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