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

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sat Nov 30 03:37:22 EST 2002


On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 03:13 PM, Richard wrote:

> 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.

(1) It does NOT rest entirely on the context. The arguments from 
context (nearer and broader) were adduced in response to your specific 
inquiry. But the rejection of the Dutch translation rests first and 
foremost on the natural meaning of hEUREQHN [EN] TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN. 
I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a 
preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the 
question of the relationship between this text and Is 65.1 would in a 
million years ever translate as you and the Dutch translation have 
done. Can you honestly tell me that, if you had never before seen the 
Hebrew text of Is 65, you would consider for even a second translating 
hEUREQHN as "I was to be found"? Can you produce another instance of 
hEUREQHN that would naturally be understood as "I was to be found"? 
Remember, the sense you are suggesting is "I was available to be 
found."This IS NOT the same as understanding an elliptical EINAI ("I 
was found *to be*"). "To be found" and "found to be" are NOT the same 
thing. This is exactly why the translation you suggest has been 
described as "contrived"— we would not translate like this elsewhere. 
Your argument amounts to special pleading. I must throw down the 
gauntlet at this point: Where are the parallels to your understanding 
of hEUREQHN? If you cannot produce them, are you willing to concede 
that your understanding of hEUREQHN has nothing to do with what the 
Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean, and everything to do 
with a preconceived theological assumption? If so, B-Greek is not 
really the forum for such discussions.

Iver has already submitted other examples (Rom 7.10 and 2 Cor 12.20) of 
the aorist passive of hEURISKW with the bare dative where the dative 
appears to have the same syntactical function as that of TOIS EME MH 
ZHTOUSIN in Rom 10.20. I would add 2 Pet 3.14 as another possible NT 
example. In the context SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTWi 
hEURHQHNAI EN EIRHNHi most likely means, "be diligent to be found by 
him without spot or blemish, and at peace" (ESV; cf. RSV, NRSV, NASB, 
NKJV). CEV and NJB render the passive as active, but understand AUTWi 
in the same way. Even if you do not agree that the dative in each of 
the proffered examples functions exactly as TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Rom 
10.20, the fact is that IN NO CASE does hEURISKW in any of the examples 
express "availability to be found." You claim that Rom 10.20 "pleads" 
for the novel translation found in the Dutch version. I plead with you, 
Richard, to offer us more than theological speculation for the 
contention that hEUREQHN may legitimately be understood as meaning "I 
was available to be found." Examples from Hellenistic Greek would be 
nice. Allow me to offer a few more examples that substantiate the view 
of every English translation:

Lev 25.26 hEUREQH AUTWi TO hIKANON LUTRA AUTOU

Deut 21.17 ALLA TON PRWTOTOKON hUION THS MISOUMENHS EPIGNWSETAI DOUNAI 
AUTWi DIPLA APO PANTWN hWN AN hEUREQH AUTWi

1 Chron 29.8 KAI hOIS hEUREQH PAR' AUTOIS LIQOS

Ps 20.9 hEUREQEIH hH CEIR SOU PASIN TOIS ECQROIS SOU

Note this especially pertinent example from 2 Chron 15.15:

KAI EN PASHi QELHSEI EZHTHSAN AUTON KAI hEUREQH AUTOIS
"and with every desire/prayer they sought him and he was found by them"

This is a very close parallel to Rom 10.20, since seeking God is in 
view (EZHTHSAN; cf. TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Rom 10.20) and God is the 
subject of hEUREQH (as is the case with hEUREQHN in Rom 10.20) with a 
personal dative modifier (AUTOIS). The context of 2 Chron 15.15 makes 
it abundantly clear that hEUREQHN does not mean "available to be 
found," but "found." This calls into question not only your 
understanding of Rom 10.20, but also raises the question of how the LXX 
translator of Is 65.1 understood the Hebrew text there. It would seem 
in light of the above analogy (and others) that by hEUREQHN TOIS EME MH 
EPERWTWSIN he meant, "I was found by those who did not ask for me." 
There are other, simple ways in Greek to clearly express the 
*availability* of being found, if that's what the translator had meant 
to do. And if Paul is following a Greek manuscript in Rom 10.20, it is 
hard to imagine why he would understand the text in a way that differs 
from what the actual words of the Greek translation he was familiar 
with indicate, or in a way that differs from how the translator 
understood it, especially in light of the fact that it fits his overall 
argument that God was found by the Gentiles who didn't seek him, while 
he was missed by Israel, though they sought him and his righteousness 
wrongly.

