Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 2 01:07:31 EST 2002
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 03:03 AM, Richard wrote:
> 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?
(1) So far, from what I have been able to gather, you admit that your
understanding of Romans 10.20 is not one that even you would naturally
derive from a straightforward reading of the Greek text, but is rather
the result of the influence of a translation in another language. You
also say that you are not a professional translator, and seem to imply
by that statement that if you were, you would probably, by a
straightforward reading of the Greek text, have understood Romans 10.20
in the sense conveyed by the Dutch translation. I would submit that it
is not necessary for one to be a professional translator—or even a good
translator—in order to properly understand Greek, since a thorough
understanding of Greek is not dependent on being proficient at
translation. Translation depends on a sound understanding Greek; a
sound understanding of Greek does not depend on translation. Most
people who have a sound understanding of Greek never become
professional translators. The bottom line here is that we should start
with the Greek and afterwards come to translation (if we are interested
in translation). We do not start with translation and then come to the
text to see if the text can somehow be squared with the translation. If
you would naturally overlook (which is what I think you meant above by
"overseen") the sense conveyed by the Dutch translation when reading
the Greek text itself, why would you allow such a translation to cause
you to understand the Greek text in a way that you would never
otherwise have done? I don't get that. I must admit that I scratch my
head when I read such things.
This leads me back to one of the points I made in my last post. If it
is not natural to read hEUREQHN as "I was available to be found" simply
and only on the basis of the Greek text, then such an understanding
should be rejected. If this is not the semantic association that a
Greek reader would naturally make, then we have no reason to believe
that this is what the text means or was intended to mean. On the other
hand, if the sense for hEUREQHN you propose IS the natural sense in
which a Greek reader would understand Romans 10.20, such a sense should
not only be ATTESTED in Hellenistic Greek, but should be WIDELY
ATTESTED, since, on your understanding, we should expect this idea to
come naturally and quickly to the mind of a Greek speaker—a Greek
speaker, mind you, who did not have the benefit of the Dutch
translation. But as I will show, this sense is not natural, and the
examples you give below are spurious and leave you still without any
evidence that yours is a natural way to understand the Greek of Romans
10.20.
(2) I am—forgive me— somewhat amused by your statement that the Dutch
interpretation accurately expresses the relationship of the parallel
clauses in Romans 10.20, while the traditional translations overlook
it. You seem oblivious to the fact that you are using your
understanding of the sense of one clause to prove the sense of the
other and vice versa! This is circular reasoning at its worst! You have
not even begun to prove that EITHER verb should be understood as
"available to be." As for the second clause, it not only should NOT be
understood as meaning "I was available to be manifest," but, in light
of what it does patently mean, offers more convincing proof that your
understanding of the FIRST clause is erroneous. EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS
EME MH EPERWTWSIN on the face of it says and means "I became manifest
to those who did not ask for me," not "I was available to become
manifest to those who did not ask for me." Let me try to illustrate
this once again with a pertinent parallel, since you have chosen to
ignore my last attempt to get through:
Acts 10:40-41 TOUTON hO QEOS HGEIREN [EN] THi TRITHi hHMERAi KAI EDWKEN
AUTON EMFANH GENESQAI, OU PANTI TWi LAWi, ALLA MARTUSIN TOIS
PROKECEIROTONHMENOIS hUPO TOU QEOU, hHMIN
What we have here is the same verb in the same tense (GENESQAI; cf.
EGENOMHN in Rom 10.20); the same predicate adjective (EMFANH; cf.
EMFANHS in Rom 10.20); and personal dative modifiers (PANTI TWi LAWi
... MARTUSIN TOIS PROKECEIROTONHMENOIS ... hHMIN; cf. TOIS EME MH
EPERWTWSIN in Rom 10.20). Now, what does this text mean? Quite simply,
"But God raised him from death three days later and caused him to
appear, not to everyone, but only to the witnesses that God had already
chosen" (TEV). What needs to be noted carefully here is that God did
not merely make Jesus AVAILABLE TO BECOME MANIFEST to his chosen
witnesses, as if Jesus were just hanging out somewhere, ready in the
event that any of these witnesses should so desire to see him; rather,
he ACTUALLY MADE HIM MANIFEST to those he had chosen to be witnesses!
What could be clearer? What this means is that in Romans 10.20 EMFANHS
EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN means, "I became manifest to those who
did not ask for me," not "I was available to become manifest for those
who did not ask for me." So NO, the traditional translations DO NOT
overlook the parallelism; they make it clear by a responsible handling
of the text in both clauses.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least make SOME effort to
deal with the excellent parallels—such as the one above—that I have
offered for the clauses in view. Your strategy so far seems to be to
ignore very close and pertinent parallels while adducing texts that
have little syntactic and semantic correspondence to the clauses in
question. A little further on I will point out another excellent
parallel I have previously offered with respect to the first clause of
Romans 10.20 that you have also seen fit to totally ignore. Perhaps if
I repeat myself incessantly you will deign to comment on these
exceedingly relevant parallels. I have given you the courtesy of
commenting on every example you have offered. While I don't expect you
to comment on EVERY example I adduce, I do expect you to show me the
courtesy of at least commenting on those examples that I claim as close
parallels. If your understanding of the text is to be taken seriously,
you must either prove that the texts I have adduced are not parallel at
all, or prove that they do not carry the meaning I have assigned to
them. In addition, you must explain why the examples you adduce are
more pertinent than the ones I have adduced. I don't think you can do
any of that.
