Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?

Jerker Karlsson jerker.karlsson at kdu.se
Sun Dec 1 10:32:52 EST 2002


r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl writes:
>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 one’s name was not found written in the book of life. The translation
>"was not to be found" lies at hand.


Rev 20: 15 sic! :: Nov. leg. KAI EI TIS OUX  EUREQH  EN TH BIBLW THS ZWHS
GEGRAMMENOS

Does not these examples prove wrong what you stated earlier when saying
"The subject of the active sentence (They found me) consists of persons
(They), so the passive mode (I was found by those) would be 'EUREQHN UPW
TWN' and not 'EUREQHN TOIS'"? Since here, the dative is proved to
functions as an agent for both animale and inanimale, i.e.  2Pet 3:14  

I see no reason why Paul should deviate from the normal construction of
pass.aor + dat. as expressing passive verb and agent only in Romans, and
only at this instance.

On a general level I see no support in the loci you just cited for the
reading "was to be found" for EUREQHN in Rom 10:20. The only real parallel
is 2Pet. 3:14 and there the RSV translates correctly by "found by him". 
 
By the way, how does the Dutch translation go verbatim?

/Jerker Karlsson
Lund, Sweden




More information about the B-Greek mailing list