Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Fri Nov 29 16:13:06 EST 2002
> 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.
>
> Iver Larsen
Thanks for your contribution, Iver.
Your rejection of the Dutch translation of Romans 10:20 (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) rests entirely on the context of Romans 10:20. However,
this exegesis raises the question whether Paul misunderstood Isaiah 65:1,
for in Isaiah 65:1 the Jews didn't find God at all, although He was to be
found and stretched out His hands to the unwilling Jews.
Another exegesis of Romans 10:20 can justify the Dutch translation just as
easy. Let me give an example.
In Romans 10:16 Paul begins to speak of people who do not obey the gospel.
In verse 18 he raises the question: didn't they hear the gospel then? He
answers negative. He seeks another reason for the unbelief of Israel: did
Israel not understand? With his citation from Deuteronomy 32:21 (And he
said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be,
for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness.
They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked
me with their idols. So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no
people; I will provoke them with a foolish nation) Paul makes clear that
the unbelief has everything to do with Gods rejection of Israel because of
their unbelief. (This rejection of a part of Israel and not the whole of
Israel becomes clear in Romans 11:1-5.). Paul's citation of Isaiah 65:1 is
meant to show that God was not to be blamed for this rejection, for God
'was to be found for those who did not seek Him; He was to be seen for
those who did not ask for Him'. The contradiction between the verses 20
and 21, expressed by the word 'DE ' underlines that not God, but Israel
was to be blamed, for they were disobedient and contrary, whereas God held
out his hands in vain.
Such an exegesis as the on above doesn't conflict with Isaiah 65:1-7, nor
with Romans 10 and pleads for the Dutch translation of Romans 10:20,
whereas your exegesis contradicts Isaiah 65:1 as if Paul didn't understand
Isaiah.
Still I think it is better to start with translation and to end with
exegesis. Although the traditional English translations are grammatically
correct, don't you think the Dutch translation should be preferred,
because of the parallelism? Doesn't it harmonize better with the other
leg of the parallelism (I was visible/I was to be seen)?
Kind regards,
R. van den Hengel,
The Netherlands.
+ + + Don't blame me for making tranzlation errours. Blame those who built
the tower of Babel + + +
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list