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

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Nov 23 15:10:18 EST 2002


>
> Romans 10:20 says:'EUREQHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME
> MH EPERWTWSIN'.
<snip>
>
> 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 passive of hEURISKW is never followed by hUPO in the GNT. However it is
followed by the dative a few times, as in:

Rom 7:10 KAI hEUREQH MOI hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN, hAUTH EIS QANATON
2 Cor 12:20  KAGW hEUREQW hUMIN

In both cases, the pronoun in the dative is the semantic experiencer of the
action "to find/discover". There is no need to add "(ready) to be" either
here or in Rom 10:20, and I would consider the Dutch translation contrived
and misleading.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list