Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?
Richard
r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Fri Nov 29 16:30:26 EST 2002
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 02:02 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
> > Richard asked:
> >> Although the traditional English translations are grammatically=20
> >> correct
> >> (as you proved above), I doubt that there is no need to add "(ready)=20=
>
> >> to
> >> be". Wouldn't it harmonize better with the other leg of the=20
> >> 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=20
> >> 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=20
> >> 10:20
> >> and Isaiah 65:1 are grammatically right, the recent Dutch=20
> >> translations ('I
> >> was to be found for those who did not seek Me; I was to be seen for=20=
>
> >> those
> >> who did not ask for Me') are to be preferred?
> >
> > Our internet connections have been down for 24 hours and I am leaving=20=
>
> > 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=20
> > 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=20
> > Isaiah
> > quotation it seems to me that v. 20 indicates that the Gentiles found=20=
>
> > 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.=20
> > Paul's
> > interpretation is apparently to take this as a prophetic past that=20
> > referred
> > to the future. Whether this was the (only) intended meaning of Is 65:1=20=
>
> > 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=20=
>
> time.
>
> Rom 10.20: HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI: hEUREQHN [EN] TOIS EME MH=20
> ZHTOUSIN, EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN.
>
> I wanted to get in on this thread a few days ago, but didn't have much=20=
>
> time.
>
> Iver has put his finger on the fatal misunderstanding that most=20
> probably led to the "contrived and misleading" (Iver's words=97not a bit=20=
>
> too strong, in my opinion) rendering of the Dutch translations. Rom=20
> 10.20 is not referring to Israel at all. It is referring to the=20
> Gentiles in contrast with Israel, a contrast introduced by DE in v. 21,=20=
>
> as Iver perceptively picked up on. The picture painted by Paul in Rom=20
> 9-11 is not one of Israel NOT pursuing God and righteousness and=20
> therefore not finding him, while the Gentiles WERE pursuing God and his=20=
>
> righteousness and therefore found him (compare MH ZHTOUSIN in 10.20=20
> with EPIZHTEI in 11.7). The situation was rather that Israel was=20
> aggressively, though wrongheadedly (10.2f.), pursuing God and=20
> righteousness and for that reason did not attain to the "law of=20
> righteousness" (9.31), while the Gentiles, who did not pursue the true=20=
>
> God or his righteousness at all, attained to the "righteousness of=20
> faith" (9.30). I think there is much evidence to support this; I will=20
> present some of it.
>
> First, note the conceptual and structural affinities that Rom 9.30-31=20
> has with Rom 10.20-21:
>
> Rom 9.30-31: TI OUN EROUMEN? hOTI EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN=20
> KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN, DIKAIOSUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS, 31 ISRAHL DE=20
> DIWKWN NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS EIS NOMON OUK EFQASEN.
>
> Rom 10.20-21: HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI: hEUREQHN [EN] TOIS EME MH=20=
>
> ZHTOUSIN, EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN. 21 PROS DE TON=20
> ISRAHL LEGEI: hOLHN THN hHMERAN EXEPETASA TAS CEIRAS MOU PROS LAON=20
> APEIQOUNTA KAI ANTILEGONTA.
>
> Note that in 9.30 the Gentiles are expressly described as people who,=20
> though NOT pursuing righteousness (EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN),=20
> nevertheless attained it (KATELABEN DIKAIOSUNHN). This corresponds to=20
> those who are described in 10.20 as not seeking God (TOIS EME MH=20
> ZHTOUSIN) and not asking for him (TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN), yet among=20
> whom God is nevertheless found (hEUREQHN) and to whom he became=20
> manifest (EMFANHS EGENOMHN).
Thank you for your extensive contribution, Steven. I appreciate that you
made a lot of work of your contribution.
I agree that Paul describes the Gentiles as not pursuing righteousness
through the law, for they had no law. Nevertheless they indeed attained
righteousness through faith in God's mercy. Thus far I agree.
However some questions start raising when you draw the parallel between
Romans 9:30 and 10:20. In the end of chapter 9 Paul mentions Israel and
the nations several times (verse 24, 25, 26, 30, 31). The verses 30 and 31
are the conclusion, followed by a foundation in the last two verses. As
always there is development of thought and chapter 10 starts dealing the
fate of Israel. In chapter 11 Paul concludes in the verses 1-5 that a part
of Israel believed. So I doubt wether Romans 9 deals with the contrast
between Jews and gentiles.
In your parallel the nations are described as people that did not seek God
and did not ask for Him. Yet they found Him in contrast to the Jews.
This parallel raises some questions. The Gospel spread throughout the
world, but did Paul really mean that all gentiles believed in Christ? Why
would Paul describe the gentiles as not seeking God whereas he writes in
Romans 3:11: 'OUK ESTIN EKZHTWN TON TEON'? Why would he describe the
gentiles as not seeking God, whereas it is always God who seeks men? How
can your parallel be harmonized with Jesus' promise: 'ZHTEITE KAI
EURHSETE'? In Isaiah 65:1-7 the words EUREQEN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN EMFANHS
EGENWMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN speak of Israel? Why would Paul wrest the
words of Isaiah 65:1 and apply them to the gentiles?
> Then, in 9.31, we have a contrast of=20
> Israel to the Gentiles introduced by DE (ISRAHL DE). This, of course,=20
> naturally corresponds to the contrast of Israel with the Gentiles in=20
> 10.21, also introduced by DE (PROS DE TON ISRAHL LEGEI).