If EN is original, your suggestion is just as improbable. The aorist 
passive of hEURISKW with EN governing a noun or pronoun indicating a 
group of people never means "availability to be found" among that 
group. Note the following examples:

Deut 17.2: EAN DE hEUREQH *EN SOI* ... ANHR H GUNH hOSTIS POIHSEI TO 
PONHRON ENANTIAN KURIOU TOU QEOU SOU

Deut 18.10: OUC hEUREQHSETAI *EN SOI* PERIKAQAIRWN TON hUION AUTOU H 
THN QUGATERA AUTOU EN PURI MANTEUOMENOS MANTEIAN KLHDONIZOMENOS KAI 
OIWNIZOMENOS FARMAKOS

1 Sam 25.28: KAKIA OUC hEUREQHSETAI *EN SOI* PWPOTE

1 Chron 26.31: hEUREQH ANHR DUNATOS *EN AUTOIS* EN IAZHR THS 
GALAADITIDOS

Job 28.13: OUK OIDEN BROTOS hODON AUTHS OUDE MH hEUREQH *EN ANQRWPOIS*

Jer 5.26: hOTI hEUREQHSAN *EN TWi LAWi* MOU ASEBEIS

Jer 11.9: hEUREQH SUNDESMOS *EN ANDRASIN* IOUDA

Dan 1.19: OUC hEUREQH *EN TOIS SOFOIS* hOMOIOS TWi DANIHL KAI ANANIA 
KAI MISAHL KAI AZARIA

1 Clem 35.4: hHMEIS OUN AGWNISWMEQA hEURHQENAI *EN TWi ARIQMWi* TWN 
hUPOMENONTWN AUTON

Ignatius to the Ephesians 10.3: hINA MH TOU DIABOLOU BOTANH TIS hEUREQH 
EN HUMIN

Shep 85.4: KAI hEUREQHSAN POLLOI EN AUTOIS MELANES

So whether we read EN or not, the Dutch translation has no lexical or 
syntactical support at all from Greek texts. If you are happy with the 
method of importing a theological presupposition into the text, fine. 
But there is nothing in the Greek to support such a translation.

(2) Even though it does not rest *entirely* on context, the context 
*confirms* the traditional view. What is so ironic here is that your 
understanding is based *entirely* on a theological assumption derived 
largely from the context of the quoted verse in Isaiah 65! So rather 
than decide how the word is used IN ITS OWN CONTEXT, you have decided 
what it means on the basis of the context found in another book! I'll 
let others decide which is more reasonable.

(3) Even if the "exegesis"—really just straightforward translation—you 
mention above does raise the question of whether Paul misunderstood 
Isaiah 65.1, would it not be more responsible to give the reader the 
opportunity to actually deal with the question of Paul's use of the OT, 
rather than to offer a contrived and fanciful translation that only 
serves forestalls honest inquiry?

> Another exegesis of Romans 10:20 can justify the Dutch translation 
> just as
> easy.

For the record, it should be pointed out that this attempt to "justify" 
the Dutch translation is driven purely by the a priori assumption that 
to do otherwise would be to call into question Paul's understanding of 
Is 65.1. It has literally nothing to do with lexical or syntactical 
considerations, which are the proper purview of B-Greek. It is a 
theological exercise, period.

>  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, ëI 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)

What you seem to miss here is that Deut 32.21, in its original context, 
does not refer to the spread of the gospel among the nations with the 
subsequent effect of provoking Israel to jealousy by the blessings 
shown to the Gentiles. Rather, it refers to Israel's captivity by a 
non-people and a foolish nation, and the subsequent effect of Israel 
being made jealous for the God they had made jealous by their sin, the 
very sin that led to captivity. Following your reasoning, we should 
call into question whether Paul properly understood Deut 32.21! But, of 
course, the question of Paul's use of the OT is not that simple, is it? 
(Compare also Ps 18.5 (LXX) with Rom 10.18 as well as Hos 1.10 and 2.23 
with Rom 9:25-26.)

>  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.

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to decipher your reasoning. Israel's 
"unbelief has everything to do with Gods [sic] rejection of Israel 
because of their unbelief"? What on earth does that mean? Israel 
doesn't believe because God rejected them because of their unbelief? 
Since I can't pretend to understand what that means, I'll deal with the 
issue of the structure of the passage.

