Romans 10:20

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Sun Dec 1 04:03:27 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven Wrote:> I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a=20> preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the=20> question of the relationship between this text and Is 65.1 would in a=20> million years ever translate as you and the Dutch translation have=20> done. Can you honestly tell me that, if you had never before seen the=20> Hebrew text of Is 65, you would consider for even a second translating=20=> hEUREQHN as “I was to be found”?Thanks again for such an extensive contribution, Steven. I appreciate itvery much.I admit that I would have overseen the possibility of the Dutchtranslation when translating Romans 10:20. I do not dream that I am aprofessional translator. But after reading and enquiring the Dutchtranslations I saw their strength, for they express the similarity of bothparts of the parallelism (I was visible/to be seen & I was to be found).Don’t you agree traditional translations oversee this parallel?> Can you produce another instance of=20 > hEUREQHN that would naturally be> understood as “I was to be found”?=20Yes, there are more than one examples that would naturally be understoodas “I was to be found”. I found the following examples (Englishtranslations from the RSV):- 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN EIRHNH:be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.- Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was notfound. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.- Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And everyisland fled away, and no mountains were to be found.- Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and shall befound no more.Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and ifany one’s name was not found written in the book of life. The translation”was not to be found” lies at hand.> Remember, the sense you are suggesting is “I was available to be=20> found.”This IS NOT the same as understanding an elliptical EINAI (“I=20> was found *to be*”). “To be found” and “found to be” are NOT the same=20> thing. This is exactly why the translation you suggest has been=20> described as “contrived”=97 we would not translate like this elsewhere.=20=> > Your argument amounts to special pleading. I must throw down the=20> gauntlet at this point: Where are the parallels to your understanding=20> of hEUREQHN? If you cannot produce them, are you willing to concede=20> that your understanding of hEUREQHN has nothing to do with what the=20> Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean, and everything to do=20=> with a preconceived theological assumption? If so, is not=20> really the forum for such discussions.My present contribution is 100% related to biblical Greek and contains noexegetical arguments. See the above examples. Do you agree that theseexamples make the Dutch translation “I was to be found for those who didnot seek Me; I was to be seen for those who did not ask for Me” possibleon the basis of Greek grammar?Kind regards,R. van den Hengel,The Netherlands.

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

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Sun Dec 1 05:03:10 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? GINOMAI Steven wrote:> 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.Thanks again for your contribution, Steven. I agree we _both_ shouldconcentrate on Biblical Greek instead of writing about exegesis.Sure there is a lot of evidence that allows to translate hEUREQHN with ‘Iwas to be found’. I found the following examples (English translationsfrom the RSV):- 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN EIRHNH:be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.- Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was notfound. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.- Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And everyisland fled away, and no mountains were to be found.- Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and shall befound no more.Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and ifany one’s name was not found written in the book of life. The translation”was not to be found” lies at hand.In some examples the RSV has already chosen for translating ‘to be found’.What do you think of this evidence? Do these examples give way for thesome recent Dutch translations: ‘I was to be found for those who did notseek Me; I was to be seen for those who did not ask for Me’?Kind regards,R. van den Hengel,The Netherlands.

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

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Jerker Karlsson jerker.karlsson at kdu.se
Sun Dec 1 10:32:52 EST 2002

GINOMAI (correction) Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl writes:>Yes, there are more than one examples that would naturally be understood>as “I was to be found”. I found the following examples (English>translations from the RSV):>– 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN EIRHNH:>be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.>– Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was not>found. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.>– Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And every>island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.>– Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and shall be>found no more.>Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS >EUREQH >TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and if>any one’s name was not found written in the book of life. The translation>“was not to be found” lies at hand.Rev 20: 15 sic! :: Nov. leg. KAI EI TIS OUX EUREQH EN TH BIBLW THS ZWHSGEGRAMMENOSDoes not these examples prove wrong what you stated earlier when saying”The subject of the active sentence (They found me) consists of persons(They), so the passive mode (I was found by those) would be ‘EUREQHN UPWTWN’ and not ‘EUREQHN TOIS'”? Since here, the dative is proved tofunctions as an agent for both animale and inanimale, i.e. 2Pet 3:14 I see no reason why Paul should deviate from the normal construction ofpass.aor + dat. as expressing passive verb and agent only in Romans, andonly at this instance.On a general level I see no support in the loci you just cited for thereading “was to be found” for EUREQHN in Rom 10:20. The only real parallelis 2Pet. 3:14 and there the RSV translates correctly by “found by him”. By the way, how does the Dutch translation go verbatim?/Jerker KarlssonLund, Sweden

GINOMAI (correction)Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 1 14:05:14 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Apology This “passive” verb seems to be giving a lot of trouble. I’ve alreadysuggested that it might better be viewed as a middle with a sensesomething like German SICH BEFINDEN. I think actually that it functions inthe expressions being discussed in a manner very similar to WFQH + dativeor EGENETO/EGENHQH + dative in the sense “appear” or “be open to view” oreven simply “exist.”I think it might be worth checking BDAG s.v. hEURISKW 1.b: Pass. be found,find oneself, be (Dt 20:11; 4 Km 14:14; 1 Esdr 1:19; 8:13; Bar 1:7;TestSol 7:6; GrBar 4:11) F, hEUREQH EIS AZWTON Philip found himself or waspresent at Azotus Ac 8:40 (cp. Esth 1:5 TOIS EQNESIN TOIS hEUREQEISIN EIST. POLIN; also s. 4 Km 2), on the other hand, a Semitic phrase . . . V;bjA;kA;tVvTa=to arrive in, or at, may underlie the expr. here and inhEUREQHNAI EIS T. BASILEIAN Hs 9, 13, 2 (s. MBlack, Aramaic Studies andthe NT, JTS 49, ’48, 164). OUDE TOPOS hEUREQH AUTWN ETI EN T. OURANWi?ˆthere was no longer any place for them in heaven Rv 12:8 (s. Da 2:35Theod.); cp. 18:22, 24. OUDE hEUREQH DOLOS EN T. STOMATI AUTOU) 1 Pt 2:22;1 Cl 16:10 (both Is 53:9); cp. Rv 14:5 (cp. Zeph 3:13). hINA hEUREQW ENAUTWi?ˆ (i.e. Cristw?ˆ) that I might be found in Christ Phil 3:9(JMoffatt, ET 24, 1913, 46).At 4:32 PM +0100 12/1/02, Jerker Karlsson wrote:>r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl writes:>>Yes, there are more than one examples that would naturally be understood>>as “I was to be found”. I found the following examples (English>>translations from the RSV):>>– 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN EIRHNH:>>be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.>>– Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he wasnot>>found. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.>>– Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: Andevery>>island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.>>– Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and shallbe>>found no more.>>Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS> >>hEUREQH> >>TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and if>>any one‚s name was not found written in the book of life. Thetranslation>>“was not to be found” lies at hand.> > >Rev 20: 15 sic! :: Nov. leg. KAI EI TIS OUX hEUREQH EN TH BIBLW THSZWHS>GEGRAMMENOS> >Does not these examples prove wrong what you stated earlier when saying>“The subject of the active sentence (They found me) consists of persons>(They), so the passive mode (I was found by those) would be ‘hEUREQHN UPW>TWN’ and not hEUREQHN TOIS’? Since here, the dative is proved to>functions as an agent for both animale and inanimale, i.e. 2Pet 3:14 > >I see no reason why Paul should deviate from the normal construction of>pass.aor + dat. as expressing passive verb and agent only in Romans, and>only at this instance.> >On a general level I see no support in the loci you just cited for the>reading “was to be found” for hEUREQHN in Rom 10:20. The only realparallel>is 2Pet. 3:14 and there the RSV translates correctly by “found by him”.> >By the way, how does the Dutch translation go verbatim?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

