Romans 4:1

A better translation of Rom 4:1? Paul D. Nitz pnitz at wiss.co.mw
Tue Oct 23 07:20:30 EDT 2001

Hebrews 10:14 Hebrews 10:14 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxROMANS 4:1″What then shall we say that Abraham,our forefather, discovered in thismatter?” (NIV)”What then shall we say? That we havefound Abraham (to be) our forefather(only) according to the flesh?” (LenskiCommentary)As you can see above, Lenksi* translatesRom. 4:1much differently that the NIV(or KJV, NASB, NET). His main point isthat Abraham is the object and “we shallsay” (EROUMEN) supplies the subject.Lenksi makes the following points indefense of this interpretation:1 – The subject “we” in the verb EROUMEN(“we shall say”) supplies the subjectlacking in the infinitive EURHKENAI (“tohave found”). To quote Lenski, “It isthe commonest of rules in Greek thatinfinitives take their subjects fromwhat precedes, and that if a differentsubject is to be introduced it must bewritten. “Abraham” is the object (notthe subject of the infinitive), and “ourforefather according to the flesh” isthe predicate object with “Abraham.”2 – The point of the question is in theKATA SARKA (according to the flesh).Paul is leading the Jewish reader tosay, ‘Of course not! Abraham is not ourancestor just according to a bloodline,but according to faith also.’3 – The unique (in NT) use of the word”forefather” (PROPATORA) instead of thenormal “father Abraham” shows that Paulwas emphasizing physical ancestry.Thus the thought, “Is Abraham just ourphysical father?!?!”I find Lenski’s argument compelling, butthen I might be biased. Lenksi was aLutheran and so am I.Rev. Paul D. NitzBlantyre, Malawi – Africa* Lenski (The Interpretation of St.Paul’s Epistle to the Romans by R.C.H.Lenski, Lutheran Book Concern, 1936).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hebrews 10:14Hebrews 10:14

A better translation of Rom 4:1? Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Oct 23 20:56:22 EDT 2001

“Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of(accusative)objects in passive constructions) MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE on 10/23/01 6:20 AM, Paul D. Nitz at pnitz at wiss.co.mw wrote:> “What then shall we say? That we have> found Abraham (to be) our forefather> (only) according to the flesh?” (Lenski> Commentary)> > As you can see above, Lenksi* translates> Rom. 4:1much differently that the NIV> (or KJV, NASB, NET). His main point is> that Abraham is the object and “we shall> say” (EROUMEN) supplies the subject.It’s not for nothing that the translations above (and all others I know of)do not translate as Lenski. It is an exceedingly unnatural and forcedrendering. > 1 – The subject “we” in the verb EROUMEN> (“we shall say”) supplies the subject> lacking in the infinitive EURHKENAI (“to> have found”). To quote Lenski, “It is> the commonest of rules in Greek that> infinitives take their subjects from> what precedes, and that if a different> subject is to be introduced it must be> written. “Abraham” is the object (not> the subject of the infinitive), and “our> forefather according to the flesh” is> the predicate object with “Abraham.”First, in Lenski’s translation above, it seems he understands Rom 4.1 ascontaining two independent sentences, with hEURHKENAI functioningindependently in the second sentence. This is necessary if hisinterpretation and translation are to work, for note what we have if wetreat the infinitival clause as dependent: “What then shall we say that wehave found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the flesh?”This clearly doesn’t make sense. And the fact that the infinitival clausemust be independent for his interpretation and translation to wark in itselfwould nullify his contention that the subject “we” in EROUMEN supplies thesubject supposedly lacking (it isn’t) in hEURHKENAI. The main verb suppliesthe subject for the infinitive when the infinitival clause is substantival(direct object) and dependent on the main verb. If these sentences areindependent (which they are not anyway), there is no reason to assume thatEROUMEN supplies the subject of hEURHKENAI.Second, Lenski’s treatment fails to explain how an infinitive can functionindependently in the way that would be required for his translation torightly represent the Greek. So far as I know, the infinitive functionsindependently in the NT only as an imperative (rare; see Rom 12.15; Phil3.16)) or as absolute, where it has no syntactical relationship to anythingelse in the sentence. The greeting CAIREIN would fall under this secondcategory. These uses clearly do not apply here.Third, there is no reason to assume that the subject of hEURHKENAI is *not*written. In NT usage, in a dependent infinitival clause functioning asdirect object of a verb, the subject, if different from the subject of themain verb, is almost always put in the accusative case, so there is noreason to think that ABRAAM is *not* the subject of hEURHKENAI. The factthat it follows the infinitive has no bearing, since in this type ofconstruction the accusative subject does not have to precede the infinitive(cf. Eph 4.21-22 below).Fourth, since the infinitival clause is dependent (not independent), itmakes no sense to take TON PROPATORA as “predicate object” of ABRAAM. As Imentioned earlier, this would yield, “What then shall we say that we havefound Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the flesh?” This iscompletely unnatural. On the other hand, it is eminently natural to take TONPROPATORA as an appositive of ABRAAM, which yields “Abraham, ourforefather.” It is important here to note that the main verb (EROUMEN) is a verb ofcommunication followed by an infinitival clause. The most likely conclusionin this scenario is that the infinitival clause represents indirectdiscourse. This is why the translations say something like “What shall wesay *that* Abraham our forefather has found?” This is the most natural wayto take this construction. For a similar usage, see Eph 4.21-22: EN AUTWiEDIDACQHTE … APOQESQAI hUMAS … TON PALAION ANQRWPON. This yields either”You were taught in him … that you should put off … the old person” or”You were taught in him … that you have put off … the old person.”– Steve Lo VulloMadison, WI

“Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of(accusative)objects in passive constructions)MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE

A better translation of Rom 4:1? Matt Eby ebymatt at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 24 11:27:28 EDT 2001

Comparitive Degrees/Welcome Acts 1:7 Hi Steven:— Steven Lo Vullo <doulos at merr.com> wrote:> on 10/23/01 6:20 AM, Paul D. Nitz at pnitz at wiss.co.mw wrote:> > > “What then shall we say? That we have> > found Abraham (to be) our forefather> > (only) according to the flesh?” (Lenski> > Commentary)<snip>> First, in Lenski’s translation above, it seems he understands Rom 4.1> as> containing two independent sentences, with hEURHKENAI functioning> independently in the second sentence. This is necessary if his> interpretation and translation are to work, for note what we have if> we> treat the infinitival clause as dependent: “What then shall we say> that we> have found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the> flesh?”> This clearly doesn’t make sense. And the fact that the infinitival> clause> must be independent for his interpretation and translation to wark in> itself> would nullify his contention that the subject “we” in EROUMEN> supplies the> subject supposedly lacking (it isn’t) in hEURHKENAI. The main verb> supplies> the subject for the infinitive when the infinitival clause is> substantival> (direct object) and dependent on the main verb. If these sentences> are> independent (which they are not anyway), there is no reason to assume> that> EROUMEN supplies the subject of hEURHKENAI.> > Second, Lenski’s treatment fails to explain how an infinitive can> function> independently in the way that would be required for his translation> to> rightly represent the Greek. So far as I know, the infinitive> functions> independently in the NT only as an imperative (rare; see Rom 12.15;> Phil> 3.16)) or as absolute, where it has no syntactical relationship to> anything> else in the sentence. The greeting CAIREIN would fall under this> second> category. These uses clearly do not apply here.> > Third, there is no reason to assume that the subject of hEURHKENAI is> *not*> written. In NT usage, in a dependent infinitival clause functioning> as> direct object of a verb, the subject, if different from the subject> of the> main verb, is almost always put in the accusative case, so there is> no> reason to think that ABRAAM is *not* the subject of hEURHKENAI. The> fact> that it follows the infinitive has no bearing, since in this type of> construction the accusative subject does not have to precede the> infinitive> (cf. Eph 4.21-22 below).> > Fourth, since the infinitival clause is dependent (not independent),> it> makes no sense to take TON PROPATORA as “predicate object” of ABRAAM.> As I> mentioned earlier, this would yield, “What then shall we say that we> have> found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the flesh?”> This is> completely unnatural. On the other hand, it is eminently natural to> take TON> PROPATORA as an appositive of ABRAAM, which yields “Abraham, our> forefather.” Romans 4:1(according to NA27):TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAYour grammatical argument against Lenski (whose rendering is actuallyheld by many scholars) breaks down because it assumes that theinfinitival clause must be dependent on the _explicit_ main verbEROUMEN in the sentence. Although it is true that an infinitivalclause cannot stand independently, you leave out the grammaticallylegitimate option of having an _ellipted_ main verb starting a newsentence:TI OUN EROUMEN? [EROUMEN] hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATASARKA?As you know, questions in any language are answered all the time withsentence fragments. Ask a person, “What do you want to eat?” and hemay respond with merely an object: “ice cream”; it is understood thatwhat he obviously means is “_I want to eat_ ice cream.” In Rom 4:1 itis grammatically legitimate to find Paul asking, “What then shall wesay? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham our forefather according tothe flesh?” Since hERUISKW can be used copulatively, Paul would beasking, “What then shall we say? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham[to be] our forefather according to the flesh?”That said, at this time I still agree with your rejection of Lenski,but not on grammatical grounds. I believe the interpretation of 4:1must be arrived at contextually (and perhaps text-critically; cf. NA27textual apparatus). If Paul was asking whether he has found Abraham tobe his mere biological forefather, one would expect Paul to engage thequestion in the immediately following verses, first with a customary MHGENOITO and then explanation. However, if Paul is asking what theJews’ biological forefather, Abraham, found (concerning the issue he’sbeen discussing in 3:27-31–justification and its evidencing itself byPISTIS apart from circumcision and the Mosaic Law), we would expectPaul to discuss Abraham’s discovery, bringing in textual supportconcerning Abraham’s justification by faith/faithfulness apart fromcircumcision/Law. It is precisely the latter that we find in 4:2-3.But this is all going outside the realm of grammar. :)Cordially,Matt EbyStudentGordon-Conwell Theological Seminary__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.http://personals.yahoo.com

Comparitive Degrees/WelcomeActs 1:7

A better translation of Rom 4:1? Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Oct 25 21:24:31 EDT 2001

Acts 1:7 John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN on 10/24/01 10:27 AM, Matt Eby at ebymatt at yahoo.com wrote:> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA> > Your grammatical argument against Lenski (whose rendering is actually> held by many scholars) breaks down because it assumes that the> infinitival clause must be dependent on the _explicit_ main verb> EROUMEN in the sentence. Although it is true that an infinitival> clause cannot stand independently, you leave out the grammatically> legitimate option of having an _ellipted_ main verb starting a new> sentence:> > TI OUN EROUMEN? [EROUMEN] hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA> SARKA?Good to hear from you, Matt.While many *individual* scholars may hold the view of Lenski, we arefortunate that most English translations are done by committees, whichpractice tends to weed out peculiar positions such as Lenski’s proposal forRom 4.1. :-)Your general observation that not all clauses have explicit main verbs doesnot prove that an ellipted verb is a “grammatically legitimate option” inany one particular clause. There must be contextual indicators that makesuch an option *probable*. And I don’t think this is a probable option inRom 4.1 for the following reasons:(1) A stop between EROUMEN and hEURHKENAI leaves us with an abrupt andunnatural disconnect where there is a perfectly smooth connection betweenEROUMEN as a main verb that expresses communication (speech) and hEURHKENAIas an infinitive in indirect discourse, a common construction in Greek thatwould be quite natural to a Greek reader or listener. Why complicate with aconjectural ellipsis what is simple enough as it actually reads?(2) There is nothing in the context that indicates an *elliptical* verb thatis *required* to make sense of the infinitival clause (see above). In orderto infer an ellipsis, we must detect some contextual indicator(s) that sucha verb is necessarily implied in order to make sense of the clause inquestion (which, as I stated above, is not required here, since theinfinitival clause works quite naturally as the direct object of the*expressed* verb of communication). The very next verse (Rom 4.2) offers anexample of what I mean. There we read, EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH,ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON. In this case ALL’ (since it introduces anopposing clause) along with OU and PROS QEON (since they most naturally callfor a verb to modify), lead us to conclude that there is an ellipsis here.The two words in the context that best fill the ellipsis are ECEI KAUCHMA,so that we have, EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL’ OU[ECEI KAUCHMA] PROS QEON. There are no contextual indicators in Rom 4.1 thatsimilarly compel us to understand an ellipsis there. The sentence worksquite well without the supposition of an ellipsis. Again, why complicatematters? > As you know, questions in any language are answered all the time with> sentence fragments. Ask a person, “What do you want to eat?” and he> may respond with merely an object: “ice cream”; it is understood that> what he obviously means is “_I want to eat_ ice cream.” In Rom 4:1 it> is grammatically legitimate to find Paul asking, “What then shall we> say? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham our forefather according to> the flesh?” Since hERUISKW can be used copulatively, Paul would be> asking, “What then shall we say? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham> [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?”First, the example you give does not speak to the issue at hand, since thesentence in question in Rom 4.1 gives no indication of ellipsis, while “icecream” does.Second, we are hopefully not seeking simply what is “legitimate” orpossible, but what is most probable.Third, I’m not sure what your point is when you say hEURISKW “can be usedcopulatively.” What exactly are you contending it is joining? If you arecontending that it legitimizes the use of a copulative “to be” betweenABRAAM and TON PROPATORA, that would have nothing to do with hEURISKW beingcopulative, but would rather assume that TON PROPATORA is in a doubleacccusative relationship with ABRAAM. While this is *possible*, it does notseem probable when other features of the syntax are examined. Rather, inlight of these features, it seems most natural to take TON PROPATORA as anappositive of ABRAAM.> That said, at this time I still agree with your rejection of Lenski,> but not on grammatical grounds. I believe the interpretation of 4:1> must be arrived at contextually (and perhaps text-critically; cf. NA27> textual apparatus). If Paul was asking whether he has found Abraham to> be his mere biological forefather, one would expect Paul to engage the> question in the immediately following verses, first with a customary MH> GENOITO and then explanation. However, if Paul is asking what the> Jews’ biological forefather, Abraham, found (concerning the issue he’s> been discussing in 3:27-31–justification and its evidencing itself by> PISTIS apart from circumcision and the Mosaic Law), we would expect> Paul to discuss Abraham’s discovery, bringing in textual support> concerning Abraham’s justification by faith/faithfulness apart from> circumcision/Law. It is precisely the latter that we find in 4:2-3.I didn’t want to deal with interpretational matters, since this does take usbeyond the scope of . However, when you arrive at the conclusion youdo on *contextual* grounds–that it was *Abraham* who did the finding–youunwittingly support what I have contended on *grammatical* grounds. PositingAbraham as the “finder” is practically an admission that the readers wouldhave understood TI EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA as indicatingthat Paul was asking *what Abraham found*, not what the readers/hearers havefound. This requires that ABRAAM be the subject of hEURHKENAI. It furtherrequires that TI be understood as the object of hEURHKENAI, since Paul wasnot concerned in this context with what *we* have found, but with whatABRAAM has found. If TI is not the object of hEURHKENAI, the question is notcomplete; there is no “what” for ABRAAM to have found. So thisinterpretational conclusion only reinforces my contention that theinfinitival clause is most naturally taken as the direct object of theexplicit EROUMEN, and would have been soo understood by the originalreaders/hearers.– Steve Lo VulloMadison, WI

