Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Tue Nov 26 08:29:19 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
>
I agree the passive of hEURISKW is never followed by hUPW in the GNT. The
passive of hEURISKW almost never tells by whom someone or something is
found. That doesn't surprise me, for the passive mode is normally used to
avoid mentioning who acts.
Therefore the English translations seem improbable to me. Why would Paul
use a passive mode, if he would mention the actor.
What concerns Romans 7:10: Paul didn't write that the commandment was
found BY him, as if Paul were the actor, but he wrote that the commandment
acted and proved (was found) to be a cause to death TO him (W. Bauer, A
Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian
Literature, hEURISKW, 2).
With 2 Corinthians 12:20 you proved indeed that hEURISKW with dative can
express by whom someone or something is found. So you proved that the
English translations are grammatically justified.
> 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
Although the traditional English translations are grammatically correct
(as you proved above), I doubt that there is no need to add "(ready) to
be". Wouldn't it harmonize better with the other leg of the parallelism
(I was visible/I was to be seen)? The meaning in the original context
(Isaiah 65:1) seams to plead for the Dutch translation, for the nation
didn't find God at all. Although God was near and spread out his hands
towards them, they ignored Him and chose for a life of sin. They didn't
find Him, but ignored Him. Wasn't exactly that the reason for God's
recompense in Isaiah 65:6-7?
Do you agree that although the traditional translations of Romans 10:20
and Isaiah 65:1 are grammatically right, the recent Dutch translations ('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') are to be preferred?
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 + + +
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list