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

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 2 01:07:31 EST 2002

GINOMAI Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 03:03 AM, Richard wrote:> Steven Wrote:> >> I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a=20>> preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the=20>> question of the relationship between this text and Is 65.1 would in >> a=20>> million years ever translate as you and the Dutch translation have=20>> done. Can you honestly tell me that, if you had never before seen >> the=20>> Hebrew text of Is 65, you would consider for even a second >> translating=20=>> hEUREQHN as “I was to be found”?> > Thanks again for such an extensive contribution, Steven. I appreciate > it> very much.> > I admit that I would have overseen the possibility of the Dutch> translation when translating Romans 10:20. I do not dream that I am a> professional translator. But after reading and enquiring the Dutch> translations I saw their strength, for they express the similarity of > both> parts of the parallelism (I was visible/to be seen & I was to be > found).> Don’t you agree traditional translations oversee this parallel?(1) So far, from what I have been able to gather, you admit that your understanding of Romans 10.20 is not one that even you would naturally derive from a straightforward reading of the Greek text, but is rather the result of the influence of a translation in another language. You also say that you are not a professional translator, and seem to imply by that statement that if you were, you would probably, by a straightforward reading of the Greek text, have understood Romans 10.20 in the sense conveyed by the Dutch translation. I would submit that it is not necessary for one to be a professional translator—or even a good translator—in order to properly understand Greek, since a thorough understanding of Greek is not dependent on being proficient at translation. Translation depends on a sound understanding Greek; a sound understanding of Greek does not depend on translation. Most people who have a sound understanding of Greek never become professional translators. The bottom line here is that we should start with the Greek and afterwards come to translation (if we are interested in translation). We do not start with translation and then come to the text to see if the text can somehow be squared with the translation. If you would naturally overlook (which is what I think you meant above by “overseen”) the sense conveyed by the Dutch translation when reading the Greek text itself, why would you allow such a translation to cause you to understand the Greek text in a way that you would never otherwise have done? I don’t get that. I must admit that I scratch my head when I read such things.This leads me back to one of the points I made in my last post. If it is not natural to read hEUREQHN as “I was available to be found” simply and only on the basis of the Greek text, then such an understanding should be rejected. If this is not the semantic association that a Greek reader would naturally make, then we have no reason to believe that this is what the text means or was intended to mean. On the other hand, if the sense for hEUREQHN you propose IS the natural sense in which a Greek reader would understand Romans 10.20, such a sense should not only be ATTESTED in Hellenistic Greek, but should be WIDELY ATTESTED, since, on your understanding, we should expect this idea to come naturally and quickly to the mind of a Greek speaker—a Greek speaker, mind you, who did not have the benefit of the Dutch translation. But as I will show, this sense is not natural, and the examples you give below are spurious and leave you still without any evidence that yours is a natural way to understand the Greek of Romans 10.20.(2) I am—forgive me— somewhat amused by your statement that the Dutch interpretation accurately expresses the relationship of the parallel clauses in Romans 10.20, while the traditional translations overlook it. You seem oblivious to the fact that you are using your understanding of the sense of one clause to prove the sense of the other and vice versa! This is circular reasoning at its worst! You have not even begun to prove that EITHER verb should be understood as “available to be.” As for the second clause, it not only should NOT be understood as meaning “I was available to be manifest,” but, in light of what it does patently mean, offers more convincing proof that your understanding of the FIRST clause is erroneous. EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN on the face of it says and means “I became manifest to those who did not ask for me,” not “I was available to become manifest to those who did not ask for me.” Let me try to illustrate this once again with a pertinent parallel, since you have chosen to ignore my last attempt to get through:Acts 10:40-41 TOUTON hO QEOS HGEIREN [EN] THi TRITHi hHMERAi KAI EDWKEN AUTON EMFANH GENESQAI, OU PANTI TWi LAWi, ALLA MARTUSIN TOIS PROKECEIROTONHMENOIS hUPO TOU QEOU, hHMINWhat we have here is the same verb in the same tense (GENESQAI; cf. EGENOMHN in Rom 10.20); the same predicate adjective (EMFANH; cf. EMFANHS in Rom 10.20); and personal dative modifiers (PANTI TWi LAWi … MARTUSIN TOIS PROKECEIROTONHMENOIS … hHMIN; cf. TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN in Rom 10.20). Now, what does this text mean? Quite simply, “But God raised him from death three days later and caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only to the witnesses that God had already chosen” (TEV). What needs to be noted carefully here is that God did not merely make Jesus AVAILABLE TO BECOME MANIFEST to his chosen witnesses, as if Jesus were just hanging out somewhere, ready in the event that any of these witnesses should so desire to see him; rather, he ACTUALLY MADE HIM MANIFEST to those he had chosen to be witnesses! What could be clearer? What this means is that in Romans 10.20 EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN means, “I became manifest to those who did not ask for me,” not “I was available to become manifest for those who did not ask for me.” So NO, the traditional translations DO NOT overlook the parallelism; they make it clear by a responsible handling of the text in both clauses.I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least make SOME effort to deal with the excellent parallels—such as the one above—that I have offered for the clauses in view. Your strategy so far seems to be to ignore very close and pertinent parallels while adducing texts that have little syntactic and semantic correspondence to the clauses in question. A little further on I will point out another excellent parallel I have previously offered with respect to the first clause of Romans 10.20 that you have also seen fit to totally ignore. Perhaps if I repeat myself incessantly you will deign to comment on these exceedingly relevant parallels. I have given you the courtesy of commenting on every example you have offered. While I don’t expect you to comment on EVERY example I adduce, I do expect you to show me the courtesy of at least commenting on those examples that I claim as close parallels. If your understanding of the text is to be taken seriously, you must either prove that the texts I have adduced are not parallel at all, or prove that they do not carry the meaning I have assigned to them. In addition, you must explain why the examples you adduce are more pertinent than the ones I have adduced. I don’t think you can do any of that.>> Can you produce another instance of=20 > hEUREQHN that would >> naturally be>> understood as “I was to be found”?=20> > Yes, there are more than one examples that would naturally be > understood> as “I was to be found”. I found the following examples (English> translations from the RSV):What you have unwittingly performed below is a sort of semantic “bait and switch.” I know you did not MEAN to do it. But in your zeal to justify the Dutch interpretation you have unintentionally abandoned the original sense you have proposed for hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20 and replaced it with something that only superficially resembles it. It is crucial at this point to recall the sense you propose for hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20—”availability to be found.” The gloss you used was “there to be found.” This clearly indicates availability. In fact, we can go one step further: You have proposed the meaning “available to be found should one only seek.” I will be careful to hold you to this understanding. The problem is that none of the examples below carry the sense “availability to be found,” much less “availability to be found should one only seek.” You seem to think that the mere use of the words “to be” in an English translation somehow proves that hEURISKW in the Greek examples carries the semantic weight you have proposed for hEUREQHN in Rom 10.20. This is simply fallacious. When we apply the full semantic force of your proposition to these texts, it becomes clear that hEUREQHN does not at all bear the sense you propose. Lets look at these texts CAREFULLY, one at a time.> – 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN > EIRHNH:> be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.The idea here is NOT that Christians should be zealous to be AVAILABLE TO BE FOUND without spot or blemish, and at peace, but rather that they should be zealous to ACTUALLY BE FOUND without spot or blemish, and at peace. What is so fatuous about this example is that the English words “to be” have nothing to do with availability, but rather arise from the fact that hEURHQHNAI is a complementary infinitive of SPOUDASATE! In order to fully express the semantics of your proposal, we would have to add words in addition to “to be,” e.g., “be zealous to be available to be found for him without spot or blemish, and in peace.”By the way, if the RSV translation of AUTWi here reflects accurately the underlying Greek text, 2 Peter 3.14 lends further support to translating hEUREQHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Romans 10.20 as “I was found BY those who did not seek me,” which you originally denied was accurate.As I mentioned above, you have made a habit all along of ignoring the closest and very best parallels I have offered. So I don’t think it is inappropriate at this point to resubmit a very close parallel to the second clause of Romans 10.20 that I have offered and commented on in an earlier post, and which you have chosen to ignore.