Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
I have seen this phrase from Romans 4.1 translated three ways:
(1) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? (NASB)
(2) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather has found according to the flesh? (NASB, fn)
(3) What shall we say then? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? (N.T. Wright, Richard Hays)
Each translation impacts the rest of the passage quite differently.
If we translate it as (1) or (2) the question is about Abraham and what he found. If we translate it was (3) it is about what “we” (Paul and his readers) have found.
If we translate it as (1) Abraham, our forefather, has found that if he was justified by works he would have something about which he could boast, but he was justified by faith.
If we translate it as (2) the meaning is similar but Abraham is not said to be “our” forefather according to the flesh. Rather, what he found was “according to the flesh.” How should we interpret κατὰ σάρκα in this situation? Did he find through his flesh that if he was justified by works he would have something about which he could boast, but that he was justified by faith instead? If he did this “through the flesh” what does this mean?
If we translate it as (3)–something I have seen proposed by N.T. Wright and Richard Hays–then the question for Paul and his readers is whether or not Abraham was their forefather “according to the flesh.” The rhetorical answer seems to be “no” because Abraham was not justified by his works, but by faith, and this informs Paul’s discussion on circumcision and uncircumcision in vv. 9-15.
Do you have an opinion on what translation makes sense? If so, I’d like to hear your reasons.
the archives near Emmaus 
I’ve been translating through Romans, without knowledge of the above translation options, and my sense of the verse falls closest to the third option. One reason is grammar (the other two are awkward renderings of the Gk). The other reason is the sense of the argument as a whole, namely, understanding our relationship TO Abraham, and not an objective discussion OF Abraham.
I’d have to agree with #3. I think that both Wright and Perriman have done a good job of explaining how the crisis in Romans is one to do with transition from a presumption of salvation through membership in Israel to salvation through faith in God just as Abraham showed. Wright’s perspective on Galatians mirrors this and makes that book come alive. But, this is all quite challenging to the Reformed approach to the vocabulary of redemption. It’s no wonder they are in a panic over Wright’s work.
I share the view Paul is teaching us about our relationship to Abraham as his heir based on faith, so I also opt for 3. The “Israel or faith” debate back then is there, however, it seems to me Paul changed that paradigm into “faith in Jesus Christ makes you the authentic Israel of God” as opposed to following Torah, being an ethnic Jew,etc.
Tischendorf 8th Ed. (which it gets from the Codex Sinaiticus):
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα.
Textus Receptus (1550), and Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) have:
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα.
The word order change, and emphasis you’re seeing is a function of the underlying text (though apparently N.T. Wright doesn’t justify his exegesis on linguistic grounds, but on contextual ones), that and εὑρίσκω sometimes takes a double accusative making Ἀβραὰμ the object possible.
Nevertheless, you ask an interesting question. Preference-wise, of the three (2.) is worst. (3.) works best with with the theme Paul weaves throughout much of Romans.
Specifically [Romans 9:6b-9]: “For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, nor are they all children because they are descendants of Abraham, but “In Isaac will your descendants be named.” That is, it is not the children ⌞by human descent⌟ who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.”
Abraham had Ishmael and Isaac (so both had equal blood claim to the inheritance Abraham might bequeath), but Ishmael was born of the flesh (born of the slave-women through Abraham’s works) actually and figuratively, while Isaac was born of the Spirit (faith in the promise of God, though Abraham’s wife the recipient). Isaac alone was the child of the promise then being the produce of a spiritual blessing and not human effort.
So yes, Abraham was their forefather by human descent but that’s not how they qualified for the covenant bequeathed by Abraham. As Paul says, it was not by Abraham’s works it was by faith in God’s promise.
I like (3.) best.
Patrick, it isn’t ‘Israel of faith’ …
.. it’s ‘Israel because of faith’.
Number 3 is Richard Hays’ argument, made in an article that has become important in the history of scholarship: “‘Have We Found Abraham to be Our Forefather According to the flesh?:’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 (1985): 76–98. NT Wright picks up on Hays’ suggestion; it’s not his own independent insight.
I prefer (3) on grammatical and contextual grounds.
Romans 4.1, as translated according to (3), introduces the following section as a discussion of the nature of Abraham’s paternity. This speaks to Paul’s claims in 3.20-31, where he dissociates the law from how the Judean god righteouses Christ followers — and then claims in 3.31 that in affirming a law-dissociated righteousing he’s upholding the law. Paul seeks to demonstrate his claim in 3.31 through a discussion of the nature of Abraham’s paternity in Rom 4, which operates within certain ancient sensitivities about ethnicity and descent (some of which are well outlined in Caroline Johnson Hodge’s excellent book, If Sons, then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007]).
Paul uses 4.1-2 and then 4.2-8 to frame his discussion of Abraham’s paternity: according to the flesh (which he also talks about in terms of if Abraham was righteoused from works [of the law]) or (Abraham’s) faith, which he dissociates from law in 4.3-8. The chapter then consistently continues its focus on establishing Abraham as the patriarchic head of a lineage defined by his faithfulness, and not law obedience. The point isn’t primarily that Abraham is a proto-example of righteousness by faith (and thus the law teaching righteousness by faith for Christ followers), but that he obtained the Judean god’s promises for himself and his descendants through (according to Paul) law-dissociated faith. Within the ancient ethnicity and descent sensitivities evident in Paul’s discourse in Rom 4, descendants share in the characteristics of their ancestors (because they are considered to have been in their ancestors). Thus the nature of Abraham’s paternity can speak to how Paul’s claims in 3.20-31 can uphold the law. Since Abraham’s paternity is defined by his faith and not the law, so too are his true descendants characterized by faith.
Running through this whole presentation of Abraham is emphasis on him as a decisive figure whose faith brings about the inclusion of others, his descendants, into the Judean god’s ethnic promises to him — in other words, Abraham’s faith causes others to be righteoused. As such, and this is another important aspect of Hays’ article and the work of various scholars who have picked up on it (though Hays, like many scholars, misses how fundamentally ethnicity-embedded Paul’s gospel remains), Abraham is more of a proto-type of Christ than primarily an example for Christ followers of righteousness by faith. In these various ways Paul’s discussion of the nature of Abraham’s paternity serves to explain how affirming a law-dissociated righteousing of Gentile Christ followers actually upholds the law.
I lean toward (3) as well for most the reason given by Stephen. In my ThM thesis which focused on Romans I presented this position and received quite a bit of push-back from one of my supervisors. I was surprised, but I guess for many (1) is precious to them.
Andrew,
Yes, Israel because of faith. Agreed.