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?

Advertisements