Romans 4 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

avkrobusti,a| pi,stewj tou/ patro.j h`mw/n VAbraa,mÅ4.10 In what way therefore was it considered? While being circumcised, or (while) notbeing circumcised? Not while circumcised, but rather, while not circumcised! 4.11 And hereceived a sign of circumcision--a seal of the right-relationship by trust (while) not beingcircumcised, so that he might be a father of all those having trust (while) not circumcised, soas to be considered [also] in them [the] right-relationship; 4.12 and a father of (those who are)crcumcised, to those not based on circumcision alone, but rather also to those who walk in thefootsteps of the trust of our father Abraham, while not being circumcised.Romans 4:1-12, Translation with Footnotes383 3844.1 What therefore shall we say Abraham our forefather according to the flesh383The phrase eu`rhke,nai VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n, “to have found Abraham theforefather of ours,” is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, the first writer ofEphraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 81, 365, 1506, the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic (?)and in the running text of a commentary by Origen (died 254 A.D.).It is shortened to VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n , “Abraham the forefather of ours,” byVaticanus, Minuscules 6, 1739 (see) and a few other Greek manuscripts, omitting theinfinitive “to have found,” and evidently meaning “What therefore shall we say (concerning)Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?”The phrase is changed to read VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n eu`rhke,nai, “Abrahamthe forefather of ours to have found” by Minuscules 33, 1881 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read eu`rhke,nai VAbraa.m to.n pate,ra h`mw/n, “to have found Abrahamthe father of ours” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae,F, G, Psi, Minuscule 629, a few other Greek manuscripts and the entire Latin tradition.These variant readings hardly change the meaning of Romans, but probably indicate aproblem in the primitive text that later copyists and translators have resolved in their own ways.Moo states that “The presence of pa,tera in some manuscripts is a clear case of a morecommon word being substituted for a less common one [Propa,twr is found only once in theGreek translation of the Jewish Bible, and this is its only occurrence in the Greek NewTestament]; propa,tera is almost certainly original. More significant is the possibility thateu`rhke,nai [‘to have found’] is not original...But it is more likely that eu`rhke,nai has beenomitted from the original text...” (P. 258)384Or, we can translate, "...Abraham our forefather has found according to the flesh?" Thequestion has to do with what the words "according to the flesh" are related to. Do they meanthat from a fleshly standpoint, we are related to Abraham as our forefather? Certainly for Pauland his fellow Jewish believers, this was the case. It is a commonplace in the NewTestament that the followers of Jesus are considered to be the descendants of Abraham, in aspiritual sense, if not a physical sense.207(continued...)