[B-Greek] Rom 4:1 - what shall we say? - warning: a bit long (Iver Larsen)
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Sun Sep 26 15:36:38 EDT 2010
Iver said: "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."
N.T. Wright is certainly capable of evaluating the Greek text. Did you mean
to say or imply that he is not? (Obviously this is a very minor aspect of
your post far from its main content. But I was surprised to see this said of
such a distinguished scholar. And you did mention in connection with your
statement of the main concern of your post.)
----- Original Message -----
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:40:11 +0300
> From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
> To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [B-Greek] Rom 4:1 - what shall we say? - warning: a bit long
> Message-ID: <970C43FA9DB04E5F917E17311042C063 at iveracer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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 ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?????;
> 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: ?????, ?? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ???.. 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 ?? ?? ? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????? ??????????, ?? ???????; ?? ??????
> ?
> ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????; ???? ???????? ????. ?? ????????
> 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 ?? ??? ???????; ?????????? ?? ???????, ??? ? ????? ????????; ??
> ???????.
> 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 ?? ??? ???????; ? ????? ???????; ?? ????????
> TI OUN EROUMEN? hO NOMOS hAMARTIA? MH GENOITO.
> What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! (NET)
>
> 8:31 ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?????; ?? ? ???? ???? ????, ??? ???? ????;
> 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 ?? ??? ???????; ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???; ?? ???????.
> 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: ?? ??? ???????; ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?????????
> ???????????, ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ???????, ?????? ?? ?????? ?????
> ???????????
> ??? ????? ??? ???????.
> 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, ?? ??? ??????? [TI OUN EROUMEN]
> constitutes a
> complete sentence, punctuated with a question mark immediately following
> ???????
> [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 ??????? 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