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 Romans 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 Chronicles 15.15 makes it abundantly clear that hEUREQHN does not mean “AVAILABLE to be found,” but “ACTUALLY found.” This calls into question not only your understanding of Romans 10.20, but also raises the question of how the LXX translator of Isaiah 65.1 understood the Hebrew text there, and how Greek readers with little or no background in Hebrew (the very people for whom the LXX was translated) would naturally understand it. It would seem in light of the above analogy (and others) that by hEUREQHN TOIS EME MH EPERWTWSIN the translator of Isaiah 65.1 meant, “I was found by those who did not ask for me.” And if Paul is following a Greek manuscript in Romans 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, albeit wrongly.I could repeat here all the other examples already adduced of the aorist passive of hEURISKW with the personal dative modifier, and it would be seen that none of them yields the idea necessary to support your contention.> – Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was > not> found. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.I must first make three points about this and all your subsequent examples:(1) Unlike Romans 10.20, in every case the verb is modified by a negative particle. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind what the these texts would mean when expressed positively.(2) Unlike romans 10.20, in no case is hEURISKW modified by a personal dative modifier. This is important to keep in mind, since it greatly affects our understanding of the idiom employed. I think you are under the influence of a general misunderstanding of the figure of speech employed in the following texts. The idiom “not to be found” is absolute, i.e., that which is “not found” is not viewed in relationship to potential “finders.” The idea is that the subject in view is simply not there anymore. This idiomatic expression indicates that a person, thing or condition is absent.(3) In Hebrews 11.5, the tense of hEURISKW (imperfect) is not the same as that of Romans 10.20 (or any of your examples, for that matter), and this may indicate a certain sense and possible connotations that apply only in this specific case, and that are not proper to import into Romans 10.20, nor into your other examples.These three considerations alone disqualify these texts as true parallels to Romans 10.20. So 2 Peter 3.14 is the only text you have offered that qualifies as a parallel (as Jerker Karlsson has also noted), and, as we have seen, it provides evidence CONTRARY to your contention. But even overlooking this fact, you still have not provided one example where hEURISKW in the aorist passive unambiguously means “available to be found.”Additionally, when dealing with your examples, it will be necessary to consistently apply to them the sense you have suggested for the first clause of Romans 10.20 (“there to be found if only one would seek”), in order to determine if it is really the sense conveyed. That this is NOT the sense of the following texts will become obvious.Now let’s move on to the examples, starting with Hebrews 11.5. But first let us quote the following clause introduced by DIOTI, which you have truncated.OUC hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN AUTON hO QEOS”he was not found, because God removed him”The idea is NOT that Enoch was simply UNAVAILABLE to be found, but that he was IN ACTUALITY not found, i.e., NOT THERE, because God had removed him! Take away OUC and he would ACTUALLY be found, i.e., ACTUALLY be there, not just be AVAILABLE to be found, or AVAILABLE to be there! There is no question here of availability versus unavailability. Before his removal, he was there, and after his removal he was gone. The figure of speech simply means “he was no longer there.”As I mentioned above, hHURISKETO is imperfect, which may have implications for this passage that are peculiar to the semantic situation here only, and do not apply to the others examples in question. The idea may be that Enoch “COULD not be found,” with the implication that people looked for him but could not find him (see NIV, TEV; cf. CEV). However, this is not certain. But even if this IS what is meant, the meaning is conveyed not simply by the use of the passive voice, but also by the use of the imperfect tense. At any rate, the difference in tense, along with the absence of a personal dative modifier and the presence of the negative particle disqualifies this text as a true parallel to Romans 10.20, since any or all of these features may impact the semantics of the text. So at best Hebrews 11.5 offers us only another example of how you have completely ignored the closest parallels, where the tense is the same, the clause is positive, and there is a personal dative modifier (see my earlier posts, as well as Iver’s), and have substituted specious examples that offer us no insight whatever.> – Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And > every> island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.The idea is not UNAVAILABILITY to be found, but ACTUALITY of NOT being found! Take away the negative, and the mountains were ACTUALLY FOUND, i.e., actually were there whether or not someone sought them! They were not simply “available” to those who would seek them! The figure of speech means “the mountains no longer existed.”> – Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and > shall be> found no more.Same as last example. Not mere UNAVAILABILITY to be found, but ACTUALITY of NOT being found! Take away the negative, and Babylon was ACTUALLY FOUND, i.e., was in existence whether anyone sought it or not! It is not that Babylon was simply available to people if they would just look for it and then became unavailable! The figure of speech means “Babylon will no longer exist.”> Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and > if> any oneís name was not found written in the book of life. The > translation> “was not to be found” lies at hand.The clause is actually negative: KAI EI TIS OUC hEUREQH EN THi BIBLWi THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS, EBLHQH EIS THN LIMNHN TOU PUROS.Once more it is important to apply precisely your own semantic understanding of Rom 10.20 to the text to see if it holds water as evidence for your conjecture. Is the idea here “if anyone was not AVAILABLE to be found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire” or “if anyone was ACTUALLY not written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire”? The former is sheer nonsense. Again, take away the negative, and the person is ACTUALLY FOUND in the book of life, not just AVAILABLE TO BE FOUND if someone would only look! You may think this is nitpicking, but this distinction means all the difference in the world. The figure of speech means something like “if anyone’s name did not show up written there in the book of life.” Adding the words “to be” in an English translation of the text has no bearing on the issue at all; it is less than irrelevant.All the above texts from Revelation could just as easily have been expressed in other terms. For example, in 22.5 we read, KAI NUX OUK ESTAI ETI (“and night shall not exist any longer”). There is no significant difference between this expression and KAI NUX OUC hEUREQHSETAI ETI (“and night shall not be found any longer”).At any rate, it is clear that the only true parallel to Romans 10.20 that you have offered thus far is that of 2 Peter 3.14, which clearly contradicts your own understanding of Romans 10.20.>> Remember, the sense you are suggesting is “I was available to be=20>> found.”This IS NOT the same as understanding an elliptical EINAI >> (“I=20>> was found *to be*”). “To be found” and “found to be” are NOT the >> same=20>> thing. This is exactly why the translation you suggest has been=20>> described as “contrived”=97 we would not translate like this >> elsewhere.=20=>> >> Your argument amounts to special pleading. I must throw down the=20>> gauntlet at this point: Where are the parallels to your >> understanding=20>> of hEUREQHN? If you cannot produce them, are you willing to concede=20>> that your understanding of hEUREQHN has nothing to do with what the=20>> Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean, and everything to >> do=20=>> with a preconceived theological assumption? If so, is not=20>> really the forum for such discussions.> > My present contribution is 100% related to biblical Greek and contains > no> exegetical arguments. See the above examples. Do you agree that these> examples make the Dutch translation “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” > possible> on the basis of Greek grammar?No, no, no—a thousand times NO, the Dutch interpretation does NOT accurately express the sense of the Greek! It is, as Iver suggested, contrived and misleading, and all attempts to support it are equally contrived.I think your last sentence deserves comment before I close. It is not, IMO, proper to settle on something merely “possible” when we have before our eyes an option that is highly probable, if not certain. What we are often attempting to do in our examination of the Greek text is to analyze the possibilities and weed out one at a time those options that have a lower degree of probability, in order to settle on what is most probable. “Possibility” is the last refuge of every spurious and theologically-loaded translation. So we can be groupies for a particular translation, and seek shelter in the “possible,” or we can through careful examination settle on what is most probable. But we cannot do both.=============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