Acts 1:7John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN

A better translation of Rom 4:1? Matt Eby ebymatt at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 26 13:16:48 EDT 2001

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE Hello again, Steven:— Steven Lo Vullo <doulos at merr.com> wrote:> on 10/24/01 10:27 AM, Matt Eby at ebymatt at yahoo.com wrote:> > Your general observation that not all clauses have explicit main> verbs does> not prove that an ellipted verb is a “grammatically legitimate> option” in> any one particular clause. There must be contextual indicators that> make> such an option *probable*. Hence my statement that “I still agree with your rejection of Lenski,but not on grammatical grounds. I believe the interpretation of 4:1must be arrived at contextually.” That is, if we isolate verse 1 andexamine its grammar, there is not conclusive evidence within verse 1 ofwhat Paul’s intentions are. I find contextual evidence from theimmediately surrounding verses to reject Lenski’s rendering, notgrammatical evidence from within the verse. Now, you are of theopinion that the grammar *within* the verse denies Lenski’sinterpretation:> And I don’t think this is a probable> option in> Rom 4.1 for the following reasons:> > (1) A stop between EROUMEN and hEURHKENAI leaves us with an abrupt> and> unnatural disconnect where there is a perfectly smooth connection> between> EROUMEN as a main verb that expresses communication (speech) and> hEURHKENAI> as an infinitive in indirect discourse, a common construction in> Greek that> would be quite natural to a Greek reader or listener. Why complicate> with a> conjectural ellipsis what is simple enough as it actually reads?Your assertion that “a stop between EROUMEN and hEURHKENAI leaves uswith an abrupt and unnatural disconnect” is mitigated by the neglectedevidence that in every other instance that Paul uses TI [OUN] EROUMENthroughout Romans (3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14; 9:30) it constitutes acomplete sentence which is punctuated by a question mark after EROUMEN(8:31 is only a minor variation). In all six cases the clause precedesanother rhetorical question which introduces an inference that could bedrawn from the preceding discussion, and in four of the six instancesthis inference is a false one. Stanley Stowers (_The Diatribe andPaul’s Letter to the Romans_ [Chico: Scholars Press, 1981] 133-137)points out that TI [OUN] EROUMEN was a rhetorical clause commonly usedin diatribe in general to introduce false conclusions. Thus it can beargued that your rendering would not be any more grammatically”natural” than Lenski’s to the Greek reader/listener who is used tothis diatribal device. Other scholars who have attempted to capitalizeon this include Richard B. Hays (“‘Have We Found Abraham to be OurForefather According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,”_NovT_ 27 [1985] 77-78) and Michael Cranford (“Abraham in Romans 4: TheFather of All Who Believe,” _NTS_ 41 [1995] 71-88).> (2) There is nothing in the context that indicates an *elliptical*> verb that> is *required* to make sense of the infinitival clause (see above). In> order> to infer an ellipsis, we must detect some contextual indicator(s)> that such> a verb is necessarily implied in order to make sense of the clause in> question (which, as I stated above, is not required here, since the> infinitival clause works quite naturally as the direct object of the> *expressed* verb of communication).In grammar it is not necessary to prove that an option is “required” inorder for it to be *possible*. (Nor is it right to conclude simplybecause an option is possible that it is required). I believe Lenski’soption–although not required, is both natural and possible anddeserving of consideration on the *grammatical* grounds given above. But this does not mean he is right; it simply means we must go to othercontext in an attempt to vindicate the more *probable* option).> The very next verse (Rom 4.2)> offers an> example of what I mean. There we read, EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN> EDIKAIWQH,> ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON. In this case ALL’ (since it> introduces an> opposing clause) along with OU and PROS QEON (since they most> naturally call> for a verb to modify), lead us to conclude that there is an ellipsis> here.> The two words in the context that best fill the ellipsis are ECEI> KAUCHMA,> so that we have, EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL’> OU> [ECEI KAUCHMA] PROS QEON. There are no contextual indicators in Rom> 4.1 that> similarly compel us to understand an ellipsis there. The sentence> works> quite well without the supposition of an ellipsis. Again, why> complicate> matters?Given the status of TI [OUN] EROUMEN as an established diatribalclause-introducing device, I believe that this alone could exert enoughforce to cue an ellipsis; it hardly complicates matters.> > As you know, questions in any language are answered all the time> with> > sentence fragments. Ask a person, “What do you want to eat?” and> he> > may respond with merely an object: “ice cream”; it is understood> that> > what he obviously means is “_I want to eat_ ice cream.” In Rom 4:1> it> > is grammatically legitimate to find Paul asking, “What then shall> we> > say? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham our forefather according> to> > the flesh?” Since hERUISKW can be used copulatively, Paul would be> > asking, “What then shall we say? [Shall we say] to have found> Abraham> > [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?”> > First, the example you give does not speak to the issue at hand,> since the> sentence in question in Rom 4.1 gives no indication of ellipsis,> while “ice> cream” does.Hopefully, given my argument, you see that 4:1 could legitimately giveindication of an ellipsis, and thus my example still stands as anappropriate one.> Second, we are hopefully not seeking simply what is “legitimate” or> possible, but what is most probable.I assure you that I am; I am simply illustrating that grammar alone(which is the focus of ) gives me *no* insight into what is mostprobable here.> Third, I’m not sure what your point is when you say hEURISKW “can be> used> copulatively.” What exactly are you contending it is joining? If you> are> contending that it legitimizes the use of a copulative “to be”> between> ABRAAM and TON PROPATORA, that would have nothing to do with hEURISKW> being> copulative, but would rather assume that TON PROPATORA is in a double> acccusative relationship with ABRAAM. You are correct that by “copulative” I meant that such a renderingwould assume a copulative “to be” (cf. Gal 2:17). You are also rightthat this would more precisely be labeled as a double-accusativeconstruction (object-complement). Sorry for the ambiguity.> While this is *possible*, it does not> seem probable when other features of the syntax are examined. Rather,> in> light of these features, it seems most natural to take TON PROPATORA> as an> appositive of ABRAAM.Again, as I have shown above, what is most “natural” in this verse isquestionable.> > That said, at this time I still agree with your rejection of> Lenski,> > but not on grammatical grounds. I believe the interpretation of> 4:1> > must be arrived at contextually (and perhaps text-critically; cf.> NA27> > textual apparatus). If Paul was asking whether he has found> Abraham to> > be his mere biological forefather, one would expect Paul to engage> the> > question in the immediately following verses, first with a> customary MH> > GENOITO and then explanation. However, if Paul is asking what the> > Jews’ biological forefather, Abraham, found (concerning the issue> he’s> > been discussing in 3:27-31–justification and its evidencing itself> by> > PISTIS apart from circumcision and the Mosaic Law), we would expect> > Paul to discuss Abraham’s discovery, bringing in textual support> > concerning Abraham’s justification by faith/faithfulness apart from> > circumcision/Law. It is precisely the latter that we find in> 4:2-3.> > I didn’t want to deal with interpretational matters, since this does> take us> beyond the scope of . However, when you arrive at the> conclusion you> do on *contextual* grounds–that it was *Abraham* who did the> finding–you> unwittingly support what I have contended on *grammatical* grounds.> Positing> Abraham as the “finder” is practically an admission that the readers> would> have understood TI EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA as> indicating> that Paul was asking *what Abraham found*, not what the> readers/hearers have> found.I certainly was not “unwittingly” supporting your rendering; I agreewith it! And it isn’t “practically” an admission; it unblushingly *is*an admission! This is precisely my point: Paul’s original audiencecertainly *would* have understood verse 4:1 as an inquiry into what*Abraham* found–but *only* after reading/hearing the surroundingverses (i.e., the *context*, not the grammar). I would still arguethat any contention on mere grammatical grounds is inconclusive. That is all I am asserting :).Regards,Matt EbyGordon-Conwell Theological Seminary__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.http://personals.yahoo.com

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected versionMIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Fri Jan 25 23:39:12 EST 2002

off topic Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Dear colaborers,There have been posts about how to translate Romans 4:1? I would like toraise the question again. In the article titled ABRAHAM IN ROMANS 4: THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE, in New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 71-88, MICHAEL CRANFORD said: Hays surveys Paul’s other uses of Ti oun eroumen, an expression whichoccurs only in Romans (3.5; 6.1; 7.7; 8.31; 9.14; 9.30).14 In every casebut 8.31 this expression constitutes a complete sentence which ispunctuated by a question mark after eroumen. In all six cases theexpression introduces another rhetorical question which articulates aninference which might be drawn from the foregoing discussion, and in fourof the six cases this inference is a false one.15 In light of Paul’srelatively consistent usage of the expression in Romans, Hays recommendspunctuating Ti oun eroumen in 4.1 analogously: Ti oun eroumen? heurekenaiAbraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka? 16 Hays then offers the followingtranslation: ‘What then shall we say? Have we [Jews] found (on the basisof scripture) that Abraham [is] our forefather according to the flesh?’ IfAbraham is the forefather of the Jews according to the flesh, as the Jewof Paul’s time would typically assume, then Abraham could not also be theforefather of Gentiles. But if he is the forefather of the Jews on someother basis than purely ethnic terms, then he could (on the same basis) bethe forefather of certain Gentiles as well. It is precisely this pointwhich Paul strives to make in the remainder of this chapter. Hays takes the sentence as follows:Ti oun eroumen? [Eroumen] heurekenai Abraam ton propatora hemon katasarka?What then shall we say? [Shall we say] to have found Abraham [to be]our forefather according to flesh?The debate comes down to: Is it reasonble to assume the ellipsis ofEroumen in front of the infinitive clause “heurekenai …..”?It is possible, but is it quite probable? Usually ellipsis is obviousto detect. But here it does not seem so. To me, Hay’s suggestion makes Romans 4 more understandable.So, I would like to suggest another analysis in the spirit of Hays:Ti oun? Eroumen heurekenai Abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka?Ti oun can be a sentence in its own. For example, in Rom 6:15, we have:Ti oun; Hamarteswmen hoti ouk esmen hupo nomon alla hupo xarin;What would said against this interpretation?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

