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

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sat Nov 30 05:06:48 EST 2002


Richard:

I think it is important at this point to honestly address what is 
happening. You are convinced that unless Paul (and the translator of 
Isaiah 65.1) is saying exactly what *you* think the *Hebrew* text of 
Isaiah 65.1 is saying, that he must be in error. That is unacceptable 
to you (as it is to me, though I think you have constructed a false 
dichotomy that I do not accept). So let's face this situation squarely: 
In light of this presupposition, there is no amount of lexical, 
syntactic, and structural evidence that could possibly sway you. It is 
clear that your underlying concern is theological and therefore can 
only be dealt with theologically, which is not what this forum is 
about. You pose more questions below that can only lead us further 
afield into theology, along with contentions about Greek that you do 
not back up with examples. You claim that grammar "ought to come first" 
(after saying in an earlier post that we should begin with 
translation!), but offer no true *grammatical* support for your 
position. Instead, you make a contention about the parallel clauses in 
Rom 10.20 that only begs the question of whether you have understood 
EITHER clause aright, and call this a grammatical argument. You claim 
that the aorist passive hEUREQHN may legitimately mean "I was to be 
found," but offer no examples except the very one in question! As for 
Isaiah 65.1 in the Greek, why would a translator, presumably 
translating for Hellenistic Jews (and perhaps Gentiles) who had little 
or no knowledge of Hebrew, translate in such a way that would never 
yield the idea you propose except for someone who is fluent in the 
underlying Hebrew, if even then? As I showed from MANY examples, the 
natural way to understand hEUREQHN is as "I was found," or something 
similar, not "I was available to be found." This is no doubt how a 
Hellenistic Jew or a Gentile with no knowledge of Hebrew would read it. 
And these are the very people for whom the OT was translated into 
Greek! So the onus is on you to show us parallels in Greek literature 
that clearly yield the meaning "availability to be found." Otherwise we 
have no reason to believe that a Hellenistic Jew or a Gentile reading 
Isaiah 65.1 would ever understand it in such a sense, and no reason 
therefore to think that a translator would translate it thus and expect 
it to be understood in this sense by the people for whom he was 
translating. And how in the world would Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles 
possibly understand hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20 in the sense you propose, 
if it is not attested elsewhere in Greek? These are the questions you 
need to deal with, along with the *specific* lexical, syntactic, and 
structural arguments set forth previously. Up to this point you have 
not really answered *specifically* any of the arguments proffered.

At this point, I can't see any way to proceed with a discussion of the 
GREEK TEXT of Rom 10.20, since this is not your primary concern and I 
think the presuppositions you bring to the text preclude you from 
accepting any amount of evidence that could possibly be adduced. There 
is a list devoted to Pauline theology; perhaps that would be a better 
forum for your question. I think the people at B-Translation might also 
find this of interest. But I don't think there is anywhere left to go 
on B-Greek. At least not for me.

God bless,

Steven Lo Vullo

> 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 + + +
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [slovullo at mac.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')




More information about the B-Greek mailing list