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

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 2 01:14:33 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? New Lexicon for the Septuagint On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:03 AM, Richard wrote:> Sure there is a lot of evidence that allows to translate hEUREQHN with > ‘I> was to be found’. I found the following examples (English translations> from the RSV):> – 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN > EIRHNH:> be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.> – Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was > not> found. The translation ‘and he was not to be found’ lies at hand.> – Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And > every> island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.> – Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and > shall be> found no more.> Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and > if> any oneís name was not found written in the book of life. The > translation> “was not to be found” lies at hand.> > In some examples the RSV has already chosen for translating ‘to be > found’.> > What do you think of this evidence? Do these examples give way for the> some 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’?No, they only illustrate that you are now depending on the words “to be” in an English translation as proof for your understanding of the underlying Greek! What is worse, you do not even seem to understand the sense of the English translation!=============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?New Lexicon for the Septuagint

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Dec 3 13:21:22 EST 2002

huponoia hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) > > This “passive” verb seems to be giving a lot of trouble. I’ve already> suggested that it might better be viewed as a middle with a sense> something like German SICH BEFINDEN. I think actually that it functions in> the expressions being discussed in a manner very similar to WFQH + dative> or EGENETO/EGENHQH + dative in the sense “appear” or “be open to view” or> even simply “exist.”Whereas I agree that the passive of hEURISKW is often similar in sense to”appear” or “be seen”, I doubt that it is similar to or could be translatedinto German by “sich befinden”. With a verb like this, I would expect themiddle to be very similar in sense to the active rather than the passive,that is, the middle might mean “to find and acquire”. The Friberg tags hasonly one instance marked middle. Several versions translate it as “secure”,others as “obtain”. It is in Heb 9:12. BAGD says that the sense of themiddle is “find (for oneself), obtain” and is used in Attic. By the way,does the book of Hebrews show other examples of Attic Greek? Is it moreclassical than the rest of the NT?Maybe the similarity to “appear” is the main reason why the experiencer inthe passive form of the verb is indicated by a dative or possibly EN ratherthan hUPO?Iver Larsen

huponoiahHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20)