off topicInterpretation of Rom 4:1

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 26 02:53:47 EST 2002

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Interpretation of Rom 4:1 ———->From: “Moon-Ryul Jung” <moon at sogang.ac.kr>>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: [] Interpretation of Rom 4:1>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:39:12 -0500> [snip]> > In the article titled> ABRAHAM IN ROMANS 4: THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE,> in New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 71-88,> > MICHAEL CRANFORD said:> > Hays surveys Paulís other uses of Ti oun eroumen, an expression which>occurs only in Romans (3.5; 6.1; 7.7; 8.31; 9.14; 9.30).14 In every case>but 8.31 this expression constitutes a complete sentence which is>punctuated by a question mark after eroumen. [snip] Hays recommends>punctuating Ti oun eroumen in 4.1 analogously: Ti oun eroumen? heurekenai>Abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka? 16 Hays then offers the following>translation: ëWhat then shall we say? Have we [Jews] found (on the basis>of scripture) that Abraham [is] our forefather according to the flesh?í[snip[>Hays takes the sentence as follows:> >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?> >The debate comes down to: Is it reasonble to assume the ellipsis of>Eroumen in front of the infinitive clause “heurekenai …..”?>It is possible, but is it quite probable? Usually ellipsis is obvious>to detect. But here it does not seem so.> >To me, Hay’s suggestion makes Romans 4 more understandable.>So, I would like to suggest another analysis in the spirit of Hays:> >Ti oun? Eroumen heurekenai Abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka?> >Ti oun can be a sentence in its own. For example, in Rom 6:15, we have:> >Ti oun; Hamarteswmen hoti ouk esmen hupo nomon alla hupo xarin;The question then, is whether the punctuation is to be before or afterEROUMEN. There is clearly ellision in either case — in the former case inthe TI OUN clause, and in the latter case, the following clause. It seemsalso clear what verb has been elided — EROUMEN. So I am not sure what youmean by the ellision being not “obvious to detect” here. But as to thequestion of which analysis is more probable, that truly does seem difficultto determine.One approach would be to collect all the instances of TI OUN from Romansthrough Hebrews and see whether it is more common for the TI OUN clause tocontain the ellision or the following clause, and in how many cases a finiteverb occurs in both clauses. The 16 cases I found (including the 6considered by Hays) I would analyze this way:1) TI OUN (with no explicit verb), followed by a clause with a finite verb(as you pointed out, TI OUN as a “sentence on its own”)Ro 3:9Ro 6:15Ro 11:7Rom 9:19 (but TI gets translated “why” in this verse, so one might discountthis example)Ga 3:192) TI OUN EROUMEN with no finite verb in the following clauseRomans 8:31 (although in this case, the elided verb is a copula, which isso common a clause construction in NTG that it maybe should not beconsidered a case of ellision, but rather be categorized under 4 below)3) Four seemed ambiguous in a manner similar to Romans 4.1Ro 7:7Ro 9.14Ro 9:301Co 10:19If in Rom 4.1 EROUMEN is taken with the TI OUN clause, then one is left withan infinitival clause which must be the complement of some elided finiteverb. The last two examples above are similar except that the complementsare hOTI clauses rather than infinitival clauses.Rom 7.7 and Rom 9.14 are different, though, in that the “complements” arethemselves verbless clauses, but since elided verbs are copulae, the clausescould considered independent clauses, in which case these two references fitunder 4) below.4) Both the TI OUN clause and the following clause containing a finite verbRo 6:1 (the verb in the TI OUN clause is EROUMEN)1Co 14:15 (the verb in the TI OUN clause is ESTIN, but a nominal has beenelided)1Co 14:26 (likewise)And so it seems a very slight preference, if a verb is elided, to drop itfrom the TI OUN clause. But 16 cases is a paltry number for “statisticalanalysis” — wonder what looking at all 104 cases of TI (not limited to TIOUN) in the Pauline writings would yield.Two other cases, however, suggest a third alternative:TI(S) OUN as a constituent embedded within a full finite clauseRo 3:1* ti oun to perisson tou ioudaiou h tiv h wfeleia thv peritomhv1Co 3:5* ti oun estin apollwv ti de estin paulov diakonoi di wn episteusatekai ekastw wv o kuriov edwkenWhat then, is the possibility that there should be no punctuation between TIOUN, EROUMEN, and hEURHKENAI, Parsing the sentence this way:TI* OUN EROUMEN {hEURHKENAI ____* ABRAAM TON PROPATOPA hHMWN DATA SARKA}”What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather . . . has found?”with the hEURHKENAI clause serving as the complement of EROUMEN, ABRAAM asthe subject of hEURHKENAI, and TI as the complement of hEURHKENAI but, as aninterrogative, moved outside the matrix sentence. Abraham discoverysomething is more consistent with the following verse anyway (“Abraham nothaving something to boast about”) then we discovering something, and thisanalysis seems less clumsy than Hays’ approach.But this needs to be confirmed by considering how often EROUMEN (ERW?) takesan infinitival clause as a complement.Returning, though, to Moon-Ryul’s proposal, another approach may be toconsider whether there is complementary distribution of the two patternswithin some discourse structure. That is, is TI OUN [elided verb] + fullfinite clause more likely to occur in certain discourse settings and TI OUNEROUMEN + clause with elided verb more likely to occur in other settings?glenn blankPensacola FL

Interpretation of Rom 4:1Interpretation of Rom 4:1

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jan 26 03:11:00 EST 2002

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Interpretation of Rom 4:1 <snip>> So, I would like to suggest another analysis in the spirit of Hays:> > Ti oun? Eroumen heurekenai Abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka?> > Ti oun can be a sentence in its own. For example, in Rom 6:15, we have:> > Ti oun; Hamarteswmen hoti ouk esmen hupo nomon alla hupo xarin;> > What would said against this interpretation?> > Moon> Moon R. JungGood to her from you again,In the infinitive with accusative that depends on EROUMEN, it is Abraham whois the subject. So, Abraham has discovered something.The apposition to ABRAAM which is TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA couldgrammatically speaking be left out. It creates a rapport with the readerssince this is shared and agreed knowledge. No one would dispute that Abrahamis the physical ancestor to the Jews. The apposition helps to clarify thatwhen Paul says “we” he is speaking to his fellow Jews (who relied on the lawfor justification), not the Gentiles.The word TI must be part of the clause containing ABRAAM, because thequestion is “What did Abraham discover?” Paul goes on to spell out what hediscovered, namely that righteousness is by faith and obedience, not byobserving any law.Iver Larsen

Interpretation of Rom 4:1Interpretation of Rom 4:1

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sat Jan 26 04:38:35 EST 2002

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Dear Glenn, Iver:thanks for your detailed analysis of the problem. > > 3) Four seemed ambiguous in a manner similar to Romans 4.1> > Ro 7:7> Ro 9.14> Ro 9:30> 1Co 10:19> >[1] > If in Rom 4.1 EROUMEN is taken with the TI OUN clause, then one is left wit=> h> an infinitival clause which must be the complement of some elided finite> verb. The last two examples above are similar except that the complements> are hOTI clauses rather than infinitival clauses.You stated the issue clearly. hOTI clauses can stand alone as thecompliments of the elided verb EROUMEN. But it is not clear if infinitivalclauses can do so. In the case of Rom 4.1, therefore, I would prefer toattach EROUMENto the infinitival clause, in order not to make it stand alone. James Dunn in his commentary on Romans said this against Hay’s rendering:The beginning of a sentence with an accusative and infinitivalconstructionwhere the accusative was unstated would be rather odd.This problem can be solved in the following parsing: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 readilysupplied from the main verb EROUMEN. TI OUN can be used as a sentence on its own. It makes sense withoutsupplying the omitted parts. So, we can almost say that there is noellipsis in TI OUN. Similarly, in the case of verbless clauses, we do not have to talk about the omission of ESTIN, either. In my parsing,we can avoid the very problem whether the ellipsis ofEROUMEN in front of complement infinitival clauses is natural, because there is [almost] no ellipsis. [2]When, is the possibility of the following parsing?> TI* OUN EROUMEN {hEURHKENAI ____* ABRAAM TON PROPATOPA hHMWN DATA SARKA}> “What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather . . . has found?”> > with the hEURHKENAI clause serving as the complement of EROUMEN, ABRAAM as> the subject of hEURHKENAI, and TI as the complement of hEURHKENAI but, as a=> n> interrogative, moved outside the matrix sentence. Abraham discovery> something is more consistent with the following verse anyway (“Abraham not> having something to boast about”) then we discovering something, and this> analysis seems less clumsy than Hays’ approach.It seems that “What then? Shall we say that we have found Abraham to beour forefather according to flesh?”, to which the expected answer is no, matches better the flow of Rom 3:27-31, where it is argued that God is notGod of Jews only, but of Gentiles as well and thus he justifies both bymeans of faith. Romans 4 argues that Abraham is forefather of all thosewho believe,both Jews and Gentiles. He was to be the heir of the world. IF IN FACTABRAHAM IS FOREFATHER ONLY TO JEWS, we would have to say that GOD IS GODOF JEWS ONLY.So, it can be very well argued that the issue raised in Rom 4.1 was notwhat Abraham found but whether we have found Abraham to be our forefatheraccording to flesh [i.e. ethnic relationship]. In sum, Rom 4 argues thatGentiles can belong to Abraham claiming him forefather by faith in JesusChrist. Anyway, Glenn, I always thought that the traditional translation of Rom4.1sounds too complicated. I would be interested in knowing other instances of GREEK setences where TI is not the object of the main verb but isthe object of the complement clause moved front from the clause. It seemsakward for Paul to utter such a ‘distorted and long sentence” at the veryimportant moment in his speech. “What then?” “Do you want to say thatAbrahamis your forefather just according to flesh?” makes a more forceful speechthan the traditional translation would do. MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

Interpretation of Rom 4:1Interpretation of Rom 4:1

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 26 07:24:35 EST 2002

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Mark 8:12 “Moon-Ryul Jung” <moon at sogang.ac.kr> wrote> >James Dunn in his commentary on Romans said this against Hay’s rendering:> >The beginning of a sentence with an accusative and infinitival>construction>where the accusative was unstated would be rather odd.I’m not sure what you mean by this quote. In Iver’s analysis, accusative isleft unstated: all of the constituents are explicit.>This problem can be solved in the following parsing:> >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.But this sounds precisely like what your quote of James Dunn seems to say isodd: you said the “accusative (semantic subject) for infinitival clause . .. can be *supplied* from the main verb — which means that the accusative is”unstated.” Furthermore, the “subject” of the main verb is governed fornominative, not accusative.> >TI OUN can be used as a sentence on its own. It makes sense without>supplying the omitted parts. Granted. But then the following clause is awkward. Can verbs of “saying”in NTG take an infinitive without accusative “subject” as a complement?>When, is the possibility of the following parsing?>> TI* OUN EROUMEN {hEURHKENAI ____* ABRAAM TON PROPATOPA hHMWN DATASARKA}>> “What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather . . . has found?”>I always thought that the traditional translation of Rom>4.1 sounds too complicated. I would be interested in knowing otherinstances >of GREEK setences where TI is not the object of the main verb but is>the object of the complement clause moved front from the clause.>It seems akward for Paul to utter such a ‘distorted and long sentence” atthe very>important moment in his speech.This seems, rather than awkward, to be the natural pattern for questionformation in NTG. It is common to position the interrogative constituent atthe front of the question. The very string under consideration is anexample: TI OUN EROUMEN? Mt. 2.2 POU ESTIN hO TECQEIS BASILEUS? As foran example of the interrogative constituent being moved out of thesubordinate clause to the front of the matrix clause, Mt. 16.13 TINA LEGOUSIN hOI ANQRWPOI EINAI TOJN hUION TOU ANQRWPOU?This is not TI but TINA, but I think the principle is analagous.The version of this question in Mk 8.27 has both the “subject” and “object”of the embedded clause moved to the front of the matrix clause, TINA ME LEGOUSIN hOI ANQRWPOI EINAI?With the fronted ME putting emphasis on Jesus as the topic at hand. Theplace of prominence signaled by fronting makes fronting the interrogativeconstituent natural: *of course* the piece of information being soughtwould be in focus.>It seems that “What then? Shall we say that we have found Abraham to be>our forefather according to flesh?”, to which the expected answer is no, >matches better the flow of Rom 3:27-31, where it is argued that God is not>God of Jews only, but of Gentiles as well>and thus he justifies both by>means of faith. Romans 4 argues that Abraham is forefather of all those>who believe,>both Jews and Gentiles.[snip>In sum, Rom 4 argues that>Gentiles can belong to Abraham claiming him forefather by faith in Jesus>Christ. I disagree. The point is not whether we can belong to Abraham but how weare to be saved. He mentions only a couple of times the premise thatAbraham is the father of the Gentiles, and he mentions it as an assumptionshared with his audience as a warrant for his conclusion — assumption 1″God is the God of Jews and Gentiles alike” (3.9) Therefore, God’s salvationis on equal terms to both. Assumption 2 “Abraham was justified by faith andnot by works.” (4.3). Conclusion — we are justified by faith and not byworks (the entire rest of chapter 4). >So, it can be very well argued that the issue raised in Rom 4.1 was not>what Abraham found but whether we have found Abraham to be our forefatherThis argument is difficult to maintain. The most natural interpretation isthat it is Abraham who discovered something, because the very next versesays that Abraham should react a certain way to what he discovered (notboast). How would Abraham react to something that “we” are nowdiscovering?The crux of the grammatical issue, though, is how questions are formed inNTG. I can think of many examples of questions being formed on simpleclauses. Are there other examples of Questions being formed on aconstituent of an embedded clause?glenn blankPensacola FL

