Why isn’t there a question mark in Romans 4:1a? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I ask because I wonder if someone might explain the logic behind the what appears to me to be an inconsistency.
I have available to me the NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, and the UBS 3. In each one Romans 4:1 reads as follows:
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
Ti oun eroumen heurēkenai Abraam ton propatora hēmōn kata sarka?
This passage is translated in the NASB as “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?” Some like Richard B. Hays and N.T. Wright have contended that it should be interpreted something like “What then shall we say? Is Abraham to be found our forefather according to the flesh?” I’m not interested in discussing whether Hays and Wright are correct over against the majority as much as I wondering why there is no question mark inserted after Ti oun eroumen/Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν when this is the case throughout Romans. This sentence appears in 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30. In each case Ti oun eroumen/Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν (What then shall we say) is followed with a question mark, save 8:31 because the sentence is longer because of an additional prepositional phrase: “What then shall we say to these things?”
6:1—Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, UBS 3)
7:7—Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, UBS 3)
8:31—Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα; (NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, UBS 3)
9:14—Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, UBS 3)
9:30—Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (NA 28, NA 27, SBL GNT, UBS 3)
After this interrogative sentence there is an infinitive (“to be” verb =εὑρηκέναι/heurēkenai trans. “to have found) followed by an indeclinable proper noun (that is an accusative since it is appositional to the following “forefather” ) in 4:1 whereas 6:1 has a subjunctive verb followed by dative article and noun; 7:7 a nominative article and noun; 8:31 a conditional conjunction followed by a nominative article and noun; 9:14 a negative particle followed by a nominative noun; and 9:30 a substantive conjunction followed by a nominative noun. The two important differences between 4:1 and the other references appear to be the presence of an infinitive and the noun being in an accusative state. Is this the motivation for supposing that the sentence continues whereas the sentence is determined to have ended in the other examples?
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian: One thing to consider is how εὑρηκέναι is functioning in the sentence. Most translations seem to take it with respect to what Abraham found when (at least to my quick reading) it appears more likely that Paul is referring to what he and his interlocutors are finding in the case of Abraham. If that is the case, it would be important to not put ἐροῦμεν and εὑρηκέναι in different sentences by adding the question mark (“;”) in the GNT. In Doug Moo’s older commentary on Romans (Wycliff Exegetical Commentary 1991) he translates Romans 4:1 in a way that is consistent with this understanding: “What then shall we say is the situation with respect to Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?”
Are you familiar with Tobin’s book on Paul’s rhetoric in Romans? He may address this issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Rhetoric-Its-Contexts-Argument/dp/0801047870
@mvpc:
So you’re suggesting that these GNTs don’t use a question mark because their convinced that “to have found” must be connected to “What then shall we say…” If so, I think you’re right that this is the logic. That would seem to go against Wright/Hays who aim to begin a second sentence with an infinitival clause.
@Joshua:
Funny thing is I saw that book at Half Priced on Tuesday. I opted to purchased Dunn’s two volume The Christ and the Spirit instead. If I can find a copy I will see if he says anything.
I flipped through it at Half Price the other day as well, and it looks pretty good (though the fact that HPB has so many copies of it makes me curious…). He actually addresses Paul’s use of rhetorical questions throughout the epistle, which is what captured my attention initially. Alas, I realized that I probably don’t need to buy the book just to serve as a footnote in my thesis, and opted to utilize our fine inter-library loan system here in KC instead.
True, the library is often more useful when it comes to books that may not be wholly worth purchasing. San Antonio’s library isn’t that great for biblical studies (even the colleges/universities are lacking), but maybe I’ll come across a copy.
The question is whether or not we correctly understand the Abrahamic covenant and references to Abraham. Because Abraham was the common ancestor Israelites looked to according to the flesh Christian theologians often assumes that Abrahamic citation are therefore fleshly.
Some are, but not all. [Rom 4:1] isn’t according to context (good on you for reading the text …)
Paul is trying to make this very point that Abraham was not just forefather according to the flesh, but more importantly, he was forefather of the inheritance of the Spirit (of the covenant) which is the Spirit that takes servants and turns them into sons. Paul says this in [Rom 9:6] – “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.” These are all inheritance of the Spirit, none are of the flesh. Read [Rom 7:14] carefully: If the law is spiritual, so is the covenant.
Before looking back at [Rom 4:1], look at [Rom 9:13]. Both Jacob and Esau equally received equally inheritance of the flesh from Isaac (and so from Abraham), but both did not equally inherit equally the inheritance of the Spirit. Jacob loved God, and honoured him – Esau did not. Accordingly the promises to Abraham fell to Jacob alone (as they had done to Isaac). God’s promises available to both, were not received by both.