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 3 13:33:36 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) At 9:21 PM +0300 12/3/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> This “passive” verb seems to be giving a lot of trouble. I’ve already>> suggested that it might better be viewed as a middle with a sense>> something like German SICH BEFINDEN. I think actually that it functions in>> the expressions being discussed in a manner very similar to WFQH + dative>> or EGENETO/EGENHQH + dative in the sense “appear” or “be open to view” or>> even simply “exist.”> >Whereas I agree that the passive of hEURISKW is often similar in sense to>“appear” or “be seen”, I doubt that it is similar to or could be translated>into German by “sich befinden”. With a verb like this, I would expect the>middle to be very similar in sense to the active rather than the passive,>that is, the middle might mean “to find and acquire”. The Friberg tags has>only one instance marked middle. Several versions translate it as “secure”,>others as “obtain”.Accordance too lists only one instance of hEURISKW in the middle with aspecial sense, but I hardly think that is statistically significantevidence that hHUREQHN is really “passive” in sense. Consider the varietyof voice-senses of EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN–not very clearly linked tomorphoparadigms. It is in Heb 9:12. BAGD says that the sense of the>middle is “find (for oneself), obtain” and is used in Attic. By the way,>does the book of Hebrews show other examples of Attic Greek? Is it more>classical than the rest of the NT?I do think that Hebrews shows more elevated style and yes, probably moretraditional Greek than what we’re used to of Koine elsewhere in the GNT.The distinctive usage of hHUREQHN in the GNT appears to be fundamentallyintransitive (note what BDAG said of its probable derivation from Hebrewusage) and is, in my now-preferred terminology, “subject-focused.”>Maybe the similarity to “appear” is the main reason why the experiencer in>the passive form of the verb is indicated by a dative or possibly EN rather>than hUPO?I think that the use of the dative with such verbs as WFQH and hHREQH mayprimarily relate to these verbs being conceived as INTRANSITIVE–i.e. theyare like “active” verbs that take a dative instead of an accusative.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20)

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Dec 3 23:53:14 EST 2002

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Greek English Tagging *HELP WANTED* > Accordance too lists only one instance of hEURISKW in the middle with a> special sense, but I hardly think that is statistically significant> evidence that hHUREQHN is really “passive” in sense. Consider the variety> of voice-senses of EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN–not very clearly linked to> morphoparadigms.Yes, the argument that the MP forms of hEURISKW are almost all passive insense in the GNT is not based on statistics, nor on comparison to how otherverbs vary in sense. It is based on the context in which each form occurs.Of the 32 instances of MP of hEURISKW, the context indicates that one ismiddle, one is present passive, one is imperfect passive, 2 are futurepassives and 27 are aorist passives. It is the context that has made bothFriberg and Accordance (I presume) tag them as such.> > The distinctive usage of hHUREQHN in the GNT appears to be fundamentally> intransitive (note what BDAG said of its probable derivation from Hebrew> usage) and is, in my now-preferred terminology, “subject-focused.”This is an unusual and IMO unhelpful use of the term “intransitive”. Take anexample. The word “discover” is a transitive verb because in its active formit can be supplied with a direct object. The passive form “it wasdiscovered” is derived from the active (not in a TG sense). Any languagewith passives have such forms in one way or another derived from the active,either by affixes of by auxiliary verbs. What was the object in the basicactive form becomes the subject in the passive form, and what was thesubject in the active form, is left implicit. This does not mean that thepassive form becomes “intransitive” in terms of how this word is normallyused in linguistics. The term intransitive does not apply to passive forms.As you may remember from our earlier discussions, I do not think the term”subject-focused” adequately describes the MP forms, whether middle orpassive. I do think that a better description will be based on semanticroles.Iver Larsen

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20)Greek English Tagging *HELP WANTED*