>
In my opinion Paul's citation of Isaiah 65:1 is meant to show that God was
not to be blamed for this rejection of a part of Israel, 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. According to me the Dutch translation is to be preferred,
because this translation of the words EUREQEN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN EMFANHS
EGENWMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN is in full harmony with Isaiah 65:1 and
the context of Romans 10.
Far more obvious in my opinion is the textual parallel between the two
legs in Romans 10:20 (I was visible/I was to be seen and I was to be
found) that is expressed by the Dutch translation. I think your
translation depends mostly on exegetical grounds and not primarily on
textual analysis. I think grammar ought to come first, and exegesis ought
to precede. Don't you agree?
> Second, while paying close attention to what follows 10.20 (the=20
> contrast introduced by DE in v. 21) is critical, so is a careful=20
> observation of what precedes, particularly the way the OT quotations=20
> are introduced in vv. 19 and 20. Note that in v. 19 Paul introduces his=20=
>
> "first" example of scriptural evidence, that of Moses (PRWTOS MWUSHS=20
> LEGEI), and then in v. 20 he introduces his subsequent example of=20
> scriptural evidence, that of Isaiah (HSAIAS DE APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI).=20
> The PRWTOS ... DE structure indicates that the evidence adduced from=20
> Moses is supplemented by that adduced from Isaiah ("First Moses says=20
> ... Then Isaiah ... says"; see RSV, NRSV, ESV, NAB). The REB brings=20
> this out well: "Listen first to Moses: 'I will use a nation that is no=20=
>
> nation to stir you to envy, and a foolish nation to rouse your anger.' =20=
>
> 20 Isaiah is still more daring: 'I was found,' he says, 'by those who=20=
>
> were not looking for me; I revealed myself to those who never asked=20
> about me.'" The evidence from Isaiah supplements that from Moses,=20
> though Isaiah's pronouncement is distinguished by its "boldness"=20
> (HSAIAS ... APOTOLMAi KAI LEGEI). Since Moses was no doubt describing=20
> the Gentiles in v. 19 when he spoke of making Israel jealous by "those=20=
>
> who are not a nation" (OUK EQNEI) and "a foolish nation" (EQNEI=20
> ASUNETWi), it is only natural to assume that in v. 20 those finding God=20=
>
> though not seeking him and God's becoming manifest to them though they=20=
>
> did not ask for him describes HOW God would make Israel jealous by the=20=
>
> "non-nation" and "foolish nation"=97the Gentiles=97 spoken of by Moses =
> as=20
> quoted in v. 19 (cf. 11.11, 13f.). Israel "heard" the gospel that went=20=
>
> out to the whole world (v. 18) and should have "understood" the truth=20
> of the gospel (v. 19) by its manifest efficacy among the Gentiles (v.=20
> 20), which is meant to provoke them to jealousy. But in spite of all=20
> God's "open-armed" overtures to Israel, they remained "disobedient and=20=
>
> contrary" (v. 21).
>
> All this is in line with other contrasts found throughout Rom 9-11:=20
> God's purpose according to election that is based, not on works=20
> (pursuing), but on the One who calls (9.11f.); the promise that=20
> depends, not on the one who wills or runs (pursuing), but on the One=20
> who shows mercy (9.16); the "election of grace," that means the promise=20=
>
> is not based on works (pursuing), but on grace (11.5f.).
>
> All of this is counter-intuitive, of course, which may also have played=20=
>
> a part in the choice of wording on the part of those who worked on the=20=
>
> Dutch translations. But this counter-intuitive, unconventional teaching=20=
>
> is what makes Paul Paul.
>
> Before I close I would just like to make two more points. First, both=20
> UBS4 and NA27 include [EN] in the text, governing TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN.=20=
>
> If EN is original, then the understanding reflected in the Dutch=20
> translations is virtually eliminated, since in this case "I was to be=20
> found for those who did not seek Me," as Richard suggested, would be=20
> more than contrived. In my opinion, EN would be best taken as local,=20
> indicating the sphere in which God was found, i.e., "among those who=20
> did not seek me"=97the Gentiles. This would be similar to other texts in=20=
>
> Romans that speak of the work of God through the gospel among the=20
> Gentiles (cf. 1.5, 13; 15.9). If EN is not original, I would take the=20
> dative as reference/respect.
>
> Finally, I cannot help but comment on the expansion of the sense of=20
> hEUREQHN used (actually, required) to justify the Dutch translations.=20
> To add the words "to be" is entirely arbitrary and is based on a=20
> misunderstanding of the context rather than on a natural reading of the=20=
>
> text. I think the words of D.A. Carson in another connection are apt:=20
> "Greek of course often omits words that English requires; thus,=20
> so-called additions are often nothing more than recognizing that the=20
> receptor language requires words whose semantic contribution is=20
> *presupposed* by the Greek. But that does not constitute a license to=20
> add words in support of interpretations that are already based on a=20
> fair bit of speculation...." In our case I would substitute the word=20
> "misunderstanding" for "speculation."
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Steven R. Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI=
The words 'to be' in the translation "I was to be found" are no addition,
necessary to create readable English. The passive mode can have several
meanings of which 'I was found' and 'I was to be found' are some
alternatives. How would you translate "I was to be found" into Greek?
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