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