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Dec 4 09:42:09 EST 2002

Greek English Tagging *HELP WANTED* hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) I won’t change the header, but I will note that the form standard in Koineis hEUREQHN with an epsilon rather than hHUREQHN with an eta, the latterform perhaps being pretty rare in later Greek.At 7:53 AM +0300 12/4/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> Accordance too lists only one instance of hEURISKW in the middle with a>> special sense, but I hardly think that is statistically significant>> evidence that hHUREQHN is really “passive” in sense. Consider the variety>> of voice-senses of EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN–not very clearly linked to>> morphoparadigms.> >Yes, the argument that the MP forms of hEURISKW are almost all passive in>sense in the GNT is not based on statistics, nor on comparison to how other>verbs vary in sense. It is based on the context in which each form occurs.You may believe that, Iver, but I believe that the aorist MPs are labeledas passive simply because they are -QH- morphoparadigms. The one form inthe GNT labeled “middle” in Accordance is hEURAMENOS in Heb. 9:12; this isthe usage that you called attention to as indicated in BAGD (and it’s stillthere in BDAG) as being “Attic.” Yes, it is, but note that it’s inflectedwith -A- rather than -O- (hEURAMENOS rather than the properly AttichEUROMENOS). That’s a distinctive usage in a distinctive sense, and I don’tthink it bears on our accounting for GNT forms of hEURISKW in terms of aconsistent “transitive” verb.>Of the 32 instances of MP of hEURISKW, the context indicates that one is>middle, one is present passive, one is imperfect passive, 2 are future>passives and 27 are aorist passives. It is the context that has made both>Friberg and Accordance (I presume) tag them as such.>> >> The distinctive usage of hHUREQHN in the GNT appears to be fundamentally>> intransitive (note what BDAG said of its probable derivation from Hebrew>> usage) and is, in my now-preferred terminology, “subject-focused.”> >This is an unusual and IMO unhelpful use of the term “intransitive”. Take an>example. The word “discover” is a transitive verb because in its active form>it can be supplied with a direct object. The passive form “it was>discovered” is derived from the active (not in a TG sense). Any language>with passives have such forms in one way or another derived from the active,>either by affixes of by auxiliary verbs. What was the object in the basic>active form becomes the subject in the passive form, and what was the>subject in the active form, is left implicit. This does not mean that the>passive form becomes “intransitive” in terms of how this word is normally>used in linguistics. The term intransitive does not apply to passive forms.>As you may remember from our earlier discussions, I do not think the term>“subject-focused” adequately describes the MP forms, whether middle or>passive. I do think that a better description will be based on semantic>roles.Then I guess that you’ll also uphold the traditional category of deponentverbs. EGEIRW is not normally considered a “deponent” verb, but it behaveslike one in several ways. I suppose you’ll say thatEGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN is a transitive verb because in the active it CANtake a direct object when it has the sense, “awaken” (or “raise from thedead”). Yet the “active” imperative (so tagged in Accordance) appears 15xin the GNT in the sense, “arise.” The middle EGEIROMAI is well enoughattested outside the GNT but doesn’t appear in the GNT at all, according toAccordance, which shows 86 “passive” forms–20 in the present tense(including 3 instances of EGEIRESQE–Mt. 26:46; Mk 14:42; Jn14:31–followed by AGWMEN, clearly in the sense, “Get up, let’s go!”), 11in the perfect tense, all others in the -QH- future and aorist tense-forms.Would you believe that BDAG refers to the sense “awake” or “arise” or “risefrom the dead” in these instances as a “passive intransitive”?The fact is that I don’t think it’s very useful to speak of “passiveintransitive” either. What I do think is that we ought to distinguishbetween designations of the morphoparadigms and the semantic roles ofverbs. I object to the designation of the -QH- forms as “passive” because(a) quite frequently such forms are NOT at all passive in meaning, and (b)to call such -QH- forms “deponent” when they don’t perform a passivesemantic role suggests that they are somehow irregular, when they areactually numerous and quite regular, even if they don’t have “active” forms(although EGEIRW certainly does have one, which is why, I guess, it hasn’tbeen labeled a “deponent” verb.You don’t like the term “subject-focused.” Well, perhaps a better term mayyet be invented, but it seems to me that it does characterize the way thatboth the traditional “middle-passive” and the traditional -QH- “passive”morphoparadigms function in distinction from the traditional “active”morphoparadigms. In §§7 of my latest “New Observations” I’ve suggested”Basic” and “Subject-focused” as descriptive terms for the traditional”Active” and the traditional “Middle-passive” and “passive” morphoparadigmsrespectively, but in order to retain some continuity with traditionalterminology, I’ve suggested that we continue to use the term “active” forthe traditional “active” morphoparadigms while designating the traditional”middle-passive” morphoparadigms as MP1 and the traditional “passive”morphoparadigms as MP2.What has impressed itself upon me in the course of my study of the middleand passive morphoparadigms and voice functions of the Greek verbs is thatthe categories in terms of which traditional grammar has described it–andperhaps those into which scientific linguistics seems to want to force itto fit–, don’t seem to apply very well to the way the languageworks/worked. We have wanted to see the Middle voice as a sort of half-wayhouse between a fundamental polarity of Active and Passive, whereas itseems to me that the fundamental polarity of voice in Greek voice FORMS isof unmarked “Basic” forms, most of which are what we would properly callActive, but many of which are decidedly not so, and marked”Subject-focused” forms which generally describe an action in which thesubject is deeply involved or a transition which the subject is undergoingor experiencing–or suffering or being subjected to. When informed byhistorical linguistics that proto-Indo-European had no true passive butused what is called “medio-passive” to express both “Middle” and “Passive”functions and that this is also true of the earliest Greek, I began towonder whether passive function wasn’t ALWAYS in ancient Greek just a wayof using the “medio-passive” morphoparadigms. Thinking about the wayreflexive verbs in modern European languages function made me increasinglyaware that these reflexive verbs–or many of them, at least–alsofunctioned not infrequently for a semantic passive function. EMOI MEN OUNTOUTO hEUREQH hEURHMA MEGA: In my perspective, at any rate, this presenteditself as a huge discovery.KEIRATAI may mean “he cuts his own hair” or “he has his hair cut (byanother)”; XURATAI may mean “he shaves himself” or “he has himself shaved(by another).” I don’t think that the Greek psyche ordinarily thought of adistinction between “middle” and “passive” usage with these verbs; rather Ithink it is the modern translator who gets hung up on whether the “form” isMiddle or Passive. KEIRATAI simply means “he gets his hair cut” and XURATAIsimply means “he has a shave.” If there’s a need to specify who’s cuttingthe hair or doing the shaving, there is a regular agent construction, but Ithink that to the Greek-speaker the distinction was ordinarily irrelevant.I wouldn’t want to be dogmatically insistent that every GNT instance ofhEUREQHN should be understood as intransitive or middle in function, but Iam far from convinced that the meaning of this form is ALWAYS PASSIVE insense. I called attention to the item in BDAG a few days back that theremay be some value in calling attention to anew:hEURISKW 1.b. Pass. be found, find oneself, be (Dt 20:11; 4 Km 14:14; 1Esdr 1:19; 8:13; Bar 1:7; TestSol 7:6; GrBar 4:11) F. hEUREQH EIS AZWTONPhilip found himself or was present at Azotus Ac 8:40 (cp. Esth 1:5 toiˆßEQNESIN TOIS hEUREQEISIN EIS THN POLIN; also s. 4 Km 2), on the other hand,a Semitic phrase )STKX B …=to arrive in, or at, may underlie the expr.here and in hEUREQHNAI EIS THN BASILEIAN Hs 9, 13, 2 (s. MBlack, AramaicStudies and the NT, JTS 49, ’48, 164). OUDE TOPOS hEUREQH AUTWN ETI EN TWiOURANWi there was no longer any place for them in heaven Rv 12:8 (s. Da2:35 Theod.); cp. 18:22, 24. OUDE hEUREQH DOLOS EN TWi STOMATI AUTOU 1 Pt2:22; 1 Cl 16:10 (both Is 53:9); cp. Rv 14:5 (cp. Zeph 3:13). hINA hEUREQWEN AUTWi (i.e. CRISTWi) that I might be found in Christ Phil 3:9 (JMoffatt,ET 24, 1913, 46).Consequently, I think I’ll not yet abandon my view that hEUREQH may inseveral instances bear the sense of German “sich befinden” and beessentially synonymous with EGENETO or even WFQH when used with a dative inthe sense “appeared to …” (WFQH, moreover, is another verb like EGEIRWthat is certainly transitive in the active hORAW and the future OYOMAI, butin that distinctive sense of OFQHNAI, “make oneself seen/appear,” it has tobe understood as intransitive.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

Greek English Tagging *HELP WANTED*hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20)

