,
namely "discover, experience." He does say (p. 80) that the use of hEURISKEIN in
the sense of "gain, acquire" with no expressed object is unparalleled in Paul's
usage or, indeed, in the NT. That is not quite correct. First, there IS an
object in 4:1. Second, although the meaning "obtain" is less common, it does
occur in a few places like Heb 9:12. In Matt 10:39, 11:29 etc, it could be
translated "obtain", but "find" works fine in English in these contexts. Once
you have found something and taken it in your possession, you have obtained or
gained it. However, this is not the sense intended in 4:1, nor does any
translation render it thus.
Third "difficulty":
c) It seems unlikely that Paul would choose to designate Abraham as "our
forefather according to the flesh" (cf. Rom 9:6-8).
This "difficulty" indicates that Hays has not understood that Paul is talking to
his fellow Jews who all consider Abraham to be their forefather KATA SARKA. This
expression is common in Romans (8 times) and Hays could have referred to some of
these rather than a quite different passage where the expression does not occur.
For instance, Jesus is described as coming from the "seed" of David, KATA SARKA
in 1:3. It simply means physical or biological descent. In 4:1 it is the literal
sense of all Jews being "sons of Abraham" as opposed to the spiritual sense of
being "sons of Abraham" which is not limited to ethnic Jews. Paul discusses both
senses, as does Jesus.
d) It is by no means clear that the ensuing discussion answers the question thus
posed. If we suppose that Romans is a treatise on the problem of how a person
may "find" justification, it is possible to make sense of the sentence, but the
construction in Rom 4:1 remains, at best, a very odd way for Paul to express
himself.
But Paul is not so much posing a question that has to be answered, as he is
introducing a new line of arguments by way of a rhetorical question that is
intended to make his Jewish readers think together with him as he draws them in
and tries to convince them that there IS a way to find justification apart from
the traditional Jewish way of the Law. Paul discusses this several times, e.g.
in Rom 10:1-4 and in the remaining part of chapter 4 as well as in 3:21-28. Once
you understand what Paul is trying to communicate in Romans and his use of
rhetorical questions, 4:1 no longer sounds odd.
Hays then goes on to look at other occurrences in Romans of the Pauline phrase
"What shall we say?" This is important, so let me reproduce the passages he
cites:
3:5 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ
θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. μὴ γένοιτο·
EI DE hH ADIKIA hHMWN QEOU DIKAIOSUNHN SUNISTHSIN, TI EROUMEN? MH ADIKOS HO QEOS
hO EPIFERWN THN ORGHN? KATA ANQRWPON LEGW. MH GENOITO.
If our evil deeds show how right God is, then what can we say? Is it wrong for
God to become angry and punish us? What a foolish thing to ask. But the answer
is, “No.” (CEV)
6:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; μὴ γένοιτο.
TI OUN EROUMEN? EPIMENWMEN THi hAMARTIAi, hINA hH CARIS PLEONASHi? MH GENOITO.
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By
no means! (NIV)
7:7 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο·
TI OUN EROUMEN? hO NOMOS hAMARTIA? MH GENOITO.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! (NET)
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?
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? (RSV)
9:14 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; μὴ γένοιτο.
TI OUN EROUMEN? MH ADIKIA PARA TWi QEWi? MH GENOITO.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (RSV)
9:30-31: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβεν
δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης
εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν.
TI OUN EROUMEN? hOTI EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN,
DIKAIOSUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS, ISRAEL DE DIWKWN NOMON DIKAISUNHS EIS NOMON OUK
EFQASEN.
What shall we say then? – that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness
obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith, but Israel even though
pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it. (NET)
Hays then lists the following points:
1) In every case except Rom 8:31, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν [TI OUN EROUMEN] constitutes a
complete sentence, punctuated with a question mark immediately following ἐροῦμεν
[EROUMEN]
That is a simple and correct observation. But that in no way allows us to
assume that a question mark could be placed after ἐροῦμεν in 4:1. Hays fails to
address the question of context and good grammar. In every case, the question
following has a finite verb or an implied ESTIN. (The last passage is not a
question.) In 4:1 there is an infinitive with accusative.
If the sentence in 4:1 is truncated after EROUMEN, this infinitive with
accusative is left hanging and the second half becomes ungrammatical. The
infinitive with accusative is governed by EROUMEN and should not be artificially
cut off from it. Furthermore, the TI in 4:1 is the object for hEURHKENAI, and
cutting the sentence in two destroys that relationship. After cutting the
sentence into two halves, Hays suggests to translate the second half as "Have we
found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?" So, he is rendering
the infinitive as if it was a finite verb. Some have suggested to insert an
implied EROUMEN after the one which was there has been cut off. Doing that will
make the reconstructed words sound odd and ambiguous. Either: "Are we saying
that we have found Abraham, our forefather KATA SARKA?" That makes no sense. Or:
"Are we saying that we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather KATA SARKA?"
(Hays' suggestion.) But that makes no sense either. Of course, every Jew would
know that Abraham is "our" forefather KATA SARKA. No need to say that. Lenski
tries in vain to rescue it by adding "only" before KATA SARKA. Lenski, too, has
misjudged the intended audience. In his effort to make some sense out of it,
Hays then suggests that it is a question that should be answered by "Of course
not."
Hays continues:
2) In all six instances, this formulation introduces another rhetorical
question.
But that is not the function of the question. The purpose of the first
rhetorical question is not to introduce another rhetorical question. Rather the
function of "What shall we say?" is pedagogical, namely to give the audience a
breather and try to draw them into the thinking process. Paul is an excellent
teacher who does not lecture from a pulpit but reasons together with his
audience. When the initial short question is followed by another rhetorical
question, the purpose of the second question is to introduce the topic.
In 8:31 the topic is vaguely alluded to by PROS TAUTA - What shall we say to
these things/matters? It is only in 4:1 that Paul combines the breather with
introducing the topic of how Abraham experienced to become a "friend of God" and
be counted as righteous as 8:3 makes clear. It is true that the topic is only
alluded to in 4:1 by introducing the main character, but that is because Paul
wants to give the audience time to think about Abraham and his life before
pointing to the particular experience/findings of Abraham that Paul wants to
focus on. Why put Paul in an artificial straight jacket and change the text that
he wrote?
Hays continues:
3) In all six instances, the second rhetorical question articulates an inference
which might be drawn from the foregoing discussion.
No, that is a misunderstanding of the function of the questions. I might have
excused Hays' misunderstanding IF the second questions had included an OUN, but
they don't. As it is, the second rhetorical question introduces the topic to be
discussed. Of course, there is a connection to the preceding discussion, but
that is to be expected, and it is not indicated by the question.
4) In four of the six cases, this inference is a false one.
Wait a minute. These four cases all have MH GENOITO! That is how Paul shows the
underlying assumption to be false. Since there is no MH GENOITO in the remaining
three, and especially not in 4:1, we can draw the conclusion that the assumption
expressed in the question - if there is one - is not a false one. Hays admits
that 8:31 obviously does not imply a false inference or assumption. Nor is it
the case in 9:30-31. In 4:1 there is no inference to be drawn, whether false or
true.
I apologize for the length of this "treatise". My concern is that Hays' theories
are adopted uncritically by people who may find it difficult to evaluate them
from the Greek text itself. N.T. Wright is the most famous of these.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list