New Perspective and Abraham in Romans 4

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:18 am

Jeff, if you have time to read this paper (8 page .pdf file) let me know what you think about the translation of Romans 4:1. The translation proposed by Hayes and others (although each is slightly different) is possible, and in my opinion makes more theological and contextual sense. I thought you might find interest in the linguistic side of it.

"Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe"

take care,
Adam

Joined: 15 Mar 2005 Posts: 6 Location: Moscow, Idaho

Hi Adam,

My apologies for taking so long to respond to this post. I haven't had much time to look at the forum in the last couple of weeks.

Michael Cranford makes some good points in this article. One in particular that is important: when the Apostle Paul writes that Abraham was NOT justified by works, he has in mind primarily works of covenant status such as circumcision, not "good works" such as giving alms to the poor, etc. Abraham's circumcision and resulting covenant status were not the source of his justification; rather, God considered him righteous for his belief (faith) in God's promises.

However, it seems to me that Hays' "alternative" translation of Romans 4:1 ("What then shall we say? Have we [Jews] found (on the basis of Scripture) that Abraham [is] our forefather according to the flesh?") is extremely strained and unnatural. For one thing, Hays has very little reason to add so many words to his translation that are not found in the Greek text. Also, Hays' linguistic analysis of the question Ti oun eroumen? throughout Romans, finding this phrase to be a complete question normally followed by a new thought, is irrelevant because Romans 4:1 is the only place in Romans where this question is followed by an infinitive. In other words, Romans 4:1 stands alone, with no other passage in Romans that is a close parallel in grammar, and so we have to take it on its own merits.

A third point against Hays' reading is that he depends on the Critical Text (identified by Cranford as the "Nestle-Aland version"), which is based on a much smaller Greek textual base than the Byzantine Text. Both our Textus Receptus and recent editions of the "Majority Text" are based on the far better-attested Byzantine Text. In the Byzantine Text, the order of words in Romans 4:1 is different, making Hays' alternate translation all but unthinkable.

So I think the traditional interpretation comes out far stronger than Hays' alternative reading. Since Paul calls Abraham "our father" here, he seems to be speaking as a Jew addressing Jews. In this context, it is nonsense to understand the question as: "Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?" Of course Abraham was the fleshly forefather of the Jews--what would be the point of questioning that fact? Cranford argues that the true answer to this question is "no," as if Abraham's being the physical ancestor of the Jews would have somehow made it impossible for him to be the spiritual father of the Gentiles. But the Bible makes no such dichotomy. Even when Jesus denied that His Jewish opponents were spiritual children of Abraham, He still affirmed the obvious fact that they were Abraham's fleshly descendants (John 8:37; cf. vv. 39-40). So Hays' translation comes out as a strange denial of a universally accepted truism, thus forming a puzzling non sequitur in the context.

The two versions of Romans 4:1 in simplified form:

(Hays/Cranford)
Q: Is Abraham the forefather of the Jews according to the flesh?
A: No! Abraham is the spiritual father of all who believe. (non sequitur)

(Traditional view, which I support)
Q: What did Abraham, himself the father of the Jews according to the flesh, find (in regard to faith and works)?
A: Abraham was justified by faith without reference to works (such as circumcision), and so must we be (whether Jew or Gentile).

Jeff

P.S. I hope I haven't missed something important. Hays' translation seems so bizarre and counterintuitive that I keep thinking I may have misunderstood him. But then, Cranford himself admits that Hays' "translation has not been well received by most recent commentators" (page 2, paragraph 2).

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:46 pm

I don't know If I would call it bizarre. Other New Testament scholars agree with his translation.

N.T. Wright:
"What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the fles?" This is not, of course, what any of the commentaries or translations say, but it has a strong claim to represent Paul's mind. Three reasons stand out. First, it introduces the chapter Paul is writing, as opposed to the one that many think he should have written; in other words, a chatper about the scope and nature of Abrham's family, rather than a chapter about "justification by faith" as a doctrine about how people become Christians. This, as we shall see, results in the straightforward solution of at least one major exegetical problem. Second, it recognizes that when Paul introduces an argument with ti ouv epovuev ti oun eroumen, "what then shall we say?" this phrase is frequently compete in itself requiring a question mark at once. (There is, of course, no punctuation in the earliest mss.) Obvious examples are 6:1; 7:7; see also ti ouv (ti oun) in 3:9. Thrid, it avoids at a stroke the awkwardness of sense, and hence of translation, in the usual readings (of which the NRSV and the NIV are typical) in which Abraham is the subject of eupnkevai heurekenai, "to have found", rather than the object as in the reading proposed; sinse it is not clear what "to have found" could possilby mean in this context, the sense of the verb has to be stretched as in the NRSV ("was gained by") and NIV ("discovered"), neither of which lead in to what Paul is actually going to say. The proposal, then is that Paul raises in v. 1 a possible conclusion that could be drawn from what has been said so far, in order to argue against it.
At this point, however, I diverge from the meaning Hays gives to his own proposed reading. He suggests that Pauls wantes to say "have we jews normally considered Abraham to be our forefather only according to the flesh?" I suggest, rather, that the whole of Romans 4 hinges on the question, whether 3:21-31 means that we Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, now find that we are to be members of the fleshly family of Abraham (note how the word "find" suddenly makes perfect sense). In other words (Paul is proposing this as a hypothetical question), if in Christ God has been true to the covenant with Abraham, might that not mean, as the Galations had been led to believe, that members of the Christ-family in fact belong to Abraham's fleshly family? When we read Romans 4 as the answer to this question, it gains in coherence and force."

Perhaps I'll quote the rest later, but that's enough for now.
I totally agree with Wright on this.