Robyn Banks
April 5th 2003, 07:42 PM
Romans 4.1 is usually translated along these lines:
"What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? "
However, there are sound arguments for a different translation of ti oun eroumen eurekenai abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka
The phrase should arguably be translated as follows:
‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’
Thus, after Paul’s discussion of this hypothetical question along three interrelated fronts (works, circumcision and law), he answers the question in the negative in 4.11b-12 and 4.16-17.
The variants
The Greek test of Romans 4.1 is uncertain, and there are a number of variants:
1. Per א*, A, C*, 81, 365, 1506 and Coptic versions:
ti oun eroumen eurekenai abraam ton propatora hemon kata. sarka
(א 1, C3, D, F, G, Y and Latin versions replace propatora with patera.)
Translations:
a) ‘What then are we to say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, found?’
b) ‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’
The replacement of the familiar patera with the rare propatora argues for the authenticity of the latter.
2. Per B, 6, 1739, etc:
ti oun eroumen abraam ton patera hemon kata sarka
Translations:
c) ‘What then are we to say about Abraham, our father according to the flesh?’
d) ‘What then? Shall we call Abraham our father according to the flesh?’
It is hard to see how the B readings gave rise to א. The reverse is more probable, as a result of scribal error from confusing the two similar beginnings of eroumen and eurekenai, or the deliberate attempt at correcting a difficult text.
The א manuscripts also have the better attestation.
3. Per K, L, P, etc:
ti oun eroumen abraam ton patera hemon eurekenai kata sarka
Translation:
‘What then are we to say Abraham our father found according to the flesh?’
There is no significant support for this text. Dabourne notes it is “suspiciously easy, as it takes the anarthrous phrase kata sarka with eurekenai, thus smoothing the grammar.”
Interpretations
Discounting (3), the following points may be made concerning interpretations (a), (b), (c) and (d):
• (a) and (c) take kata sarka as an adjective. Strictly this requires the article, but this is not always the case.
• Scholars are divided whether option (c) requires a peri for its construction. Whereas, the construction in (d) is straightforward.
• In support of (b), Paul’s phrase ‘ti oun eroumen’ is often complete in itself, and common to diatribal style. But there is no other example of its use in Paul’s dialogue simply as the opening of a substantial question.
• Hays objects that the perfect eurekenai in (a) should be an aorist, given that Abraham is long-dead. This is not necessarily so. Hays is on better ground in claiming the infinitive is correct where (b) is the translation.
• If ‘Abraham’ is objective, the second sentence in (b) and (d) open with an infinitive accusative (eurekenai) which has no object, which Dunn considers “rather odd.” Yet, as a “mannerism of diatribal speech in a text that was spoken and intended to be heard,” Dabourne counters that it in fact sounds thoroughly “normal.”
• Wright considers it awkward to treat Abraham as the subject in (a), given that what follows does not really involve Abraham ‘finding’ something. Dunn defends Abraham as subject, as one who ‘found grace’, and that Paul was alluding to the LXX phrase euriskein carin (‘to find grace’). The perfect tense of eurekenai (‘to have found’) would then foreshadow Paul’s point that, what Abraham found, it was firstly by favour, which determined his later standing. Dunn’s reason is dubious: it unreasonably requires the implied reader to have had knowledge of the LXX grace/works connotation of eurekenai.
• Dunn considers that if Abraham is subject, as in (a), it focuses attention on Abraham as the “test-case.” This is not persuasive, as Abraham is clearly an example of Paul’s point on both renderings.
• While (b) strengthens the link to 4.11 and 4.16, Dunn points out that it weakens the immediate link to what follows in 4.2-8.
• Option (b) has the advantage of retaining “we” as the subject, from Rom 3.31.
• kata sarka, while not necessarily a pejorative phrase, is always limiting. Read as such, it places limits on Abraham’s fatherhood, and is not merely neutral. This favours (b), as Paul goes on to rebut v2a as an incorrect hypothesis.
