Interpretation of Rom 4:1

Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Jan 28 23:46:10 EST 2002


Gleen,
Great!

[Glenn]
> I had asked
> >>Can verbs of "saying"
> >> in NTG take an infinitive without accusative "subject" as a complement?
>  
> Moon answered
> 
> >Consider 
> >Lu 24:23: HLQON LEGOUSAI KAI OPTASIAN AGGELWN hEWRAKENAI
> >          [came  saying  also vision   of angels to see] 
> 
> OK.  That would seem to answer my question.  Languages subcategorize verbs
> rather arbitrarily as to whether the infinitival complement of a particular
> verb needs an explicit "subject" of the infinitive or not.  For example, in
> English,
> 
>  I decided _____{i} to go.
>  I said _____{j} to go.
> *I told _____{i or j} to go
>  I told him to go      OR     I told myself to go.
> 
> (Where ____{i} denotes a null infinitival subject co-referential with the
> subject of the matrix clause, and ____{j} denotes a null infinitival subject
> with a different referent.)
> 

Perfect! I wish those who are for or against Hays' syntactical
analysis of Rom 4.1 would pay attention to this kind of argument in the
future.


[2] About the structure of Paul's argument thgough Rom 3-4:

[Glenn]
>ISTM Ro 4.1 fits this latter pattern better:
> 
> Statement -- The circumcised and the uncircumcised alike are justified by
> faith.  (3.30)
> Inference -- Then even the Jews were justified by faith, not by the deeds of
> the law.
> Question -- What, then, would we say Abraham, our father according to the
> flesh, discovered?
> Answer -- "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
> righteousness." (4.3)
> Further explanation -- (4.4-5) ". . . to him who does not work but believes
> . . . his faith is accounted for righteousness." 
>  

My working hypothesis for Romans seems different from yours underlying the
above
paraphrase. Our discussion crucially depends on how one takes Rom 3:27-31
and
what kind of objections or inferences one might draw from it.

28 LOGIZOMEQA GAR DIKAIOUSQAI PISTEI ANQRWPON CWRIS ERGWN NONOU.
 [For we consider that man is justified by faith, apart from works of law
]
29 hH IOUDAIWN hO QEOS MONON; OUCI KAI EQNWN; 
  [Or is God only of Jews? Not of Gentiles as well? ] 
NAI KAI EQNWN, 30 EIPER EIS hO QEOS, hOS DIKAIWSEI PERITOMHN EK PISTEWS 
KAI AKROBUSTIAN DIA THS PISTEWS.
[Indeed also of Gentiles, seeing that God is one. He justifies
circumcision
from faith and uncircumcision through faith]

The passage claims that Gentiles can  be included in the people of God 
by believing in Jesus, without becoming Jews, that is, apart from works of
the Law, in particular, circumcision, which which was given to the Jews
and only the Jews could practice.

hH at the beginning of verse 29 tirggers  me to put Paul's argument as
follows:
 Suppose justification is  based on "works of the Law".
 Then it means that God is God of Jews only. Do you agree to it?
 You can't. God is God of Gentiles as well, because God is one.
 He (hOS is a continuative relative clause) justfies .....



More information about the B-Greek mailing list