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

Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat Nov 23 10:19:12 EST 2002


At 14:00 23/11/2002, Richard wrote:

>The Greek text shows Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 exactly from the Septuagint. 
>For some reason he changed the order of the two sentences

Well, Fitzmyer [ Romans. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993 ] 
thought he had found the reason, when he noted that Paul reverses the verbs 
at the beginning of the clauses. He goes on to point out that:
 >> In the original context of Trito-Isaiah, the same people are envisaged 
by the prophet's words in vv 1-2, be they Samaritans, apostate Jews, or 
simply Jews ( disputed among OT commentators). But Paul, influenced by the 
LXX, which speaks of EQNOS _nation_ in v.1 and of LAOS in v.2, splits up 
the reference in the two verses. The first is applied to Gentiles, the 
second to Jews.<<<

>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'.

I see that the JPS version renders Is. 65:1 as:
 >> I responded to those who did not ask,
I was at hand to those who did not seek Me;<<

but footnotes >> I responded << as:  Lit. I let Myself be inquired of..
This is line with BDB on this verb in the Niphal:
 >>let oneself be inquired of, consulted, only of God Ez 14:3; 20:3, 31; 
36:37 Is 65:1 <<
or HAL:
<< to let oneself be sought (God) Is. 65:1

thus, the JPS  strives, I think, to preserve the Divine Initiative by 
avoiding passives.


Maurice A. O'Sullivan  [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros at iol.ie







More information about the B-Greek mailing list