Interpretation of Rom 4:1Mark 8:12

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Jan 27 00:31:47 EST 2002

John 3:19 – subject verb agreement off topic Dear Glenn,Thanks for the interaction. I enjoy it very much.Let me have several comments. (1)[Moon] >James Dunn in his commentary on Romans said this against Hay’srendering:> >> >The beginning of a sentence with an accusative and infinitival> >construction> >where the accusative was unstated would be rather odd.> [Glenn]> I’m not sure what you mean by this quote. > > >This problem can be solved in the following parsing:> >> >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.> > But this sounds precisely like what your quote of James Dunn seems to say is> odd: you said the “accusative (semantic subject) for infinitival clause . .> . can be *supplied* from the main verb — which means that the accusative is> “unstated.” The quote from Dunn is about Hays’ proposal: TI OUN EROUMEN? EURHKENAI ABRAAM PROPATORA HMWN KATA SARKA?In Hays’ analysis, the second sentence BEGINS with the infinitival clauseEURHKENAI … with its the semantic subject (accusative) unstated. The question comes down to: how much can the second sentence stand alone?In this case, it does not seem that the second setence can stand alone.To handle this problem, Hays suggests that we supply the omittedmain verb EROUMEN to the second sentence, so that we have [EROUMEN] EURHKENAI ABRAAM PROPATORA HMWN KATA SARKA? But in order to talk about ellipsis and to supply the omitted parts, theqiven clause should be able to stand alone on its own in the first place. Forexample, TI OUN can stand alone, though incomplete in form. Also, in the case of Rom 9:30 “TI OUN EROUMEN? hOTI ….”, the second clause, the hoticlause, stand alone alone, because what is omitted is almost redundant. But in the case of Hays’ analysis, the second sentence can hardly stand alone on its own. But in my analysis TI OUN? EROUMEN EURHKENAI ABRAAM PROPATORA HMWN KATA SARKA?, the second sentence can stand alone. The semantic subject of EURHKENAI is still unstated. But this problem could be solvedby noting that this sentence has a similar structure to “Tom wants to go to school”, where the semantic subject to the infinivalclause TO GO TO SCHOOL is readily inferred from the main clause.The only problem with this analysis is whether we can use the verb ofsaying,e.g.EROUMEN, this way. Consider Lu 24:23: HLQON LEGOUSAI KAI OPTASIAN AGGELWN hEWRAKENAI [came saying also vision of angels to see] Here no accusative is used nor needed which functions as the semanticsubject ofthe infinitive eEWRAKENAI, because the subject of the infinitive is knownfromthe main verb LEGOUSAI.In sum, practically speaking my analysis is the same as Hays’. ButI wanted to avoid a syntactic construction that BEGINS with the infinitiveand that without its semantic subject. [Glenn]> Furthermore, the “subject” of the main verb is governed for> nominative, not accusative.See below the quotation from A. T. Robertson for this problem.[Moon]> >> >TI OUN can be used as a sentence on its own. It makes sense without> >supplying the omitted parts. > > Granted. But then the following clause is awkward. Can verbs of “saying”> in NTG take an infinitive without accusative “subject” as a complement?> Consider Lu 24:23 quoted above. > [2]> >When, is the possibility of the following parsing?> > >> TI* OUN EROUMEN {hEURHKENAI ____* ABRAAM TON PROPATOPA hHMWN DATA> SARKA}> >> “What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather . . . has found?”> > >I always thought that the traditional translation of Rom> >4.1 sounds too complicated. I would be interested in knowing other> instances > >of GREEK setences where TI is not the object of the main verb but is> >the object of the complement clause moved front from the clause.> >It seems akward for Paul to utter such a ‘distorted and long sentence” at> the very> >important moment in his speech.> > This seems, rather than awkward, to be the natural pattern for question> formation in NTG. It is common to position the interrogative constituent at> the front of the question. As for> an example of the interrogative constituent being moved out of the> subordinate clause to the front of the matrix clause, Mt. 16.13> > TINA LEGOUSIN hOI ANQRWPOI EINAI TOJN hUION TOU ANQRWPOU?> > This is not TI but TINA, but I think the principle is analagous.> Good. This is a good example. So, we can say that Rom 4.1 is obtained by moving TI to the front from the underlyingstructureEROUMEN OUN TI EURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROTOPATORA KATA SARKA?But my analysis seems as plausible as the traditional one. Any comments?(3) Finally, about the “accusative and infinitive” construction, wherethe accusative functions as the subject of the infinitive clause, A. T. Robertson thinks that it is a misconceived notion and hinders the readerrather than help. In pp. 1037- 1038, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NT IN THELIGHT OF HISTORICAL SESEARCH, he concludes that it is simply the “accusative ofgeneral reference”. Let me quote some relevantstatements (not direct quotes):The infinitive can have no subject, not being a finite verb (cf.participles). So it tends to agree with some given constituent of the sentence, whichcan play the role of the “semantic subject” of the infinitive. This givenconstituent canbe in any case. It can be the direct object of the principal verb (e.g.verbs of asking).When there are no other constituents in the sentence for the infinitivenaturallyto agree with, an accusative of reference is introduced to the sentence toagree with the infinitive. So, it follows that we need not worry too much about the lack of “accusative” of the infinitive hEURHKENAI in Rom 4.1. We can takeRom 4.1. to say “What then? Shall we say to have found Abrahamto be our forefather according to flesh?” It has two merits.(a) In Romans, Paul uses “TI OUN” or “TI OUN EROUMEN” a number of times tostart a newstage of argument, often to counter-attack potential false inferences thereadermight have drawn from the previous discourse. My analysis of Romans 4.1.fits to thispattern.(b) Rom 4.1. is a good place to state a potential objection that some maypositwith respect to the thesis of Rom 3:27-31 that God is God of Jews as wellas ofGentiles and Gentiles can be the people of God on equal footing with Jews,by faith in Christ. The objection is that only Jews are children ofArbrahamto whom the promise is made, and so Gentiles cannot be the people of Godonequal footing with Jews. Rom 4 can be taken to counter this objection. Seebelowfor further arguments in this direction. [4] Now about the role of Rom 4.1 in the wider context. I hope ourdiscussion would not go beyond the scope of this list. [Moon]> >It seems that “What then? Shall we say that we have found Abraham to be> >our forefather according to flesh?”, to which the expected answer is no,> >matches better the flow of Rom 3:27-31, where it is argued that God is not> >God of Jews only, but of Gentiles as well> >and thus he justifies both by> >means of faith. Romans 4 argues that Abraham is forefather of all those> >who believe,> >both Jews and Gentiles.> > [snip> > >In sum, Rom 4 argues that> >Gentiles can belong to Abraham claiming him forefather by faith in Jesus> >Christ. > [Glenn]> I disagree. The point is not whether we can belong to Abraham but how we> are to be saved. He mentions only a couple of times the premise that> Abraham is the father of the Gentiles, and he mentions it as an assumption> shared with his audience as a warrant for his conclusion — assumption 1> “God is the God of Jews and Gentiles alike” (3.9) Therefore, God’s salvation> is on equal terms to both. Assumption 2 “Abraham was justified by faith and> not by works.” (4.3). Conclusion — we are justified by faith and not by> works (the entire rest of chapter 4). > [Moon]> >So, it can be very well argued that the issue raised in Rom 4.1 was not> >what Abraham found but whether we have found Abraham to be our forefather> [Glenn]> This argument is difficult to maintain. The most natural interpretation is> that it is Abraham who discovered something, because the very next verse> says that Abraham should react a certain way to what he discovered (not> boast). How would Abraham react to something that “we” are now> discovering?> > Glenn, you argued very well for the traditional interpretation of Rom 4that Paul presents Abraham as a typical example of those who are justifiedby faith, in order to show how a person is justified before God. But thearticle Michael Cranford, which I referred to in my first post in this thread, convinced me to reject the traditional interpretation. According to him, in Rom. 4, Paul explains further the thesis of Romans3:27-31 thatGentiles can be the people of God by faith, not just the Jews.He does that by arguing that Gentiles can be the children of Abraham byfaith to whom the promise is given that he will be the heir of the KOSMOS(rom 4.13) and he will the father of all nations (Rom 4.17). If Abraham is the forefather of the people of the law only, thecircumcisiononly, Gentiles are out by definition. So, it is critically importantto establish that Abraham is the father to Gentile believers as well as to Jews. I also find related statements in Galatians:Know therefore that those who are of faith are children of Abraham (Gal3:7)If you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to thepromise (Gal 3:29).I wonder if there are today any Gentile believers who are joyful becausetheyhave become children of Arbraham because of Christ! Nevertheless, these statements indicate that the issue at hand is for Gentile believersto be children of Abraham. WHY WOULD PAUL ARGUE THAT GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, if Abraham is only a typical example showing how one is justified? What would be the point of becoming children of Abraham? Well, this I donotunderstand well. But it is clear that Paul thinks it important. Perhapsit is important in the debate with Jews, who insist that Gentiles shouldbecomeJews by getting circumcision and keeping Sabbath and dietary laws. When Paul claims that Abraham was justified by faith, his purpose was to claim that he was justified when he was uncircumcised (Rom 4.9-10), INORDERto be the father of Gentile believers as well as Jews (Rom 4:11-12). It isgrantedthat Rom 4:2-8 is difficult to interpret from this perspective. Butthe points of these verses are not as clear as the points of 4:9-12 andthe rest ofthe chapter. So, we need to interpret Rom 4:2-8 in view of the rest of thechapterand the last paragraph of chapter 3, rather than make a particularinterpretationof a unclear passage Rom 4:2-8 affect the other parts. SincerelyMoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

John 3:19 – subject verb agreementoff topic

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 28 15:01:42 EST 2002

rough breathing Hebrews 10:25–Article Usage [Moon]>Thanks for the interaction. I enjoy it very much.I have enjoyed it as well. Your interpretations are alwaysthought-provoking.I hope I have snipped your post fairly to preserve the crux of yourargument.(To the rest of the list: warning, this post has gotten long, and I fear isbeginning to border on exegesis. That is not my intent: I am trying towork out in my mind why Moon’s analysis feels awkward to me by trying todissect Paul’s argument structure. So if you find quibbles about logicalsyllogisms tedious, spare yourself the bother of reading further — theupshot of everything I write below is that I think a “wh-” question in Rom4.1 fits the discourse structure better than a “yes/no” question.)I had asked>>Can verbs of “saying”>> in NTG take an infinitive without accusative “subject” as a complement? Moon answered>Consider >Lu 24:23: HLQON LEGOUSAI KAI OPTASIAN AGGELWN hEWRAKENAI> [came saying also vision of angels to see] OK. That would seem to answer my question. Languages subcategorize verbsrather arbitrarily as to whether the infinitival complement of a particularverb needs an explicit “subject” of the infinitive or not. For example, inEnglish, I decided _____{i} to go. I said _____{j} to go.*I told _____{i or j} to go I told him to go OR I told myself to go.(Where ____{i} denotes a null infinitival subject co-referential with thesubject of the matrix clause, and ____{j} denotes a null infinitival subjectwith a different referent.)—————I had written>> as an example of the interrogative constituent being moved out of the>> subordinate clause to the front of the matrix clause, Mt. 16.13>> >> TINA LEGOUSIN hOI ANQRWPOI EINAI TOJN hUION TOU ANQRWPOU?[Moon]> So, we can say that >Rom 4.1 is obtained by moving TI to the front from the underlying>structure> >EROUMEN OUN TI EURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROTOPATORA KATA SARKA?Yes, exactly.[Moon]>But my analysis seems as plausible as the traditional one. >Any comments?[Glenn]Yes, syntactically speaking, assuming that ERW subcategorizes for infinitivecomplements the same way LEGW does. But I still think the traditionalanalysis fits the context better. (See below)—————–>(3) Finally, about the “accusative and infinitive” construction, where>the accusative functions as the subject of the infinitive clause, A. T. >Robertson thinks that it is a misconceived notion and hinders the reader>rather than help. [snip] So, it follows that we need not worry too muchabout the lack of >“accusative” of the infinitive hEURHKENAI in Rom 4.1. Yes, I agree. I mis-spoke. What I was driving at was the nominativesubject of the matrix verb cannot also be the “subject” of the infinitive(I’m not sure if I concur with Robertson’s linguistic analysis, but that isneitherhere nor there). The referent of the subject of the main verb might also bethe referent of a null subject of the infinitive, but only for main verbsthat subcategorize for allowing null-subject infinitive complements, and youanswered that above with Lk 24.23.—————————————->(a) In Romans, Paul uses “TI OUN” or “TI OUN EROUMEN” a number of times to>start a new>stage of argument, often to counter-attack potential false inferences the>reader>might have drawn from the previous discourse.OK. For example, in Ro 3.5, the preceding line of argument had been to showthat God is not unrighteous, and in fact our very righteousness demonstratesHis righteousness. What might one naturally infer from this is theproposition that good is coming from my unrighteousness so God is unjust ininflicting wrath for what has resulted in good. So Paul counters with “Whatthen? Is God unjust for inflicting wrath?” And in Ro 3.9, the proposition”Their [people who deliberately sin so good may come] condemnation is just”naturally leads to the inference that “we are better than they . . . *we*don’t deliberately sin so that good may come.” But now what is the false inference that one might draw from the discoursepreceding 4.1? [snip] >that>only Jews are children of>Arbraham>to whom the promise is made, and so Gentiles cannot be the people of God>on>equal footing with Jews. Rom 4 can be taken to counter this objection. But I can’t see how one could naturally draw this inference from thepreceding discourse. In fact, Paul has been explicitly stating the exactopposite — that God is God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews (3.29). >[Moon]>> >It seems that “What then? Shall we say that we have found Abraham to be>> >our forefather according to flesh?”, to which the expected answer is no,>> >matches better the flow of Rom 3:27-31, where it is argued that God isnot>> >God of Jews only, but of Gentiles as well>> >and thus he justifies both by>> >means of faith.OK, if I follow you correctly here, the false inference presented by thequestion in 4.1 is that we become Abraham’s children by means of the flesh[meaning by works, or by circumcision?]. But once again nothing in thepreceding discourse suggests that inference. In fact Paul has alreadyexplicitly that it is not by the flesh but by faith (3.27; 3.30).But there is another way in which TI OUN? in 4.1 does not fit the pattern ofthe other TI OUNs in Romans. Paul’s argumentation uses both “yes/no”questions (in this case the expected answer to which is “no”) and “what”questions (to which the expected answer is a full proposition.) Youranalysis makes 4.1 a “yes/no” question. My analysis makes it a “what”question. In every other instance of a “y/n” question in Romans, it isfollowed first by a denial of the inference expressed in the question andthen reasons why that inference cannot be true. For example, 3.9 — Statement — “Their condemnation is just”Inference — “Our condemenation is not just: we are better than they.”Question — “What then? Are we better than they?”Denial — “Certainly not.”Reason — Quotes from the songs and Isaiah stating that no one is righteous.The pattern for “wh” questions however is that the preceding discussionsuggests an inference which is in fact the proposition Paul is arguing for. Then there is a question, the answer to which is that proposition. ThenPaul states that proposition in answer to the question and then continuesthe preceding line of argument, further explaining it.For example, 3.26-27Statement — God’s righteousness is demonstrated in His grace, and wereceive that grace by faith [paraphrasing to summarize the precedingverses].Inference — We don’t have any room to boast then, since it is based not onworks but by faith.Question — “Where then is boasting?”Answer — “It is excluded”Question — “By what law?” (or on what basis?)Answer — “Not by the law of works but by the law of faith.”Further explanation — “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified byfaith apart from the deeds of the law.”Another example, 8.31Statement — “All things work together for good to those that love God,etc.”Inference — Hey, God really is interested in my good. He is for me, and ifHe is for me, good things have to follow.Question — “What shall we say to these things”Answer — “If God be for us, who can be against us?”Further explanation — “If He delievered up his own Son for us, surely hewill give us all things.”In other words, Paul seems to use the “y/n” questions to track down atangent that a potential objection could take his audience down, but he usesthe “wh” questions to reinforce and further develop his own line ofargument.ISTM Ro 4.1 fits this latter pattern better:Statement — The circumcised and the uncircumcised alike are justified byfaith. (3.30)Inference — Then even the Jews were justified by faith, not by the deeds ofthe law.Question — What, then, would we say Abraham, our father according to theflesh, discovered?Answer — “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him forrighteousness.” (4.3)Further explanation — (4.4-5) “. . . to him who does not work but believes. . . his faith is accounted for righteousness.” [Moon] >According to [Michael Cranford], in Rom. 4, Paul explains further thethesis of Romans>3:27-31 that>Gentiles can be the people of God by faith, not just the Jews.But ISTM that Paul uses “wh” questions rather than “y/n” questions for thatkind of transition into further explanation.>He does that by arguing that Gentiles can be the children of Abraham by>faith to whom the promise is given that he will be the heir of the KOSMOS>(rom 4.13) and he will the father of all nations (Rom 4.17).Yes. But the issue of him being the father of all nations is only anintermediate step to Paul’s main argument, which is not whether or notGentiles are the children of Abraham, but *how* they became the children ofAbraham — that is, by faith. [Moon]>If Abraham is the forefather of the people of the law only, the>circumcision>only, Gentiles are out by definition. So, it is critically important>to establish that Abraham is the father to Gentile believers >as well as to Jews. I also find related statements in Galatians:>Know therefore that those who are of faith are children of Abraham (Gal>3:7)>If you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the>promise (Gal 3:29).The issue in Galatians certainly is related to the issue in Romans. But theargument structure ISTM is different, in fact almost opposite in approach. The verses you quote have the proposition “Those who are faith” and “You areChrist’s” as the protasis, and “are children/seed of Abraham” as theapodosis. In Romans, on the other hand, the argument seems to move in theopposite direction — from the assumption that Gentiles are included in theAbrahamic covenant to the conclusion that that could only be possible if thecovenant were based on faith rather than the flesh. It does indeed seemcritically important in Galatians to establish the fact of whether or notthe Galatians are children of Abraham. In Romans, on the other hand, thatseems to be an intermediate step in the arugment development.This is what I mean:Protasis (4.9) “Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcisedonly?” — assumed answer, “upon the uncircumcised also.”Apodosis (4.10) “How then was it accounted? Not while circumcised, butuncircumcised.”Conclusion (4.16) “Therefore, it is of faith that it might be according tograce.”(intervening between 4.10 and 4.16 is a restatement of the interactionbetween protasis and apodosis, and then an argument “ad absurdum” — i.e.,Assume that we received the promise by law; conclusion, then we are underwrath and the promise to Abraham was of no effect . . . which contradictsthe opening assumption, that Abraham was to be the father of many nations(restated in 4.17), and the supposition that we receive the promise by lawcannot be correct.In fact, regardless of whether you translate Romans 4.1 as a “wh” questionor a “y/n” question, the issue of whether Gentiles are the children ofAbraham is not the point of the question but presupposed in the question:TI OUN? EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN *KATA SARKA*?The answer is “no, he did not get to be our forefather *according to theflesh*.” But that presupposes an assumption common to both writer andaudience that Abraham *is* TON PROPATORA hHMWN.TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA?”What then did Abraham our father according to the flesh discover”presupposes that Abraham is the Gentiles father, but moves from there to theissue of what he discovered, which is that believing God was imputed to himfor righteousness (and in the following verses) if we are heirs of hispromise, it will be on the same basis as he received the promise — byfaith. >these statements [Gal 3.7 and Gal 3.29] indicate that the issue at hand isfor Gentile believers>to be children of Abraham.In Galatians, yes, but in Romans I would say the point that Gentilebelievers are to be the children of Abraham is a side issue, which serves tolend support to the main issue at hand — “of faith according to grace.” For the sense that (4.16) is the main point rather than (4.10-14), noticethe distribution of EK PISTEWS and KATA CARIN throughout the book, while theissues of Abraham as PATERA or PROPATORA and Gentiles as KLARONOMAI ofAbraham occur only in this chapter. >WHY WOULD PAUL ARGUE THAT GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, >if Abraham is only a typical example showing how one is justified?In order to help establish his main point, which is precisely to show “howone is justified.” His arguments about Gentiles being children of Abraham,being limited to this chapter, are merely one approach among many forestablishing the fact of justification by faith.In fact, Paul explicitly states in (4.23-24) that he is treating Abraham asa typical example of how we are justified (EGRAFH . . .DI HMAS OIS MELLEILOGIZESQAI) ——————————->It is granted>that Rom 4:2-8 is difficult to interpret from this perspective.Difficult to interpret in your analysis, perhaps. But crystal clear with myanalysis of 4.1> But the points of these verses are not as clear as the points of 4:9-12and>the rest of>the chapter. So, we need to interpret Rom 4:2-8 in view of the rest of the>chapter>and the last paragraph of chapter 3, rather than make a particular>interpretation>of a unclear passage Rom 4:2-8 affect the other parts. I am not sure how one decides 4.9-12 is more clear than 4.2-8, or whichshould be interpreted in light of which. But my interpretation of 4.9-12does not depend on 4.2-8, but instead on the larger context of Romans. Andmy understanding of the larger context and of how the arguments in 3.27-31,4.2-8; 4.9-12, et al, relate to each other informs my analysis of 4.1, andnot the other way around.I think we come out in the same place, so how we analyze 4.1 won’t changethe ultimate point we understand Paul to be making. But these are thereasons the TI OUN? analysis seem awkward to me.Enjoying the chase :)glenn blankPensacola FL