Your above exegesis can only be maintained by ignoring the structural 
markers of Romans 10.19-21, not to mention the lexical and syntactic 
issues I raised earlier. Since I think I dealt convincingly with the 
structural issue in my last post, I won't cover the same ground again. 
I would just like to make a few more points prompted by your comments 
above:

(1) DE does not here introduce a "contradiction" (in which lexicon did 
you find THAT function?), but a contrast, as is made clear by PROS ... 
TON ISRAHL LEGEI ("But TO ISRAEL he says"). This indicates that ISRAHL 
is being contrasted with those spoken of in the last quotation in v. 
20. This is made even clearer by the fronting of the prepositional 
phrase, which emphasizes the contrast with those spoken of in v. 20. 
Since contrasting Israel with Israel is nonsense, TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN 
should be understood as referring to the Gentiles, indeed the second 
quotation referring to the Gentiles, as the structural markers PRWTOS 
... DE in vv. 19 and 20 most naturally indicate. Anyway, if we followed 
your exegesis, there would be no contrast (or "contradiction," as you 
put it). Your view requires that both quotes mean more or less the same 
thing. In v. 20 God was available to be found, but Israel did not seek 
him, and he became (available to be?) manifest to Israel, but they did 
not ask for him. In v. 21 God has held out his hands, only to be met 
with disobedience and contrariness on the part of Israel. Where is the 
contrast (or "contradiction," as you say)? How does the one and not the 
other underline that Israel, not God was to blame?

(2) The parallel between hEUREQHN and EMFANHS EGENOMHN is virtually 
destroyed by the above exegesis. EMFANHS EGENOMHN does not mean "I was 
there to become manifest," but "I became manifest," a fact rather than 
a mere possibility. The idea is the actual manifestation to those who 
did not ask for him, rather then that he was merely there to become 
manifest if someone should so desire it. Note the almost identical 
construction in Acts 10.40:

TOUTON hO QEOS HGEIREN [EN] THi TRITHi hHMERA KAI EDWKEN AUTON EMFANH 
GENESQAI
"God raised him on the third day and granted that he should become 
visible."

The idea is of an actual manifestation, not just the availability of a 
manifestation if one should so choose it. In keeping with the 
parallelism of the two clauses of Rom 10.20, if God actually became 
manifest to those who did not ask for him, he was actually found by 
those who did not seek him.

(3) There is one further structural issue I forgot to mention in my 
last post when I was discussing the parallels between Rom 10.20-21 and 
Rom 9.30-31. As Douglas Moo in his commentary on Rom 10.20 observes, 
"The wording of the quotation therefore brings us back to where this 
whole passage began: Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, 
have attained a right relationship with God (9:30)." So both the 
immediate and broader structure confirm the traditional view.

Thomas Schreiner, in his commentary on Romans, very aptly sums up the 
structure of Rom 10.18-21 as follows:

Israel has certainly heard the gospel (18a).

	For the gospel has gone to the ends of the earth (18b).

Israel certainly should have known that Gentiles would be included 
among God's people and Israel would be excluded (19a)

	For Moses prophesied that Israel would be driven to jealousy by 
another nation (19b).

	Isaiah also predicted that God would reveal himself to the Gentiles, 
who were not seeking him (20),

	while Israel would stubbornly resist God's offer to come to him for 
salvation (21).

> 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.

What drives this whole mistaken approach comes to the surface again. 
Neither lexical, nor syntactic, nor contextual considerations are at 
the fore, but a desire to rescue Paul from a supposed misunderstanding 
of Is 65. Starting from such a position, what else can you do? You have 
no other alternative but to finagle the text. The interpretation is a 
foregone conclusion, and God help any lexical, syntactic, or contextual 
evidence that gets in the way. Contrary to your assertion, Rom 10.20 
does not plead for the Dutch translation, it pleads for mercy—rescue 
from the horrible torture to which it has been subjected because of a 
preconceived theological idea that has been foisted on it!

> 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)?

You keep asking the same question, to which you must have by now 
anticipated the answer. Let me repeat: No, it should not be preferred. 
If indeed it is better to start with translation, why not actually do 
that? What you have offered does not even qualify as translation. It is 
nothing more than theological importation. Rather than trying to 
"justify" (as you say above) the Dutch translations, you should be 
seeking to treat fairly the original text on which the Dutch 
translations purport to be based. Offer an actual translation of the 
words as they stand, rather than a novel paraphrase at the far end of a 
tortuous path of theological speculation.
=============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list