>> 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):
What you have unwittingly performed below is a sort of semantic "bait
and switch." I know you did not MEAN to do it. But in your zeal to
justify the Dutch interpretation you have unintentionally abandoned the
original sense you have proposed for hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20 and
replaced it with something that only superficially resembles it. It is
crucial at this point to recall the sense you propose for hEUREQHN in
Romans 10.20—"availability to be found." The gloss you used was "there
to be found." This clearly indicates availability. In fact, we can go
one step further: You have proposed the meaning "available to be found
should one only seek." I will be careful to hold you to this
understanding. The problem is that none of the examples below carry the
sense "availability to be found," much less "availability to be found
should one only seek." You seem to think that the mere use of the words
"to be" in an English translation somehow proves that hEURISKW in the
Greek examples carries the semantic weight you have proposed for
hEUREQHN in Rom 10.20. This is simply fallacious. When we apply the
full semantic force of your proposition to these texts, it becomes
clear that hEUREQHN does not at all bear the sense you propose. Lets
look at these texts CAREFULLY, one at a time.
> - 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.
The idea here is NOT that Christians should be zealous to be AVAILABLE
TO BE FOUND without spot or blemish, and at peace, but rather that they
should be zealous to ACTUALLY BE FOUND without spot or blemish, and at
peace. What is so fatuous about this example is that the English words
"to be" have nothing to do with availability, but rather arise from the
fact that hEURHQHNAI is a complementary infinitive of SPOUDASATE! In
order to fully express the semantics of your proposal, we would have to
add words in addition to "to be," e.g., "be zealous to be available to
be found for him without spot or blemish, and in peace."
By the way, if the RSV translation of AUTWi here reflects accurately
the underlying Greek text, 2 Peter 3.14 lends further support to
translating hEUREQHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Romans 10.20 as "I was
found BY those who did not seek me," which you originally denied was
accurate.
As I mentioned above, you have made a habit all along of ignoring the
closest and very best parallels I have offered. So I don't think it is
inappropriate at this point to resubmit a very close parallel to the
second clause of Romans 10.20 that I have offered and commented on in
an earlier post, and which you have chosen to ignore.
Note this especially pertinent example from 2 Chron 15.15:
KAI EN PASHi QELHSEI EZHTHSAN AUTON KAI hEUREQH AUTOIS
"and with every desire/prayer they sought him and he was found by them"
This is a very close parallel to Romans 10.20, since seeking God is in
view (EZHTHSAN; cf. TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Rom 10.20) and God is the
subject of hEUREQH (as is the case with hEUREQHN in Rom 10.20) with a
personal dative modifier (AUTOIS). The context of 2 Chronicles 15.15
makes it abundantly clear that hEUREQHN does not mean "AVAILABLE to be
found," but "ACTUALLY found." This calls into question not only your
understanding of Romans 10.20, but also raises the question of how the
LXX translator of Isaiah 65.1 understood the Hebrew text there, and how
Greek readers with little or no background in Hebrew (the very people
for whom the LXX was translated) would naturally understand it. It
would seem in light of the above analogy (and others) that by hEUREQHN
TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN the translator of Isaiah 65.1 meant, "I was
found by those who did not ask for me." And if Paul is following a
Greek manuscript in Romans 10.20, it is hard to imagine why he would
understand the text in a way that differs from what the actual words of
the Greek translation he was familiar with indicate, or in a way that
differs from how the translator understood it, especially in light of
the fact that it fits his overall argument that God was found by the
Gentiles who didn't seek him, while he was missed by Israel, though
they sought him and his righteousness, albeit wrongly.
I could repeat here all the other examples already adduced of the
aorist passive of hEURISKW with the personal dative modifier, and it
would be seen that none of them yields the idea necessary to support
your contention.
> - 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.
I must first make three points about this and all your subsequent
examples:
(1) Unlike Romans 10.20, in every case the verb is modified by a
negative particle. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind what the
these texts would mean when expressed positively.
(2) Unlike romans 10.20, in no case is hEURISKW modified by a personal
dative modifier. This is important to keep in mind, since it greatly
affects our understanding of the idiom employed. I think you are under
the influence of a general misunderstanding of the figure of speech
employed in the following texts. The idiom "not to be found" is
absolute, i.e., that which is "not found" is not viewed in relationship
to potential "finders." The idea is that the subject in view is simply
not there anymore. This idiomatic expression indicates that a person,
thing or condition is absent.
(3) In Hebrews 11.5, the tense of hEURISKW (imperfect) is not the same
as that of Romans 10.20 (or any of your examples, for that matter), and
this may indicate a certain sense and possible connotations that apply
only in this specific case, and that are not proper to import into
Romans 10.20, nor into your other examples.