rough breathingHebrews 10:25–Article Usage

Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Jan 28 23:46:10 EST 2002

1 Tim 2:7 RV: 1 Tim 2:7 Gleen,Great![Glenn]> I had asked> >>Can verbs of “saying”> >> in NTG take an infinitive without accusative “subject” as a complement?> > Moon answered> > >Consider > >Lu 24:23: HLQON LEGOUSAI KAI OPTASIAN AGGELWN hEWRAKENAI> > [came saying also vision of angels to see] > > OK. That would seem to answer my question. Languages subcategorize verbs> rather arbitrarily as to whether the infinitival complement of a particular> verb needs an explicit “subject” of the infinitive or not. For example, in> English,> > I decided _____{i} to go.> I said _____{j} to go.> *I told _____{i or j} to go> I told him to go OR I told myself to go.> > (Where ____{i} denotes a null infinitival subject co-referential with the> subject of the matrix clause, and ____{j} denotes a null infinitival subject> with a different referent.)> Perfect! I wish those who are for or against Hays’ syntacticalanalysis of Rom 4.1 would pay attention to this kind of argument in thefuture.[2] About the structure of Paul’s argument thgough Rom 3-4:[Glenn]>ISTM Ro 4.1 fits this latter pattern better:> > Statement — The circumcised and the uncircumcised alike are justified by> faith. (3.30)> Inference — Then even the Jews were justified by faith, not by the deeds of> the law.> Question — What, then, would we say Abraham, our father according to the> flesh, discovered?> Answer — “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for> righteousness.” (4.3)> Further explanation — (4.4-5) “. . . to him who does not work but believes> . . . his faith is accounted for righteousness.” > My working hypothesis for Romans seems different from yours underlying theaboveparaphrase. Our discussion crucially depends on how one takes Rom 3:27-31andwhat kind of objections or inferences one might draw from it.28 LOGIZOMEQA GAR DIKAIOUSQAI PISTEI ANQRWPON CWRIS ERGWN NONOU. [For we consider that man is justified by faith, apart from works of law]29 hH IOUDAIWN hO QEOS MONON; OUCI KAI EQNWN; [Or is God only of Jews? Not of Gentiles as well? ] NAI KAI EQNWN, 30 EIPER EIS hO QEOS, hOS DIKAIWSEI PERITOMHN EK PISTEWS KAI AKROBUSTIAN DIA THS PISTEWS.[Indeed also of Gentiles, seeing that God is one. He justifiescircumcisionfrom faith and uncircumcision through faith]The passage claims that Gentiles can be included in the people of God by believing in Jesus, without becoming Jews, that is, apart from works ofthe Law, in particular, circumcision, which which was given to the Jewsand only the Jews could practice.hH at the beginning of verse 29 tirggers me to put Paul’s argument asfollows: Suppose justification is based on “works of the Law”. Then it means that God is God of Jews only. Do you agree to it? You can’t. God is God of Gentiles as well, because God is one. He (hOS is a continuative relative clause) justfies …..

1 Tim 2:7RV: 1 Tim 2:7

[] Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jul 20 13:21:45 EDT 2009

[] Cherry Tree? [] Rom 4:1 While reading N.T. Wright I came to his peculiar understanding of Rom 4:1.The text is:Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;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 tothe flesh?”Can anyone explain to me how he can suggest “we” as implicit subject for theperfect infinitive? I assume that Wright is not a member of b-Greek, but maybesome 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 theinfinitive depends on EIPON? And how does that work extremely well with theGreek?Thanks,Iver Larsen

[] Cherry Tree?[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jul 20 14:27:39 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] 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:> > Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ > τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;> 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.β.‏ה‎. 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. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 20 14:30:45 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”) Iver:Would anyone consider NT Wright’s Greek scholarly? In my extensive reading, I’ve never seen a known Greek scholar cite NT Wright as any Greek authority. I’m not trying to be negatively critical, but I would be interested in any of the b-Greek scholars commenting on NT Wright’s Greek. If he is a Greek scholar, he sure hides it well!Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas— On Mon, 7/20/09, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> Subject: [] Rom 4:1> To: “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 12:21 PM> While reading N.T. Wright I came to> his peculiar understanding of Rom 4:1.> > The text is:> > Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι> Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν> κατὰ σάρκα;> 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?> > Thanks,> > Iver Larsen> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Rom 4:1[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”)

[] Rom 4:1 Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 20 14:51:03 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 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: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl ConradSent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:28 PMTo: Iver LarsenCc: BGSubject: Re: [] Rom 4:1On 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:> > Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ > τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;> 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.β.‏ה‎. 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. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 20 15:33:13 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 On Jul 20, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Yancy Smith wrote:> His reading is not so peculiar to him.Also Lenski (see L.Morris Romans 1988) Moo (Rom. NICNT) cites Hays to disagree with him. I would also disagree with Hays, Lenski, the very next verse implies that Abraham is the the subject who is “finding” in v1. Should note that the textual support for hEURHKENAI in v.1 isn’t decisively favorable.Rom. 4:1εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL᾿ OU PROS QEON.Elizabeth Kline

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 16:25:28 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, ElizabethKline<kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > On Jul 20, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Yancy Smith wrote:> >> His reading is not so peculiar to him.> > Also Lenski (see L.Morris Romans 1988) Moo (Rom. NICNT) cites Hays to> disagree with him. I would also disagree with Hays, Lenski, the very> next verse implies that Abraham is the the subject who is “finding” in> v1. Should note that the textual support for hEURHKENAI in v.1 isn’t> decisively favorable.> > Rom. 4:1> > εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη,> ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.> > EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL᾿ OU PROS QEON.> > > > Elizabeth Kline> > Hi, Elizabeth. That must be v. 2.I’m curios here.I take ABRAAM and TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA as appositive.Doesn’t this accusative case simply tell it’s the agent of the verb EURHKENAI?I am reading mss variant “ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAh EURHKENAI”.Should the location of the verb make me change my opinion, when itcomes at the start of this clause?Oun Kwon.

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 20 16:31:37 EDT 2009

[] Mistakes/Oversights/Errors in a recent printed GNT [] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory about learning Koine Greek”) Mitch,N.T. Wright is a able scholar of Biblical and Hellenistic Greek, who has caught a lot of undeserved grief as of late. Much to the chagrin of many Greek scholars he is also an creative, innovative exegete and theologian. Alas, the two, Greek scholarship and innovative thinking do not always go together. I have been impressed with his solutions to long standing issues of Pauline exegesis, not simply in the broad brush where he shows broad acquaintance with literature and culture of the NT period, but with many details of the text. One in particular that might deserve the attention of -ers is his way of solving the tangle of exegetical difficulties associated with Gal. 3:15-20 in his article, “The Seed and the Mediator: Galatians 3:15-20” in _The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology_.While I do not swear by his interpretation of Romans 4:1 (I think the way it is read by Robert Jewett in his Hermeneia commentary on Romans is far superior), it is quite possible to read Rom. 4:1 as Wright or as Hays has read it.Yancy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mitch LarramoreSent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:31 PMTo: BG; Iver LarsenSubject: Re: [] Rom 4:1Iver:Would anyone consider NT Wright’s Greek scholarly? In my extensive reading, I’ve never seen a known Greek scholar cite NT Wright as any Greek authority. I’m not trying to be negatively critical, but I would be interested in any of the b-Greek scholars commenting on NT Wright’s Greek. If he is a Greek scholar, he sure hides it well!Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas— On Mon, 7/20/09, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> Subject: [] Rom 4:1> To: “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 12:21 PM> While reading N.T. Wright I came to> his peculiar understanding of Rom 4:1.> > The text is:> > Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι> Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν> κατὰ σάρκα;> 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?> > Thanks,> > Iver Larsen> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/[Yancy Smith] Yancy SmithYancy W. Smith, PhDWorld Bible Translation Center4028 Daley Ave., Suite 201Fort Worth, TX 76180p 817-595-1664f 817580-7013yancy at wbtc.orgBe kinder than necessary for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[] Mistakes/Oversights/Errors in a recent printed GNT[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory about learning Koine Greek”)

Romans 4:1 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 7 22:49:49 EDT 2001

