Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Wed Dec 4 16:47:50 EST 2002
Jerker wrote:
> 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
You are right. I am looking for a better grammar book. Can you give me a
good advice?
> 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
I translated: "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".
I should have translated: "I was ready to be found for those who did not
seek Me, I was visible for those who did not ask for me" or even better:
"I was findable for those who did not seek Me, I was visible for those who
did not ask for me". I saw a paralellism in the words "findable' and
'visible'.
Kind regards,
R. van den Hengel,
The Netherlands.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list