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Dec 4 12:24:08 EST 2002

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA Thanks, Carl, for your added comments.Let me just make a few comments interspersed below:> Then I guess that you’ll also uphold the traditional category of deponent> verbs. EGEIRW is not normally considered a “deponent” verb, but it behaves> like one in several ways. I suppose you’ll say that> EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN is a transitive verb because in the active it CAN> take a direct object when it has the sense, “awaken” (or “raise from the> dead”). Yet the “active” imperative (so tagged in Accordance) appears 15x> in the GNT in the sense, “arise.” The middle EGEIROMAI is well enough> attested outside the GNT but doesn’t appear in the GNT at all,> according to> Accordance, which shows 86 “passive” forms–20 in the present tense> (including 3 instances of EGEIRESQE–Mt. 26:46; Mk 14:42; Jn> 14:31–followed by AGWMEN, clearly in the sense, “Get up, let’s go!”), 11> in the perfect tense, all others in the -QH- future and aorist> tense-forms.> Would you believe that BDAG refers to the sense “awake” or> “arise” or “rise> from the dead” in these instances as a “passive intransitive”?No, I do not want to uphold the “deponent” term. I agree with you that thisis not a helpful description at all.Actually, I don’t think that the terms transitive or intransitive tell usmuch about the function of Greek verbs. These are syntactic terms that arenot important. I find it more interesting to describe these verbs in termsof semantic roles. For instance, EGEIRW can have two semantic roles, agentor “causer” and experiencer. To “raise” is like “cause to stand up” andinvolves an agent/cause that is different from the experiencer/undergoer.When the two roles refer to the same person we get “stand up/rise/get up”.This situation is close to the reflexive idea and in some languages may bestbe expressed as reflexive. I would expect the Greek middle to be used forthis sense, but sometimes the active is apparently used for this particularverb. When there is strong focus on the experiencer and the agent/cause iscompletely suppressed, the passive form can be used.I am not convinced that we can propose a description of the middle that willwork the same way for all verbs. Some verbal ideas lend themselves to themiddle being very similar to the active in sense, while in others, themiddle is very close to the passive in sense. For some verbs, the MP formsare close to a reflexive sense, for other verbs, this may not be the case.> > The fact is that I don’t think it’s very useful to speak of “passive> intransitive” either. What I do think is that we ought to distinguish> between designations of the morphoparadigms and the semantic roles of> verbs. I object to the designation of the -QH- forms as “passive” because> (a) quite frequently such forms are NOT at all passive in meaning, and (b)> to call such -QH- forms “deponent” when they don’t perform a passive> semantic role suggests that they are somehow irregular, when they are> actually numerous and quite regular, even if they don’t have> “active” forms> (although EGEIRW certainly does have one, which is why, I guess, it hasn’t> been labeled a “deponent” verb.> > You don’t like the term “subject-focused.” Well, perhaps a better term may> yet be invented, but it seems to me that it does characterize the way that> both the traditional “middle-passive” and the traditional -QH- “passive”> morphoparadigms function in distinction from the traditional “active”> morphoparadigms. In §§7 of my latest “New Observations” I’ve suggested> “Basic” and “Subject-focused” as descriptive terms for the traditional> “Active” and the traditional “Middle-passive” and “passive”> morphoparadigms> respectively, but in order to retain some continuity with traditional> terminology, I’ve suggested that we continue to use the term “active” for> the traditional “active” morphoparadigms while designating the traditional> “middle-passive” morphoparadigms as MP1 and the traditional “passive”> morphoparadigms as MP2.I would be happy to adopt “basic” and “MP”, which may be further specifiedas “MP1” or “MP2″ when needed. The reason I am not too happy with”subject-focused” is that “subject” is a syntactical term that is usuallylinked to the semantic agent. It seems to me that the MP forms are morerecipient-focused than subject-focused. The agent is often suppressed or outof focus in an MP form. This is in accordance with your examples of havingone’s hair cut below.> > What has impressed itself upon me in the course of my study of the middle> and passive morphoparadigms and voice functions of the Greek verbs is that> the categories in terms of which traditional grammar has described it–and> perhaps those into which scientific linguistics seems to want to force it> to fit–, don’t seem to apply very well to the way the language> works/worked. We have wanted to see the Middle voice as a sort of half-way> house between a fundamental polarity of Active and Passive, whereas it> seems to me that the fundamental polarity of voice in Greek voice FORMS is> of unmarked “Basic” forms, most of which are what we would properly call> Active, but many of which are decidedly not so, and marked> “Subject-focused” forms which generally describe an action in which the> subject is deeply involved or a transition which the subject is undergoing> or experiencing–or suffering or being subjected to. When informed by> historical linguistics that proto-Indo-European had no true passive but> used what is called “medio-passive” to express both “Middle” and “Passive”> functions and that this is also true of the earliest Greek, I began to> wonder whether passive function wasn’t ALWAYS in ancient Greek just a way> of using the “medio-passive” morphoparadigms. Thinking about the way> reflexive verbs in modern European languages function made me increasingly> aware that these reflexive verbs–or many of them, at least–also> functioned not infrequently for a semantic passive function. EMOI MEN OUN> TOUTO hEUREQH hEURHMA MEGA: In my perspective, at any rate, this presented> itself as a huge discovery.> > KEIRATAI may mean “he cuts his own hair” or “he has his hair cut (by> another)”; XURATAI may mean “he shaves himself” or “he has himself shaved> (by another).” I don’t think that the Greek psyche ordinarily thought of a> distinction between “middle” and “passive” usage with these> verbs; rather I> think it is the modern translator who gets hung up on whether the> “form” is> Middle or Passive. KEIRATAI simply means “he gets his hair cut”> and XURATAI> simply means “he has a shave.” If there’s a need to specify who’s cutting> the hair or doing the shaving, there is a regular agent> construction, but I> think that to the Greek-speaker the distinction was ordinarily irrelevant.> > I wouldn’t want to be dogmatically insistent that every GNT instance of> hEUREQHN should be understood as intransitive or middle in function, but I> am far from convinced that the meaning of this form is ALWAYS PASSIVE in> sense. I called attention to the item in BDAG a few days back that there> may be some value in calling attention to anew:> > hEURISKW 1.b. Pass. be found, find oneself, be (Dt 20:11; 4 Km 14:14; 1> Esdr 1:19; 8:13; Bar 1:7; TestSol 7:6; GrBar 4:11) F. hEUREQH EIS AZWTON> Philip found himself or was present at Azotus Ac 8:40 (cp. Esth 1:5 toiˆß> EQNESIN TOIS hEUREQEISIN EIS THN POLIN; also s. 4 Km 2), on the> other hand,> a Semitic phrase )STKX B …=to arrive in, or at, may underlie the expr.> here and in hEUREQHNAI EIS THN BASILEIAN Hs 9, 13, 2 (s. MBlack, Aramaic> Studies and the NT, JTS 49, ’48, 164). OUDE TOPOS hEUREQH AUTWN ETI EN TWi> OURANWi there was no longer any place for them in heaven Rv 12:8 (s. Da> 2:35 Theod.); cp. 18:22, 24. OUDE hEUREQH DOLOS EN TWi STOMATI AUTOU 1 Pt> 2:22; 1 Cl 16:10 (both Is 53:9); cp. Rv 14:5 (cp. Zeph 3:13). hINA hEUREQW> EN AUTWi (i.e. CRISTWi) that I might be found in Christ Phil 3:9> (JMoffatt,> ET 24, 1913, 46).I think some of these translations are questionable. In Ac 8:40 we might aswell say “Philip was seen/discovered in Azotus” (by unspecified people.) Itis equivalent in sense to “he appeared in Azotus”, but making it reflexiveis not necessary for this verb, IMO.Iver Larsen