There are no insuperable grammatical concerns with (b), or indeed with the other translations. The decision rests on what makes the best sense of the context of what follows in chapter 4, and in fact leads to an answer to the question posed (in 4.11b-12 and 4.16-17). As such, we prefer (b) as the better translation:
‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’
"What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? "
However, there are sound arguments for a different translation of ti oun eroumen eurekenai abraam ton propatora hemon kata sarka
The phrase should arguably be translated as follows:
‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’
Thus, after Paul’s discussion of this hypothetical question along three interrelated fronts (works, circumcision and law), he answers the question in the negative in 4.11b-12 and 4.16-17.
The variants
The Greek test of Romans 4.1 is uncertain, and there are a number of variants:
1. Per א*, A, C*, 81, 365, 1506 and Coptic versions:
ti oun eroumen eurekenai abraam ton propatora hemon kata. sarka
(א 1, C3, D, F, G, Y and Latin versions replace propatora with patera.)
Translations:
a) ‘What then are we to say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, found?’
b) ‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’
The replacement of the familiar patera with the rare propatora argues for the authenticity of the latter.
2. Per B, 6, 1739, etc:
ti oun eroumen abraam ton patera hemon kata sarka
Translations:
c) ‘What then are we to say about Abraham, our father according to the flesh?’
d) ‘What then? Shall we call Abraham our father according to the flesh?’
It is hard to see how the B readings gave rise to א. The reverse is more probable, as a result of scribal error from confusing the two similar beginnings of eroumen and eurekenai, or the deliberate attempt at correcting a difficult text.
The א manuscripts also have the better attestation.
3. Per K, L, P, etc:
ti oun eroumen abraam ton patera hemon eurekenai kata sarka
Translation:
‘What then are we to say Abraham our father found according to the flesh?’
There is no significant support for this text. Dabourne notes it is “suspiciously easy, as it takes the anarthrous phrase kata sarka with eurekenai, thus smoothing the grammar.”
Interpretations
Discounting (3), the following points may be made concerning interpretations (a), (b), (c) and (d):
• (a) and (c) take kata sarka as an adjective. Strictly this requires the article, but this is not always the case.
• Scholars are divided whether option (c) requires a peri for its construction. Whereas, the construction in (d) is straightforward.
• In support of (b), Paul’s phrase ‘ti oun eroumen’ is often complete in itself, and common to diatribal style. But there is no other example of its use in Paul’s dialogue simply as the opening of a substantial question.
• Hays objects that the perfect eurekenai in (a) should be an aorist, given that Abraham is long-dead. This is not necessarily so. Hays is on better ground in claiming the infinitive is correct where (b) is the translation.
• If ‘Abraham’ is objective, the second sentence in (b) and (d) open with an infinitive accusative (eurekenai) which has no object, which Dunn considers “rather odd.” Yet, as a “mannerism of diatribal speech in a text that was spoken and intended to be heard,” Dabourne counters that it in fact sounds thoroughly “normal.”
• Wright considers it awkward to treat Abraham as the subject in (a), given that what follows does not really involve Abraham ‘finding’ something. Dunn defends Abraham as subject, as one who ‘found grace’, and that Paul was alluding to the LXX phrase euriskein carin (‘to find grace’). The perfect tense of eurekenai (‘to have found’) would then foreshadow Paul’s point that, what Abraham found, it was firstly by favour, which determined his later standing. Dunn’s reason is dubious: it unreasonably requires the implied reader to have had knowledge of the LXX grace/works connotation of eurekenai.
• Dunn considers that if Abraham is subject, as in (a), it focuses attention on Abraham as the “test-case.” This is not persuasive, as Abraham is clearly an example of Paul’s point on both renderings.
• While (b) strengthens the link to 4.11 and 4.16, Dunn points out that it weakens the immediate link to what follows in 4.2-8.
• Option (b) has the advantage of retaining “we” as the subject, from Rom 3.31.
• kata sarka, while not necessarily a pejorative phrase, is always limiting. Read as such, it places limits on Abraham’s fatherhood, and is not merely neutral. This favours (b), as Paul goes on to rebut v2a as an incorrect hypothesis.
There are no insuperable grammatical concerns with (b), or indeed with the other translations. The decision rests on what makes the best sense of the context of what follows in chapter 4, and in fact leads to an answer to the question posed (in 4.11b-12 and 4.16-17). As such, we prefer (b) as the better translation:
‘What, then, are we to say? That we have found Abraham [to be] our forefather according to the flesh?’