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

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Nov 27 02:04:16 EST 2002


On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 02:02 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> Richard asked:
>> 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?
>
> Our internet connections have been down for 24 hours and I am leaving 
> for a
> conference tomorrow morning, so just a brief response.
>
> Since you ask, I would have to say: No, I don't think the recent Dutch
> translation is to be preferred.
>
> Rom 10:21 starts with PROS DE TON ISRAEL LEGEI
>
> This seems to indicate a contrast to v. 20, and suggests that v. 20 was
> directed to the Gentiles. Yes, most of Israel was disobedient, and 
> this was
> one reason why God revealed himself to the Gentiles. Also in v. 19, the
> EQNOS ASUNETOS appears to refer to non-Jews. In Paul's use of the 
> Isaiah
> quotation it seems to me that v. 20 indicates that the Gentiles found 
> God
> even though they did not before look for him as did the Jews, and God
> revealed himself to those Gentiles who were not asking for him.
> If that is correct, it is still a question of what Is 65:1 meant. 
> Paul's
> interpretation is apparently to take this as a prophetic past that 
> referred
> to the future. Whether this was the (only) intended meaning of Is 65:1 
> is a
> question that goes beyond the grammar of the Greek translation.

I wanted to get in on this thread a few days ago, but didn't have much 
time.

Rom 10.20: HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI: hEUREQHN [EN] TOIS EME MH 
ZHTOUSIN, EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN.

I wanted to get in on this thread a few days ago, but didn't have much 
time.

Iver has put his finger on the fatal misunderstanding that most 
probably led to the "contrived and misleading" (Iver's words—not a bit 
too strong, in my opinion) rendering of the Dutch translations. Rom 
10.20 is not referring to Israel at all. It is referring to the 
Gentiles in contrast with Israel, a contrast introduced by DE in v. 21, 
as Iver perceptively picked up on. The picture painted by Paul in Rom 
9-11 is not one of Israel NOT pursuing God and righteousness and 
therefore not finding him, while the Gentiles WERE pursuing God and his 
righteousness and therefore found him (compare MH ZHTOUSIN in 10.20 
with EPIZHTEI in 11.7). The situation was rather that Israel was 
aggressively, though wrongheadedly (10.2f.), pursuing God and 
righteousness and for that reason did not attain to the "law of 
righteousness" (9.31), while the Gentiles, who did not pursue the true 
God or his righteousness at all, attained to the "righteousness of 
faith" (9.30). I think there is much evidence to support this; I will 
present some of it.

First, note the conceptual and structural affinities that Rom 9.30-31 
has with Rom 10.20-21:

Rom 9.30-31: TI OUN EROUMEN? hOTI EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN 
KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN, DIKAIOSUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS, 31 ISRAHL DE 
DIWKWN NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS EIS NOMON OUK EFQASEN.

Rom 10.20-21: HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI: hEUREQHN [EN] TOIS EME MH 
ZHTOUSIN, EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN. 21 PROS DE TON 
ISRAHL LEGEI: hOLHN THN hHMERAN EXEPETASA TAS CEIRAS MOU PROS LAON 
APEIQOUNTA KAI ANTILEGONTA.

Note that in 9.30 the Gentiles are expressly described as people who, 
though NOT pursuing righteousness (EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN), 
nevertheless attained it (KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN). This corresponds to 
those who are described in 10.20 as not seeking God (TOIS EME MH 
ZHTOUSIN) and not asking for him (TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN), yet among 
whom God is nevertheless found (hEUREQHN) and to whom he became 
manifest (EMFANHS EGENOMHN). Then, in 9.31, we have a contrast of 
Israel to the Gentiles introduced by DE (ISRAHL DE). This, of course, 
naturally corresponds to the contrast of Israel with the Gentiles in 
10.21, also introduced by DE (PROS DE TON ISRAHL LEGEI).

Second, while paying close attention to what follows 10.20 (the 
contrast introduced by DE in v. 21) is critical, so is a careful 
observation of what precedes, particularly the way the OT quotations 
are introduced in vv. 19 and 20. Note that in v. 19 Paul introduces his 
"first" example of scriptural evidence, that of Moses (PRWTOS MWUSHS 
LEGEI), and then in v. 20 he introduces his subsequent example of 
scriptural evidence, that of Isaiah (HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI). 
The PRWTOS ... DE structure indicates that the evidence adduced from 
Moses is supplemented by that adduced from Isaiah ("First Moses says 
... Then Isaiah ... says"; see RSV, NRSV, ESV, NAB). The REB brings 
this out well: "Listen first to Moses:  'I will use a nation that is no 
nation to stir you to envy, and a foolish nation to rouse your anger.'  
20 Isaiah is still more daring:  'I was found,' he says,  'by those who 
were not looking for me; I revealed myself to those who never asked 
about me.'" The evidence from Isaiah supplements that from Moses, 
though Isaiah's pronouncement is distinguished by its "boldness" 
(HSAIAS ... APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI). Since Moses was no doubt describing 
the Gentiles in v. 19 when he spoke of making Israel jealous by "those 
who are not a nation" (OUK EQNEI) and "a foolish nation" (EQNEI 
ASUNETWi), it is only natural to assume that in v. 20 those finding God 
though not seeking him and God's becoming manifest to them though they 
did not ask for him describes HOW God would make Israel jealous by the 
"non-nation" and "foolish nation"—the Gentiles— spoken of by Moses as 
quoted in v. 19 (cf. 11.11, 13f.). Israel "heard" the gospel that went 
out to the whole world (v. 18) and should have "understood" the truth 
of the gospel (v. 19) by its manifest efficacy among the Gentiles (v. 
20), which is meant to provoke them to jealousy. But in spite of all 
God's "open-armed" overtures to Israel, they remained "disobedient and 
contrary" (v. 21).

All this is in line with other contrasts found throughout Rom 9-11: 
God's purpose according to election that is based, not on works 
(pursuing), but on the One who calls (9.11f.); the promise that 
depends, not on the one who wills or runs (pursuing), but on the One 
who shows mercy (9.16); the "election of grace," that means the promise 
is not based on works (pursuing), but on grace (11.5f.).

All of this is counter-intuitive, of course, which may also have played 
a part in the choice of wording on the part of those who worked on the 
Dutch translations. But this counter-intuitive, unconventional teaching 
is what makes Paul Paul.

Before I close I would just like to make two more points. First, both 
UBS4 and NA27 include [EN] in the text, governing TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN. 
If EN is original, then the understanding reflected in the Dutch 
translations is virtually eliminated, since in this case "I was to be 
found for those who did not seek Me," as Richard suggested, would be 
more than contrived. In my opinion, EN would be best taken as local, 
indicating the sphere in which God was found, i.e., "among those who 
did not seek me"—the Gentiles. This would be similar to other texts in 
Romans that speak of the work of God through the gospel among the 
Gentiles (cf. 1.5, 13; 15.9). If EN is not original, I would take the 
dative as reference/respect.

Finally, I cannot help but comment on the expansion of the sense of 
hEUREQHN used (actually, required) to justify the Dutch translations. 
To add the words "to be" is entirely arbitrary and is based on a 
misunderstanding of the context rather than on a natural reading of the 
text. I think the words of D.A. Carson in another connection are apt: 
"Greek of course often omits words that English requires; thus, 
so-called additions are often nothing more than recognizing that the 
receptor language requires words whose semantic contribution is 
*presupposed* by the Greek. But that does not constitute a license to 
add words in support of interpretations that are already based on a 
fair bit of speculation...." In our case I would substitute the word 
"misunderstanding" for "speculation."
=============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI



More information about the B-Greek mailing list