Eerdmans Critical Commentary Romans 4:1 4:1TI OUN EROUMEN ABRAAM TON PATERA hHMWN hEURHKENAI KATA SARKAPresumedly, KATA SARKA could modify PATERA or hEURHKENAI.Does the syntactical position of KATA SARKA give any clueas to what it modifies?Thanks,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Eerdmans Critical CommentaryRomans 4:1

Romans 4:1 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jun 8 00:51:30 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 Romans 4:1 on 6/7/01 7:49 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:> 4:1> > TI OUN EROUMEN ABRAAM TON PATERA hHMWN hEURHKENAI KATA SARKA You have cited the reading from the TR (Majority) text.> > Presumedly, KATA SARKA could modify PATERA or hEURHKENAI.> > Does the syntactical position of KATA SARKA give any clue> as to what it modifies?First of all this is a text critical question more than a question ofsyntax, but it is both and the two questions should be handled together.NA27/UBSGNT reads:TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA;H.A.W. Meyer talks about the textual problem and rejects the position ofhEURHKENAI found in NA27 which is supported by Aleph, A, D, ktl. because hethinks that this reading can be explained as an attempt to connect KATASARKA with TON PROPATORA (PATERA). He retains the position of hEURHKENAI inthe TR and connects KATA SARKA with hEURHKENAI.Henry Alford changed his mind on this. He initially retained the reading ofthe TR even after he had seen Tischendorf’s support for the other wordorder. However in the final edition of his Greek Testament he changes hismind and adopts EROUMEN [hEURHKENAI] ABRAAM bracketing the critical wordbecause it does not appear in B.NOTE well however that Alford didn’t change his mind on the syntacticalconnection of KATA SARKA which he still attaches to hEURHKENAI.C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKA withhHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded. Ijust don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limitingconstituents attached to TON PROPATORA.Does the word order decided the syntactical question? Yes and no. Someauthors intentionally place a limiting constituent some distance from thelimited constituent. However, it is more common for these to be placed inclose proximity. Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Romans 4:1Romans 4:1

Romans 4:1 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 7 22:49:49 EDT 2001

Eerdmans Critical Commentary Romans 4:1 4:1TI OUN EROUMEN ABRAAM TON PATERA hHMWN hEURHKENAI KATA SARKAPresumedly, KATA SARKA could modify PATERA or hEURHKENAI.Does the syntactical position of KATA SARKA give any clueas to what it modifies?Thanks,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Eerdmans Critical CommentaryRomans 4:1

Romans 4:1 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jun 8 00:51:30 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 Romans 4:1 on 6/7/01 7:49 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:> 4:1> > TI OUN EROUMEN ABRAAM TON PATERA hHMWN hEURHKENAI KATA SARKA You have cited the reading from the TR (Majority) text.> > Presumedly, KATA SARKA could modify PATERA or hEURHKENAI.> > Does the syntactical position of KATA SARKA give any clue> as to what it modifies?First of all this is a text critical question more than a question ofsyntax, but it is both and the two questions should be handled together.NA27/UBSGNT reads:TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA;H.A.W. Meyer talks about the textual problem and rejects the position ofhEURHKENAI found in NA27 which is supported by Aleph, A, D, ktl. because hethinks that this reading can be explained as an attempt to connect KATASARKA with TON PROPATORA (PATERA). He retains the position of hEURHKENAI inthe TR and connects KATA SARKA with hEURHKENAI.Henry Alford changed his mind on this. He initially retained the reading ofthe TR even after he had seen Tischendorf’s support for the other wordorder. However in the final edition of his Greek Testament he changes hismind and adopts EROUMEN [hEURHKENAI] ABRAAM bracketing the critical wordbecause it does not appear in B.NOTE well however that Alford didn’t change his mind on the syntacticalconnection of KATA SARKA which he still attaches to hEURHKENAI.C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKA withhHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded. Ijust don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limitingconstituents attached to TON PROPATORA.Does the word order decided the syntactical question? Yes and no. Someauthors intentionally place a limiting constituent some distance from thelimited constituent. However, it is more common for these to be placed inclose proximity. Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Romans 4:1Romans 4:1

Romans 4:1 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jun 8 01:19:01 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 Romans 4:1 on 6/7/01 9:51 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKA with> hHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded. I> just don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limiting> constituents attached to TON PROPATORA.I think there is a better way of viewing this. Lets say that KATA SARKAlimits TON PROPATORA hHMWN as a unit, not TON PROPATORA or hHMWN. This maybe what Cranfield is driving at but it isn’t what he said.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Romans 4:1Romans 4:1

Romans 4:1 virgilsalvage1 virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Fri Jun 8 03:31:26 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 The BHMA, here and now? On Thur. 07 June 2001 at 22:19…..Clayton referring to……on 6/7/01 9:51PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKAwith> hHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded.I> just don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limiting> constituents attached to TON PROPATORA.I think there is a better way of viewing this. Lets say that KATA SARKAlimits TON PROPATORA hHMWN as a unit, not TON PROPATORA or hHMWN. This maybe what Cranfield is driving at but it isn’t what he said.Virgil here…to all, I appreciate a couple of matters that you have brought out here,Clayton.First the textual matter and then how Cranfield attaches KATA SARKA tohHMWN. The strength and impact of the NA/UBS reading is significant, Ibelieve. This reading seems to make sense because it puts to the front…twoitems. hEURHKENAI ( The discovery ) and as you pointed out Clay, what shouldbe considered as a unit…TON PROPATORA hHMWN. Without this order TONPROPATORA hHMWN is somewhat obscured or covered up. This puts KATA SARKAlast, this being important yes, but least important. KATA SARKA, it seems tome speaks to or modifies both hEURHKENAI ( The Discovery ) and TONPROPATORA hHMWN( Father or generator of that which is characterized byus )….being the realm or actual situation and reality of where these twomatters happened. The most important matter being that Abraham discoveredsomething, and that Abraham became and is the father or source of hHMWN. Notus…but genitive hHMWN….” that which is characterized by us “. This allhappened for Abraham KATA SARKA. Both his discovery and his fathering andwhat it was that he fathered….was brought about according to flesh. Mark, I would say….along with Clayton and with his assistance, It appears KATA SARKA is there for both hEURHKENAI and TON PROPATORAhHMWN.Virgil NewkirkSalt Lake City, Utah 84115

Romans 4:1The BHMA, here and now?

Romans 4:1 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jun 8 01:19:01 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 Romans 4:1 on 6/7/01 9:51 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKA with> hHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded. I> just don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limiting> constituents attached to TON PROPATORA.I think there is a better way of viewing this. Lets say that KATA SARKAlimits TON PROPATORA hHMWN as a unit, not TON PROPATORA or hHMWN. This maybe what Cranfield is driving at but it isn’t what he said.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Romans 4:1Romans 4:1

Romans 4:1 virgilsalvage1 virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Fri Jun 8 03:31:26 EDT 2001

Romans 4:1 The BHMA, here and now? On Thur. 07 June 2001 at 22:19…..Clayton referring to……on 6/7/01 9:51PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> C.E.B. Cranfield accepts the NA/UBS reading but he attaches KATA SARKAwith> hHMWN not TON PROPATORA. Cranfield’s analysis really left me dumbfounded.I> just don’t get it. I would make both hHMWN and KATA SARKA limiting> constituents attached to TON PROPATORA.I think there is a better way of viewing this. Lets say that KATA SARKAlimits TON PROPATORA hHMWN as a unit, not TON PROPATORA or hHMWN. This maybe what Cranfield is driving at but it isn’t what he said.Virgil here…to all, I appreciate a couple of matters that you have brought out here,Clayton.First the textual matter and then how Cranfield attaches KATA SARKA tohHMWN. The strength and impact of the NA/UBS reading is significant, Ibelieve. This reading seems to make sense because it puts to the front…twoitems. hEURHKENAI ( The discovery ) and as you pointed out Clay, what shouldbe considered as a unit…TON PROPATORA hHMWN. Without this order TONPROPATORA hHMWN is somewhat obscured or covered up. This puts KATA SARKAlast, this being important yes, but least important. KATA SARKA, it seems tome speaks to or modifies both hEURHKENAI ( The Discovery ) and TONPROPATORA hHMWN( Father or generator of that which is characterized byus )….being the realm or actual situation and reality of where these twomatters happened. The most important matter being that Abraham discoveredsomething, and that Abraham became and is the father or source of hHMWN. Notus…but genitive hHMWN….” that which is characterized by us “. This allhappened for Abraham KATA SARKA. Both his discovery and his fathering andwhat it was that he fathered….was brought about according to flesh. Mark, I would say….along with Clayton and with his assistance, It appears KATA SARKA is there for both hEURHKENAI and TON PROPATORAhHMWN.Virgil NewkirkSalt Lake City, Utah 84115

Romans 4:1The BHMA, here and now?

[] Rom 4:1 Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 20 17:34:46 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] 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 ABRAAM1a. “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 ABRAAM2. 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—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Oun KwonSent: Monday, July 20, 2009 3:25 PMTo: greek Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, ElizabethKline<kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > On Jul 20, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Yancy Smith wrote:> >> His reading is not so peculiar to him.> > Also Lenski (see L.Morris Romans 1988) Moo (Rom. NICNT) cites Hays to> disagree with him. I would also disagree with Hays, Lenski, the very> next verse implies that Abraham is the the subject who is “finding” in> v1. Should note that the textual support for hEURHKENAI in v.1 isn’t> decisively favorable.> > Rom. 4:1> > εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη,> ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.> > EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL᾿ OU PROS QEON.> > > > Elizabeth Kline> > Hi, Elizabeth. That must be v. 2.I’m curios here.I take ABRAAM and TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA as appositive.Doesn’t this accusative case simply tell it’s the agent of the verb EURHKENAI?I am reading mss variant “ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAh EURHKENAI”.Should the location of the verb make me change my opinion, when itcomes at the start of this clause?Oun Kwon.— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/[Yancy Smith] Yancy SmithYancy W. Smith, PhDWorld Bible Translation Center4028 Daley Ave., Suite 201Fort Worth, TX 76180p 817-595-1664f 817580-7013yancy at wbtc.orgBe kinder than necessary for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 19:45:04 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Yancy Smith<yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net> wrote:> <clipped>> > 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> Hi Yancy.Thank you for summarizing the possible interpretations. Much clearerthan a short list I did make for my own note a few years ago, havingspent quite a time reading over various mss and commentaries!Yes, in his making most important points. After seeing it manydifferent ways, though, it dawned to me that Paul certainly does sayone thing, very clearly so.But, mysteriously, I cannot put it into words! Anunspeakable/unutterable thing (like a piece of music)? ; – )Oun Kwon.P.S. Thanks to Elizabeth, too.

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 20 19:32:56 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 On Jul 20, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> Hi, Elizabeth. That must be v. 2.Yes, it is.> > I’m curios here.> > I take ABRAAM and TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA as appositive.> > Doesn’t this accusative case simply tell it’s the agent of the verb > EURHKENAI?> > I am reading mss variant> “ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAh EURHKENAI”.> Should the location of the verb make me change my opinion, when it> comes at the start of this clause?Rom. 4:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα; 2 εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.ROM. 4:1 TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA; 2 EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, ECEI KAUCHMA, ALL᾿ OU PROS QEON.Oun,If I understand your question correctly, I think the alt. reading “ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA EURHKENAI” would suggest that KATA SARKA is adverbial with EURHKENAI. This understanding of KATA SARKA is adopted by Meyer who suspects that EURHKENAI was moved in front of ABRAAM to associate it with TON PROPATORA. Note however that Alford places [EURHKENAI] in brackets in front of ABRAAM, but like Meyer he connects KATA SARKA with EURHKENAI. It seems to me that Alford’s take on this is somewhat counter intuitive. However, Sandy- Headlam ICC cite Euthym-Zig. as the converse of Alford i.e., reading EURHKENAI after KATA SARKA but associating it with TON PROPATORA. Also counter intuitive. Note that Sandy-Headlam don’t accept this reading, they place EURHKENAI in front of ABRAAM associating it with TON PROPATORA.There is a danger constantly present in analyzing word order issues in Ancient Greek to be influenced by our native language. So when I say something is counter intuitive I am taking into account that intuition is not always a reliable indicator.Back to Iver’s original question. The reading adopted by N.T. Wright, R. Hays … wasn’t invented in the 20th Century, Meyer cites it but dismisses it withering scorn.Elizabeth Kline

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Jul 20 23:17:35 EDT 2009

[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory about learning Koine Greek”) [] Rom 4:1 The reading of Wright and Hays assumes an implied EINAI, as Carl hasshown. And there’s nothing wrong with that, of course. But then, wouldn’twe expect ABRAAM to be articulate as the subject of EINAI and PROPATORAto be anarthrous as the predicate, like so:TI OUN EROUMEN; hEURHKENAI TON ABRAAM PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA;Or possibly, ABRAAM PROPATORA — no articlesOr, TON ABRAAM TON PROPATORA — both articulateIn fact, shouldn’t we expect any one of these three, but definitely notthe actual text — TON ABRAAM PROPATORA — IF Wright and Hays arecorrect?Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi – qodeshlayhvh at juno.comWest 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: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-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: [] 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)> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> ____________________________________________________________Workers Compensation Legal Advice. Click herehttp://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOcqHkL1WONhoJmg34uVyv3wpq9hrNFXZIK78Ws0xQiuFLHp7ustK/

[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory about learning Koine Greek”)[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jul 21 03:58:00 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 —– Original Message —– From: “Yancy Smith” <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>To: “‘Oun Kwon'” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; “‘greek ‘” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34Subject: Re: [] 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?> > YancyIt 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 δικαιοσύνηνTI 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