These three considerations alone disqualify these texts as true
parallels to Romans 10.20. So 2 Peter 3.14 is the only text you have
offered that qualifies as a parallel (as Jerker Karlsson has also
noted), and, as we have seen, it provides evidence CONTRARY to your
contention. But even overlooking this fact, you still have not provided
one example where hEURISKW in the aorist passive unambiguously means
"available to be found."
Additionally, when dealing with your examples, it will be necessary to
consistently apply to them the sense you have suggested for the first
clause of Romans 10.20 ("there to be found if only one would seek"), in
order to determine if it is really the sense conveyed. That this is NOT
the sense of the following texts will become obvious.
Now let's move on to the examples, starting with Hebrews 11.5. But
first let us quote the following clause introduced by DIOTI, which you
have truncated.
OUC hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN AUTON hO QEOS
"he was not found, because God removed him"
The idea is NOT that Enoch was simply UNAVAILABLE to be found, but that
he was IN ACTUALITY not found, i.e., NOT THERE, because God had removed
him! Take away OUC and he would ACTUALLY be found, i.e., ACTUALLY be
there, not just be AVAILABLE to be found, or AVAILABLE to be there!
There is no question here of availability versus unavailability. Before
his removal, he was there, and after his removal he was gone. The
figure of speech simply means "he was no longer there."
As I mentioned above, hHURISKETO is imperfect, which may have
implications for this passage that are peculiar to the semantic
situation here only, and do not apply to the others examples in
question. The idea may be that Enoch "COULD not be found," with the
implication that people looked for him but could not find him (see NIV,
TEV; cf. CEV). However, this is not certain. But even if this IS what
is meant, the meaning is conveyed not simply by the use of the passive
voice, but also by the use of the imperfect tense. At any rate, the
difference in tense, along with the absence of a personal dative
modifier and the presence of the negative particle disqualifies this
text as a true parallel to Romans 10.20, since any or all of these
features may impact the semantics of the text. So at best Hebrews 11.5
offers us only another example of how you have completely ignored the
closest parallels, where the tense is the same, the clause is positive,
and there is a personal dative modifier (see my earlier posts, as well
as Iver's), and have substituted specious examples that offer us no
insight whatever.
> - Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And
> every
> island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.
The idea is not UNAVAILABILITY to be found, but ACTUALITY of NOT being
found! Take away the negative, and the mountains were ACTUALLY FOUND,
i.e., actually were there whether or not someone sought them! They were
not simply "available" to those who would seek them! The figure of
speech means "the mountains no longer existed."
> - Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and
> shall be
> found no more.
Same as last example. Not mere UNAVAILABILITY to be found, but
ACTUALITY of NOT being found! Take away the negative, and Babylon was
ACTUALLY FOUND, i.e., was in existence whether anyone sought it or not!
It is not that Babylon was simply available to people if they would
just look for it and then became unavailable! The figure of speech
means "Babylon will no longer exist."
> Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and
> if
> any oneís name was not found written in the book of life. The
> translation
> "was not to be found" lies at hand.
The clause is actually negative: KAI EI TIS OUC hEUREQH EN THi BIBLWi
THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS, EBLHQH EIS THN LIMNHN TOU PUROS.
Once more it is important to apply precisely your own semantic
understanding of Rom 10.20 to the text to see if it holds water as
evidence for your conjecture. Is the idea here "if anyone was not
AVAILABLE to be found written in the book of life, he was cast into the
lake of fire" or "if anyone was ACTUALLY not written in the book of
life, he was cast into the lake of fire"? The former is sheer nonsense.
Again, take away the negative, and the person is ACTUALLY FOUND in the
book of life, not just AVAILABLE TO BE FOUND if someone would only
look! You may think this is nitpicking, but this distinction means all
the difference in the world. The figure of speech means something like
"if anyone's name did not show up written there in the book of life."
Adding the words "to be" in an English translation of the text has no
bearing on the issue at all; it is less than irrelevant.
All the above texts from Revelation could just as easily have been
expressed in other terms. For example, in 22.5 we read, KAI NUX OUK
ESTAI ETI ("and night shall not exist any longer"). There is no
significant difference between this expression and KAI NUX OUC
hEUREQHSETAI ETI ("and night shall not be found any longer").
At any rate, it is clear that the only true parallel to Romans 10.20
that you have offered thus far is that of 2 Peter 3.14, which clearly
contradicts your own understanding of Romans 10.20.
>> 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?
No, no, no—a thousand times NO, the Dutch interpretation does NOT
accurately express the sense of the Greek! It is, as Iver suggested,
contrived and misleading, and all attempts to support it are equally
contrived.
I think your last sentence deserves comment before I close. It is not,
IMO, proper to settle on something merely "possible" when we have
before our eyes an option that is highly probable, if not certain. What
we are often attempting to do in our examination of the Greek text is
to analyze the possibilities and weed out one at a time those options
that have a lower degree of probability, in order to settle on what is
most probable. "Possibility" is the last refuge of every spurious and
theologically-loaded translation. So we can be groupies for a
particular translation, and seek shelter in the "possible," or we can
through careful examination settle on what is most probable. But we
cannot do both.
=============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list