Therefore [Rom 4:1] is speaking about New Covenant inheritance as a consequence of the Abrahamic promise (which implies perhaps we need to understand better what these promises were).
There is no question here because Paul has made an argument to this point whose conclusion is obvious that Abraham is not merely Israel’s forefather according to the flesh, but also according to the Spirit. This conclusion is unspoken but obvious in the minds of the audience:
[Gen 15:6] “And he (Abraham) believed YHWH, and He (YHWH) counted it to him (Abraham) as righteousness.”
This is what Abraham bequeaths.
FWIW, my central concern here applies to the decision of those who compiled these GNT. I’m wondering what grammatical signs led them to avoid placing a question mark at the same place where they customarily place a question mark.
Brian: I don’t think there are any grammatical signs. Frequently punctuation is a matter of judgment based on context and not on grammar. If εὑρηκέναι goes with Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα then a question mark makes sense and would be consistent with the five passages you mentioned above. If εὑρηκέναι goes with ἐροῦμεν then there should not be a question mark. The fact that the editors didn’t include a question mark when they did in the five passages you mentioned leads me to believe that they either (1) Preferred the latter reading; or (2) Wanted to leave open the question of how εὑρηκέναι is functioning. There is no way to avoid such contextual judgments.
Does the expectation of μὴ γένοιτο factor into this at all? That happens in 6:1, 7:7, and 9:14, but not in 4.1, 8.31, and 9.30.
There’s also a τί ἐροῦμεν in 3.5.
@mvpc:
I think you’re right and it is likely a combination of (1) and (2). Every English translation I’ve seen prefers the traditional translation and I presume that it would be “making a statement” to insert the question marker earlier.
@Matthew: Interesting observation, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I don’t see the expectation of a segment clause as playing a factor.
@Matthew:
It appears that they consistently see “What (then) shall we say?” as needing a question mark because these are forward pointing interrogatives. What then –> this. I presume in 4:1 they see it as being a bit extended: What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather according to the flesh has found? –> he found that if his righteousness was by works he’d have reason to boast. The Hays/Wright proposal would be: “What then shall we say? –> Is Abraham to be found our forefather according to the flesh?”
I would how often forward pointing interrogatives direct the reader to another question?
Ah, sorry.
FWIW the latter fits with the context of the argument “What then shall we say? –> Is Abraham to be found our forefather according to the flesh.“
Right. While οὖν provides our transition, τί wants to move us forward. In that case, more from chapter three could be included if we’re widening it to forward-pointing questions (e.g., 3.27, 31).
(I’m admittedly quite rusty on my Greek! So, here goes…) As far as the anticipation of μὴ γένοιτο, I just remember that being helpful in terms of seeing how those sections were constructed rhetorically. Is he answering the question now or building up the answer for later? I haven’t delved much further into each context to see what that does for his arguments. And maybe it doesn’t help us in 4.1.
The implied answer for 8.31, for instance, comes with the ἀλλ᾿ in 8.37 — but only after a long series of questions. 3.27, 31 use ἀλλὰ as well.( Actually, interestingly, ἀλλὰ seems connected with “faith” in point/counterpoint sets [?] in chapters three and four.)
And do you mean rhetorical or interrogative questions? Steve Runge would distinguish those. I’ve been reading him lately when I can as part of my efforts to restore my Greek. His posts on distinguishing ἀλλὰ and εἰ μή in context were how/why I noticed those in ch 3-4, 8. This is all making me want to buy the Lexham Discourse NT. And I’m gonna stop here because I feel I’m being too tangential now.
@Matthew:
I’m not necessarily making a distinction between the two. What I’m wondering is this: do forward pointing questions usually receive answers immediately or is it common for a question to be an answer of sorts. So in 4:1 the traditional interpretation makes all of 4:1 into an interrogative sentence and then 4:2 follows it with an answer, but Hays/Wright use 4:1a as a question which then feeds directly into another question in 4:1b.
I see in 8:31, as you’ve noted, it does move from a question to another question. The same is true of 6:1 and 9:14, so it is apparent that it wouldn’t be odd for Paul to ask a forward pointing question followed by another question.
As regards the LDNT, yes, it’s nice to have! I am reading Runge’s book right now as well. Very helpful for thinking about Greek as Greek, rather than how it transitions into English.
@Andrew:
I agree. I think the Hays/Wright proposal has a lot going for it regarding understanding the broader context of Romans 3-4.