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Jul 20 23:34:17 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”) Correction:RG wrote:”In fact, shouldn’t we expect any one of these three, but definitely notthe actual text — TON ABRAAM PROPATORA — IF Wright and Hays arecorrect?”That should be:”In fact, shouldn’t we expect any one of these three, but definitely notthe actual text — ABRAAM TON PROPATORA — IF Wright and Hays arecorrect?”Sorry about that!Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi – qodeshlayhvh at juno.comWest Haven, Connecticut USA____________________________________________________________Improve your driving ability with a stop at traffic school. Click now!http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMLIrpVrwawjPV1tKN7ZMtrVbv3pOkhTFO3qtmmk9939dERPmSWrO/

[] Rom 4:1[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”)

[] Rom 4:1 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 21 05:58:33 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 4 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;2εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA? 2  EI GAR ABRAAM EC ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, EXEI KAUXHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON.The solution which you propose fails in my estimation precisely because there is no real connection between v. 1 and what follows (which I include above).  I would not read ABRAAM either as the subject of the infinitive nor as its object.  Instead I would understand it as an accusative of respect.  It would then read, “What shall we say we have found with respect to our physical ancestor Abraham?  For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a cause for boasting, but not about God.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: Yancy Smith <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>; Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58:00 AMSubject: Re: [] Rom 4:1Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1The 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 — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jul 21 07:08:14 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:58 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> 4 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ > τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;2εἰ > γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, > ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA? 2 > EI GAR ABRAAM EC ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, EXEI KAUXHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON.> > The solution which you propose fails in my estimation precisely > because there is no real connection between v. 1 and what follows > (which I include above). I would not read ABRAAM either as the > subject of the infinitive nor as its object. Instead I would > understand it as an accusative of respect. It would then read, > “What shall we say we have found with respect to our physical > ancestor Abraham? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a > cause for boasting, but not about God.”> george> gfsomselThere are lots of proposed solutions to a text that has evidently seemed problematic to many — and proposals also of what Paul ought to have written if he had been expressing his meaning as we would have expressed it if we could write better Greek than Paul. We don’t agree about what Paul meant, but we seem to agree that he might have expressed his meaning more clearly.An accusative of respect? See BDF §160; Wallace, p. 203 offers as a key to identifying the Accusative of respect, “Before the accusative substantive you can usually supply the words with reference to, or concerning. The usage is rare enough in the NT that this should be employed as a last resort—that is, only after other categories are exhausted.” Why, it seems to me that we might almost speak of this as an “Aporetic Accusative.” I would have expected the sense, “with respect to our physical ancestor Abraham” to be expressed (I’ll play the game here too) by PERI ABRAAM TOU PROPATOROS hHMWN KATA SARKA.It is not true, by the way, that hEURISKW is found in the perfect tense only in this passage (it’s the only one in a Pauline letter to be sure, but the sample drawn from is rather small):John 1:41 εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, [hEURHKAMEN TON MESSIAN]1:45 ὃν ἔγραψεν Μωϋσῆς … εὑρήκαμεν, [hON EGRAYEN MWUSHS … hEURHKAMEN], Ἐχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ [ECARHN LIAN hOTI hEURHKA EK TWN TEKNWN SOU PERIPATOUNTAS EN ALHQEIAi], Rev. 3:2 οὐ γὰρ εὕρηκά σου τὰ ἔργα πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ μου [OU GAR hEURHKA SOU TA ERGA PEPLHRWMENA ENWPION TOU QEOU MOU].Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: Yancy Smith <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>; Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com > >; greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58:00 AM> Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34> Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> > > 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

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jul 21 08:52:56 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 Your suggestion makes good sense in context. This is followed by theGod’s Word translation. I won’t quarrel with this general understanding of thesense, but I don’t think we can defend an “accusative of respect” with thisverb when there is no preposition. (I see now that Carl has addressed this.) Iwould rather understand hEURISKW in the sense of “discover, experience” withrespect to the implied concept of justification. The word is commonly used inthe phrase “find favour in the eyes of God”. I think the key verse in the mindof Paul is Gen 15:6 (Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.) This verse is quoted bothin Rom 4:3 – part of this context – and in Gal 3:6 where Paul talks about the same topic.TEV: What was his experience?NET: has discovered regarding this matterNIV: discovered in this matterNLT: What did he discover about being made right with God?What he discovered was that by faith he was counted as righteous in the eyes ofGod.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: George F SomselTo: Iver Larsen ; Yancy Smith ; Oun Kwon ; greek Sent: 21. juli 2009 11:58Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:14 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα; 2 εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA? 2 EI GARABRAAM EC ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, EXEI KAUXHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON.The solution which you propose fails in my estimation precisely because there isno real connection between v. 1 and what follows (which I include above). Iwould not read ABRAAM either as the subject of the infinitive nor as its object.Instead I would understand it as an accusative of respect. It would then read,”What shall we say we have found with respect to our physical ancestor Abraham?For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a cause for boasting, but notabout God.”georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth,learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: Yancy Smith <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>; Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58:00 AMSubject: Re: [] Rom 4:1Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1The only analysis that makes sense to me is to take the sentence as a questionconsisting 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 ofthe Torah”, but – he tells them – our venerable forefather Abraham had alreadydiscovered (only here is the verb found in the perfect tense) that he wasaccepted as being in right standing with God because of his faith, apart fromworks (CWRIS ERGWN, v. 6).I am not afraid of challenging traditional analyses and exegeses, but one mustmake a solid case for it, and neither Lenski, Hays nor Wright have been able todo so.I have now read the thread on this topic from October 2001, where Lenski iscited as supporting your number 3. His arguments are quite unconvincing, andSteve Lo Vullo made some good points in his responses on the list.Iver Larsen— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Rom 4:1 Donald COBB docobb at orange.fr
Tue Jul 21 11:20:52 EDT 2009

[] Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 I think there is a contextual clue to Paul’s potientially ambiguous language in this verse.In a sentence which could grammatically be understood in different ways, the translation proposed by Wright and Hays, et al, seems to me to run up against a difficulty: assuming that Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα; TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA; should be translated more or less as follows: “What, therefore, shall we say? That we have found Abraham to be our forefather [only] according to the flesh?”, the point of the phrase as I read it would seem to be that Paul is summarizing his finds of the preceeding chapter(s). I find it somewhat mystifying, though, that Paul could state that he his putting forward a conclusion of his previous argument (οὖν) as concerns Abraham… when this is the first time in his letter that he mentions Abraham at all.In what is, all in all, a carefully crafted piece of literature, it is surprising that Paul would make that kind of a jump. It seems to me that v. 1 makes much more sense as the introduction of a new section: “So now, what shall we say Abraham–our forefather according to the flesh–to have found?” OUN, in this case, would have more of a transitional and foreward looking connotion (cf. BDAG 2 : “so”, “now then”; I note that BDAG’s mention that OUN can serve “to indicate a transition to someth. new”, 2b). Contextually that runs perfectly with what Paul says in the following verses.It struck me a few years ago while studying Romans, that Paul, in this letter particularly, tends to prepare his readers for new topics by introducing them very briefly, then going on to something completely different before coming back to them and giving his full development (notice, for instance, how he somewhat enigmatically broaches the idea, in 5:20, of the law coming so that transgression would increase, although he doesn’t explain himself until 7:7ff., when it becomes his focal point). Rm. 4:1, in Wright’s and Hays’ translation, would be the exact opposite of that: Paul would be putting forth as a conclusion something that he hasn’t mentioned at all.Donald CobbAix-en-Provence, France—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “greek ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:52 PMSubject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> Your suggestion makes good sense in context. This is followed by the> God’s Word translation. I won’t quarrel with this general understanding of > the> sense, but I don’t think we can defend an “accusative of respect” with > this> verb when there is no preposition. (I see now that Carl has addressed > this.) I> would rather understand hEURISKW in the sense of “discover, experience” > with> respect to the implied concept of justification. The word is commonly used > in> the phrase “find favour in the eyes of God”. I think the key verse in the > mind> of Paul is Gen 15:6 (Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as> righteousness.) This verse is quoted both> in Rom 4:3 – part of this context – and in Gal 3:6 where Paul talks about > the> same topic.> > TEV: What was his experience?> NET: has discovered regarding this matter> NIV: discovered in this matter> NLT: What did he discover about being made right with God?> > What he discovered was that by faith he was counted as righteous in the > eyes of> God.> > Iver Larsen> > —– Original Message —– > From: George F Somsel> To: Iver Larsen ; Yancy Smith ; Oun Kwon ; greek > Sent: 21. juli 2009 11:58> Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> > > 4 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα; 2 εἰ γὰρ > Ἀβραὰμ> ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.> TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA? 2 EI GAR> ABRAAM EC ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, EXEI KAUXHMA, ALL’ OU PROS QEON.> > The solution which you propose fails in my estimation precisely because > there is> no real connection between v. 1 and what follows (which I include above). > I> would not read ABRAAM either as the subject of the infinitive nor as its > object.> Instead I would understand it as an accusative of respect. It would then > read,> “What shall we say we have found with respect to our physical ancestor > Abraham?> For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a cause for boasting, but > not> about God.”> > george> gfsomsel> > > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > > > From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: Yancy Smith <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>; Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; > greek> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58:00 AM> Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> Sent: 20. juli 2009 23:34> Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1> > > 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> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Sep 23 06:21:11 EDT 2010

[] Onomastikon [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Iver has a nice discussion of application of a translation philosophy toRomans 4:1 on the Better Bibles Blog this morning:http://betterbibles.com/2010/09/23/rom-41The passage is one that has been discussed on on at least one occasion back in June 2006, introduced by Harold Holmyard in this message:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2006-July/039359.htmland just a year ago (July 2009) the same questions were discussed ina thread introduced by Iver himself:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2009-July/049831.htmlEarlier yet, in January of 2002 it was raised by Moon-Ryul Jung:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2002-January/019973.htmlI don’t think that the Hays-Wright view, “that we have found Abraham … “fared very well in any of these exchanges — for good reasons.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Onomastikon[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 David Bielby dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Fri Sep 12 11:08:47 EDT 2003

[] James 1:25 KATENOHSEN GAR hEAUTON (Follow-up) [] Romans 4:1 TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM…hEURHKENAI is a Perfect Active Infinitive. Does the translation “What shallwe say…that Abraham discovered and continues to discover to this day”accurately reflect the completed and continuing sense of the perfect here?David A. BielbyPastorVineyard Christian Fellowship www.bloomingtonvineyard.orgdbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org

[] James 1:25 KATENOHSEN GAR hEAUTON (Follow-up)[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 12 11:55:35 EDT 2003

[] Romans 4:1 [] Studying the Word of God At 10:08 AM -0500 9/12/03, David Bielby wrote:>TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM…> >hEURHKENAI is a Perfect Active Infinitive. Does the translation “What shall>we say…that Abraham discovered and continues to discover to this day”>accurately reflect the completed and continuing sense of the perfect here?I don’t really think so; if you wanted to say that the results of thediscovery continue to this day, that would be more appropriate to theperfect tense, but when you say “and continues to discover to this day,”you’re moving away from the stative to the imperfective notion. Animperfect ABRAAM hEUREN TAUTA would mean “This is what Abraham has beendiscovering (and continues to discover), and in the indirect-discourseconstruction with the infinitive that would become: TI OUN EROUMENhEURISKEIN ABRAAM …– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Romans 4:1 [] Studying the Word of God

[] Romans 4:1 David Bielby dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Fri Sep 12 12:23:49 EDT 2003

[] Sale: Greek and Hebrew Books! [] Aramaic Background That is very helpful Carl. As a pastor trying to use my NT Greek in sermonexegesis this kind of input is invaluable. Thank you!!David A. BielbyPastorVineyard Christian Fellowship www.bloomingtonvineyard.orgdbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org

[] Sale: Greek and Hebrew Books![] Aramaic Background

[] Romans 4:1 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Jul 25 20:41:31 EDT 2006

[] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16 [] Romans 4:1 Dear list,Someone has proposed the following translation for Romans 4:1:TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAWhat then shall we say, Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? HH: What do you think of that translation? Is that a natural reading of the Greek words?Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 26 08:02:17 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 Begin forwarded message:> From: “gfsomsel at juno.com” <gfsomsel at juno.com>> Date: July 26, 2006 10:35:25 AM EDT> To: hholmyard at ont.com, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1> > Carl,> > Would you please post this. My problem is still not resolved.> > If you take a look at Jn 1.15 it has> > hOUTOS HN hON EIPON> > The object concerning which something is said is in the acc > (PROPATORA is acc so ABRAAM though indeclinable must also be > considered acc). On the other hand, in Lk 17.21 where EREW is used > to introduce direct speach (after a couple of of demonstrative > expressions) the quotation is in normal format with the nominative > subject> > IDOU GAR hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ENTOS hUMWN ESTIN> > It would seem that TI with a form of EIPW was used regularly to > introduce a question CONCERNING something.> > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > — Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:> Dear list,> > Someone has proposed the following translation for Romans 4:1:> > 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: What do you think of that translation? Is that a natural > reading of the Greek words?

