Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Sun Dec 1 04:03:27 EST 2002
Steven Wrote:
> I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a=20
> preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the=20
> question of the relationship between this text and Is 65.1 would in a=20
> million years ever translate as you and the Dutch translation have=20
> done. Can you honestly tell me that, if you had never before seen the=20
> Hebrew text of Is 65, you would consider for even a second translating=20=
> hEUREQHN as "I was to be found"?
Thanks again for such an extensive contribution, Steven. I appreciate it
very much.
I admit that I would have overseen the possibility of the Dutch
translation when translating Romans 10:20. I do not dream that I am a
professional translator. But after reading and enquiring the Dutch
translations I saw their strength, for they express the similarity of both
parts of the parallelism (I was visible/to be seen & I was to be found).
Don't you agree traditional translations oversee this parallel?
> Can you produce another instance of=20 > hEUREQHN that would naturally be
> understood as "I was to be found"?=20
Yes, there are more than one examples that would naturally be understood
as "I was to be found". I found the following examples (English
translations from the RSV):
- 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN EIRHNH:
be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
- Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was not
found. The translation 'and he was not to be found' lies at hand.
- Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And every
island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.
- Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and shall be
found no more.
Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and if
any ones name was not found written in the book of life. The translation
"was not to be found" lies at hand.
> Remember, the sense you are suggesting is "I was available to be=20
> found."This IS NOT the same as understanding an elliptical EINAI ("I=20
> was found *to be*"). "To be found" and "found to be" are NOT the same=20
> thing. This is exactly why the translation you suggest has been=20
> described as "contrived"=97 we would not translate like this elsewhere.=20=
>
> Your argument amounts to special pleading. I must throw down the=20
> gauntlet at this point: Where are the parallels to your understanding=20
> of hEUREQHN? If you cannot produce them, are you willing to concede=20
> that your understanding of hEUREQHN has nothing to do with what the=20
> Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean, and everything to do=20=
> with a preconceived theological assumption? If so, B-Greek is not=20
> really the forum for such discussions.
My present contribution is 100% related to biblical Greek and contains no
exegetical arguments. See the above examples. Do you agree that these
examples make the Dutch translation "I was to be found for those who did
not seek Me; I was to be seen for those who did not ask for Me" possible
on the basis of Greek grammar?
Kind regards,
R. van den Hengel,
The Netherlands.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list