Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Sat Nov 23 09:00:03 EST 2002
Romans 10:20 says:'EUREQHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME
MH EPERWTWSIN'.
The New King James Version translates Romans 10:20 as follows: 'I was
found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did
not ask for Me'. The Greek text shows Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 exactly from
the Septuagint. For some reason he changed the order of the two sentences.
All English translations show no remarkable deviations. However, some
recent Dutch translations read as follows: '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
must admit this translation fits perfectly in the original context of
Isaiah 65:1-7 whereas all traditional translations don't. Israel will be
punished because God was near, but they neglected Him and led a life of
sin.
First I thought both translations would be possible, but after further
investigation I came to the conclusion that all English translations must
be in error and that the recent Dutch translations must be correct. My
question is: 'Am I right'?
Here is my exegesis:
The first words 'EUREQHN TOIS' can be translated with "I was found by
those" or with "I was to be found for those". However, the translation "I
was found by those" is wrong, for the word 'by' (UPW) misses. When
transforming an active sentence into a passive sentence, the subject of
the active sentence gets the place of an indirect object in the passive
sentence. If the subject of the active sentence is a person, UPW +
genitive case is being used. If the subject of the active sentence is a
thing, the dativus instrumentalis is being used. 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'.
The translation 'I was to be found for those' is not only the remaining
alternative, but fits better with the dative of 'TOIS'. So the first
sentence should be translated as follows: 'I was to be found for those who
did not seek Me'.
The first words of the second sentence (I was made manifest) can be
translated in different ways: 'I showed myself' (The New Living
Translation), 'I have shown myself' (The New Revised Standard Version and
The Revised Standard Version), 'I have revealed Myself' (Wesley's New
Testament), or more literal 'I was visible'. The passive form normally
allows an active meaning (verba deponentia), however the Hebrew
parallelism in the original, Isaiah 65:1, drives us in the direction of 'I
was visible' or 'I was to be seen'. The Dutch translation expresses the
original intention of the parallelism: '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'.
Do you agree that all English translations are in error and that some
recent Dutch translations must be preferred? If not, please tell me why.
Kind regards,
R. van den Hengel,
The Netherlands.
+ + + Don't blame me for making translation error's. Blame those who built
the tower of Babel! I am doing my best, they didn't! + + +
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list