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jul 26 08:22:00 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 Dear list,>>From: “gfsomsel at juno.com” <gfsomsel at juno.com>>>Date: July 26, 2006 10:35:25 AM EDT>>To: hholmyard at ont.com, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1>> >>Carl,>> >>Would you please post this. My problem is still not resolved.>> >>If you take a look at Jn 1.15 it has>> >>hOUTOS HN hON EIPON>> >>The object concerning which something is said is in the acc >>(PROPATORA is acc so ABRAAM though indeclinable must also be >>considered acc). On the other hand, in Lk 17.21 where EREW is used >>to introduce direct speach (after a couple of of demonstrative >>expressions) the quotation is in normal format with the nominative >>subject>> >>IDOU GAR hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ENTOS hUMWN ESTIN>> >>It would seem that TI with a form of EIPW was used regularly to >>introduce a question CONCERNING something.>> >> HH: George, I take you to mean that you find the proposed translation unlikely:TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKAWhat then shall we say, Have we found Abraham to be our forefatheraccording 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?Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 26 08:52:23 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Dear list,> >>> From: “gfsomsel at juno.com” <gfsomsel at juno.com>>>> Date: July 26, 2006 10:35:25 AM EDT>>> To: hholmyard at ont.com, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>> Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1>>> >>> Carl,>>> >>> Would you please post this. My problem is still not resolved.>>> >>> If you take a look at Jn 1.15 it has>>> >>> hOUTOS HN hON EIPON>>> >>> The object concerning which something is said is in the acc>>> (PROPATORA is acc so ABRAAM though indeclinable must also be>>> considered acc). On the other hand, in Lk 17.21 where EREW is used>>> to introduce direct speach (after a couple of of demonstrative>>> expressions) the quotation is in normal format with the nominative>>> subject>>> >>> IDOU GAR hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ENTOS hUMWN ESTIN>>> >>> It would seem that TI with a form of EIPW was used regularly to>>> introduce a question CONCERNING something.>>> >>> > > HH: George, I take you to mean that you find the proposed translation> unlikely:> > 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 ?”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Stephen Carlson stemmatic at gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 12:21:58 EDT 2010

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> I don’t think that the Hays-Wright view, “that we have found Abraham … “> fared very well in any of these exchanges — for good reasons.That may be the case, but I think that Iver has overstated it when hewrote about the Hays reading:”However, this is not a possible rendering of the Greek text, andcertainly not accurate.”On the contrary, I think there is fair and reasonable disagreementabout Rom 4:1.Stephen CarlsonObligatory disclaimer: I’m at Duke and Hays is one of my teachers.–Stephen C. CarlsonGraduate Program in ReligionDuke University

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Sep 23 23:49:16 EDT 2010

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Dear Stephen,I do not think I overstated my case.But I would be delighted if you or Richard Hays would present linguistic or contextual evidence and arguments in support of the Lenski/Hays/Wright hypothesis here on this list. You did not take part in the discussion last year.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Stephen Carlson” <stemmatic at gmail.com>To: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Cc: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 23. september 2010 19:21Subject: Re: [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> I don’t think that the Hays-Wright view, “that we have found Abraham … “>> fared very well in any of these exchanges — for good reasons.> > That may be the case, but I think that Iver has overstated it when he> wrote about the Hays reading:> > “However, this is not a possible rendering of the Greek text, and> certainly not accurate.”> > On the contrary, I think there is fair and reasonable disagreement> about Rom 4:1.> > Stephen Carlson> > Obligatory disclaimer: I’m at Duke and Hays is one of my teachers.> —> Stephen C. Carlson> Graduate Program in Religion> Duke University

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Stephen Carlson stemmatic at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 10:57:37 EDT 2010

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> I do not think I overstated my case.In my dialect of English, “this is not a possible rendering of theGreek text” is very strong claim. It is not merely claiming that thereading is wrong, but foolishly wrong.Furthermore, your statement, “I do not know what kind of assumptionslie behind it,” does not suggest to me that you are deeply familiarwith Hays’s case as he made it. His case is laid out in:Richard B. Hays, “’Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefatheraccording to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovumTestamentum 27 (1985): 76-98.Stephen Carlson

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Sep 24 12:24:29 EDT 2010

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long I don’t have access to Hays article, so I mainly have his arguments indirectly from the many commentators that have refuted his reading. When I talk about assumptions I refer to unstated assumptions rather than stated arguments.I would still look forward to a dialogue based on actual evidence and reasoned arguments.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Stephen Carlson” <stemmatic at gmail.com>To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>Cc: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 24. september 2010 17:57Subject: Re: [] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> I do not think I overstated my case.In my dialect of English, “this is not a possible rendering of theGreek text” is very strong claim. It is not merely claiming that thereading is wrong, but foolishly wrong.Furthermore, your statement, “I do not know what kind of assumptionslie behind it,” does not suggest to me that you are deeply familiarwith Hays’s case as he made it. His case is laid out in:Richard B. Hays, “’Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefatheraccording to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovumTestamentum 27 (1985): 76-98.Stephen Carlson

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long

[] 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

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1 [] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long 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, hasfound? (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 ὁθεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. μὴ γένοιτο·EI DE hH ADIKIA hHMWN QEOU DIKAIOSUNHN SUNISTHSIN, TI EROUMEN? MH ADIKOS HO QEOShO 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 forGod to become angry and punish us? What a foolish thing to ask. But the answeris, “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? Byno 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 κατέλαβενδικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνηςεἰς 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 OUKEFQASEN.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 acomplete sentence, punctuated with a question mark immediately following ἐροῦμεν[EROUMEN]That is a simple and correct observation. But that in no way allows us toassume that a question mark could be placed after ἐροῦμεν in 4:1. Hays fails toaddress the question of context and good grammar. In every case, the questionfollowing 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 withaccusative is left hanging and the second half becomes ungrammatical. Theinfinitive with accusative is governed by EROUMEN and should not be artificiallycut off from it. Furthermore, the TI in 4:1 is the object for hEURHKENAI, andcutting the sentence in two destroys that relationship. After cutting thesentence into two halves, Hays suggests to translate the second half as “Have wefound Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” So, he is renderingthe 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 rhetoricalquestion.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 inferencewhich 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

[] Iver Larsen on Rom 4:1[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Sun Sep 26 08:04:25 EDT 2010

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long [] Acts 13,48 —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 4:40 AMSubject: [] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long> 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.Thanks, Iver. A wise old elder once told me that I could preach as long as I wanted — as long as it was good. This was very helpful, and so the length is quite forgivable!N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…Classics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARSbhofstetter at tnars.nethttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long[] Acts 13,48

[] 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

[] MONOGENHS in the fourth gospel [] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bitlong(Iver Larsen) Iver said: “My concern is that Hays’ theoriesare adopted uncritically by people who may find it difficult to evaluate themfrom 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: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: [] 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> >

[] MONOGENHS in the fourth gospel[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bitlong(Iver Larsen)

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bitlong(Iver Larsen) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Sep 27 00:21:07 EDT 2010

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long(Iver Larsen) [] Check out my books Sorry, I probably should not have voiced my concern. It goes outside the scope of this list. Among other things I was thinking of his statement about the peculiar translation of this verse that I quoted on July 20, 2009.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Brian Abasciano” <bvabasciano at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 26. september 2010 22:36Subject: Re: [] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long(Iver Larsen)> 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.)

[] Rom 4:1 – what shall we say? – warning: a bit long(Iver Larsen)[] Check out my books

[] Romans 4:1 Stephen Payne spayneop at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 26 09:00:13 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 This is clearly a case of indirect discourse. In indirect discourse the dependent clause is set with its verb in the infinitive and, if different than the main verb, the subject in the accustive. Now, hHNWN is genitive so it cannot be the subject of hEURHKENAI, which also means that the subject for it must be taken as the same for EROUMEN. Since the main verb is future tense, the verb in indirect discourse will be future or present tense. Thus, “What then shall we say we find Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?” But TI can also mean “why?” So, perhaps, “Why then shall we say we find Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?”Yours,Stephen Payne>From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>>To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:22:00 -0500> >Dear list,> > >>From: “gfsomsel at juno.com” <gfsomsel at juno.com>> >>Date: July 26, 2006 10:35:25 AM EDT> >>To: hholmyard at ont.com, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> >>Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1> >>> >>Carl,> >>> >>Would you please post this. My problem is still not resolved.> >>> >>If you take a look at Jn 1.15 it has> >>> >>hOUTOS HN hON EIPON> >>> >>The object concerning which something is said is in the acc> >>(PROPATORA is acc so ABRAAM though indeclinable must also be> >>considered acc). On the other hand, in Lk 17.21 where EREW is used> >>to introduce direct speach (after a couple of of demonstrative> >>expressions) the quotation is in normal format with the nominative> >>subject> >>> >>IDOU GAR hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ENTOS hUMWN ESTIN> >>> >>It would seem that TI with a form of EIPW was used regularly to> >>introduce a question CONCERNING something.> >>> >>> >HH: George, I take you to mean that you find the proposed translation>unlikely:> >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?> >Yours,>Harold Holmyard> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 26 09:54:00 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWNKATA SARKAWhat then shall we say, Have we found Abraham to beour forefather according to the flesh?I’ll speculate here.And the answer is No.If we can understand KATA SARKA in the sense “in hisflesh” (that is, according to his own effort, orbetter still, according to his works) then vs 11 wouldcomplete the argument started here……so that he would become the father of all those whobelieve but have never been circumcised (NET Bible)[where ‘believe’ is faith and ‘circumcised’ is works]Abraham becomes our (Gentiles) forefather on the basisof faith, not works. I guess this would require thissection to be primarily addressed to Gentilebelievers. Chapt 3 starts off to the Jews, perhaps chp4 starts off for the Gentiles. Therefore, Abrahambecomes the forefather for BOTH the Jew and Gentile,and as argued elsewhere, Abraham is even theforefather to the Jews on the basis of faith.Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Wed Jul 26 09:57:54 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 > This is clearly a case of indirect discourse. In indirect > discourse the dependent clause is set with its verb in the > infinitive and, if different than the main verb, the > subject in the accustive. So wouldn’t that indicate ABRAAM/TON PROPATORA as the subject of theinfinitive?While I’m at it, can I ask, is it possible for KATA SARKA to be modifyingeither PROPATORA or hEURHKENAI?BTW I also notice there is a textual variant on the location of hEURHKENAI.Would its location influence how you might tend to translate that verse?–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jul 26 10:00:35 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 Dear Stephen,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?>This is clearly a case of indirect discourse. In indirect discourse the >dependent clause is set with its verb in the infinitive and, if different >than the main verb, the subject in the accustive. Now, hHNWN is genitive so >it cannot be the subject of hEURHKENAI, which also means that the subject >for it must be taken as the same for EROUMEN. Since the main verb is future >tense, the verb in indirect discourse will be future or present tense. >Thus, “What then shall we say we find Abraham our forefather according to >the flesh?” But TI can also mean “why?” So, perhaps, “Why then shall we >say we find Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?”> > HH: The subject of the infinitive can be Abraham.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Wed Jul 26 10:08:48 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 > 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 ?”> > 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/Hi Carl.If question is ‘Did we discover Abraham to be our forefather fleshly (andnot, say, spiritually or according to faith or promise), and the answer isunderstood as ‘no’, does that get past your thought about first losing him?–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 26 10:20:48 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Craig J wrote:>> 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 ?”>> >> 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/> > Hi Carl.> > If question is ‘Did we discover Abraham to be our forefather > fleshly (and> not, say, spiritually or according to faith or promise), and the > answer is> understood as ‘no’, does that get past your thought about first > losing him?Not really, because that really seems about as far-fetched a reading of the text in context.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Stephen Payne spayneop at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 26 10:48:44 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 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.Regards,Stephen Payne>From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>>To: B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] Romans 4:1>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:00:35 -0500> >Dear Stephen,> >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?> > > >This is clearly a case of indirect discourse. In indirect discourse the> >dependent clause is set with its verb in the infinitive and, if different> >than the main verb, the subject in the accustive. Now, hHNWN is genitive >so> >it cannot be the subject of hEURHKENAI, which also means that the subject> >for it must be taken as the same for EROUMEN. Since the main verb is >future> >tense, the verb in indirect discourse will be future or present tense.> >Thus, “What then shall we say we find Abraham our forefather according to> >the flesh?” But TI can also mean “why?” So, perhaps, “Why then shall we> >say we find Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?”> >> >> >HH: The subject of the infinitive can be Abraham.> >Yours,>Harold Holmyard>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jul 26 11:53:39 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 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 SARKAHowever, 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

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Stephen Payne spayneop at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 26 13:46:02 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16 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: [] 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>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 4:1[] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16

[] Romans 4:1 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jul 26 14:23:25 EDT 2006

[] Romans 4:1 [] Romans 4:1 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//2002-January/019973.htmlRichard 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/> > > > .>

[] Romans 4:1[] Romans 4:1

[] Romans 4:1 Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Thu Jul 27 12:32:54 EDT 2006

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? [] Ephesians 1:3-4 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: <-request at lists.ibiblio.org>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:00 PMSubject: Digest, Vol 43, Issue 30> Send mailing list submissions to> at lists.ibiblio.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> or, via email, send a message with subject or body ‘help’ to> -request at lists.ibiblio.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at> -owner at lists.ibiblio.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than “Re: Contents of 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: [] 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: [] 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: [] 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>>—>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > ——————————> > Message: 3> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:23:25 -0500> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>> Subject: Re: [] 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//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: [] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Cc: 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: [] The meaning of “theopneustos” in 2 Timothy 3:16> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <000001c6afdd$001865f0$2f01a8c0 at barry>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > > >> —–Original Message—–>> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]>> On Behalf Of Leonard Jayawardena>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:39 AM>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: [] 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: [] The use of EN in 2 Cor 8:7> To: 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 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: [] “attain” for “find”?> To: < 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: [] 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> > > > > > ——————————> > > > _______________________________________________> > mailing list> > <mailto: at lists.ibiblio.org> at lists.ibiblio.org> > <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > End of 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: [] “attain” for “find”?> To: < 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: [] 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>> >> >> >> >> >> ——————————>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________>> >> mailing list>> >> <mailto: at lists.ibiblio.org> at lists.ibiblio.org>> >> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> http://>> lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> >> End of Digest, Vol 43, Issue 29>> >> ***********>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > 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: [] “attain” for “find”?> To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>, > < 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> > > ——————————> > _______________________________________________> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > End of Digest, Vol 43, Issue 30> ***************************************

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?[] Ephesians 1:3-4