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