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20)Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Wed Dec 4 16:39:06 EST 2002

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven wrote:> (2) I am=97forgive me=97 somewhat amused by your statement that the => Dutch=20> interpretation accurately expresses the relationship of the parallel=20> clauses in Romans 10.20, while the traditional translations overlook=20> it. You seem oblivious to the fact that you are using your=20> understanding of the sense of one clause to prove the sense of the=20> other and vice versa! This is circular reasoning at its worst! You have=20=> > not even begun to prove that EITHER verb should be understood as=20> “available to be.” As for the second clause, it not only should NOT be=20=> > understood as meaning “I was available to be manifest,” but, in light=20> of what it does patently mean, offers more convincing proof that your=20> understanding of the FIRST clause is erroneous. EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS=20> EME MH EPERWTWSIN on the face of it says and means “I became manifest=20> to those who did not ask for me,” not “I was available to become=20> manifest to those who did not ask for me.” Steven, once again thanks for your reaction.I didn’t expect so much could be said about Romans 10:20. I am learning alot of your way of arguing: drawing parallels, etcetera. Things aregetting clearer to me. Can you tell me where I can find such translatingrules?Still I have got a few questions. You will find them below.You made me aware of the fact that my English translation of the Dutchtranslations of Romans 10:20 was wrong. I translated: “I was to be foundfor those who did not seek Me; I was to be seen for those who did not askfor Me”. I should have translated: “I was ready to be found for those whodid not seek Me, I was visible for those who did not ask for me” or evenbetter: “I was findable for those who did not seek Me, I was visible forthose who did not ask for me”. Sorry, sorry, sorry.The literal translation of EMFANHS is “visible” according to theGreek-English lexicon of Walter Bauer. Maybe now you understand what Imean with the parallelism: I was findable/I was visible.How would you translate the words “I was findable” into Greek?To my surprise I discovered that the RSV translates Isaiah 65:1 asfollows: ‘I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I wasready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here am I, heream I,” to a nation that did not call on my name’.The LXX has: ‘EMFANHS EGENOMHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN EUREQHN TOIS EME MHEPERW TWSIN EIPA IDOU EIMI TW EQNEI OI OUK EKALESAN MOU TO ONOMA’.What do you think of this similarity?> By the way, if the RSV translation of AUTWi here reflects accurately=20> the underlying Greek text, 2 Peter 3.14 lends further support to=20> translating hEUREQHN TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN in Romans 10.20 as “I was=20> found BY those who did not seek me,” which you originally denied was=20> accurate.You are right. I am looking for a better grammar book. Can you give me agood advice?Kind regards,R. van den Hengel,The Netherlands.

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMARomans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Wed Dec 4 16:47:50 EST 2002

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Thread closed: RE: Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Jerker wrote:> Rev 20: 15 sic! :: Nov. leg. KAI EI TIS OUX EUREQH EN TH BIBLW THS ZWHS> GEGRAMMENOS> > Does not these examples prove wrong what you stated earlier when saying> “The subject of the active sentence (They found me) consists of persons> (They), so the passive mode (I was found by those) would be ‘EUREQHN UPW> TWN’ and not ‘EUREQHN TOIS'”? Since here, the dative is proved to> functions as an agent for both animale and inanimale, i.e. 2Pet 3:14 You are right. I am looking for a better grammar book. Can you give me agood advice?> I see no reason why Paul should deviate from the normal construction of> pass.aor + dat. as expressing passive verb and agent only in Romans, and> only at this instance.> > On a general level I see no support in the loci you just cited for the> reading “was to be found” for EUREQHN in Rom 10:20. The only real parallel> is 2Pet. 3:14 and there the RSV translates correctly by “found by him”.> > By the way, how does the Dutch translation go verbatim?> > /Jerker Karlsson> Lund, SwedenI translated: “I was to be found for those who did not seek Me; I was tobe seen for those who did not ask for Me”.I should have translated: “I was ready to be found for those who did notseek Me, I was visible for those who did not ask for me” or even better:”I was findable for those who did not seek Me, I was visible for those whodid not ask for me”. I saw a paralellism in the words “findable’ and’visible’.Kind regards,R. van den Hengel,The Netherlands.

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?Thread closed: RE: Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?

Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Jerker Karlsson jerker.karlsson at kdu.se
Wed Dec 4 17:27:51 EST 2002

Thread closed: RE: Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Fanning and Porter r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl writes:>You are right. I am looking for a better grammar book. Can you give me a>good advice?> I would recommend one of the more comprehensive grammars of NT GreekRobertson, A. T.”A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research”orFriedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner”Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch.”The latter is also available in an English translation. Both a ratherexpensive though, between 45 and 100 Euro./Jerker KarlssonLund, Sweden> >

Thread closed: RE: Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?Fanning and Porter

hHUREQHN (was RE: Romans 10:20) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 5 09:36:58 EST 2002

Fanning and Porter Fanning and Porter At 8:24 PM +0300 12/4/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>Thanks, Carl, for your added comments.Let me thank you too, Iver; your message reassures me that ourdisagreements may not be so deep on this issue as I feared from yourearlier one.>Let me just make a few comments interspersed below:> >> Then I guess that you’ll also uphold the traditional category of deponent>> verbs. EGEIRW is not normally considered a “deponent” verb, but it behaves>> like one in several ways. I suppose you’ll say that>> EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI/HGERQHN is a transitive verb because in the active it CAN>> take a direct object when it has the sense, “awaken” (or “raise from the>> dead”). Yet the “active” imperative (so tagged in Accordance) appears 15x>> in the GNT in the sense, “arise.” The middle EGEIROMAI is well enough>> attested outside the GNT but doesn’t appear in the GNT at all,>> according to>> Accordance, which shows 86 “passive” forms–20 in the present tense>> (including 3 instances of EGEIRESQE–Mt. 26:46; Mk 14:42; Jn>> 14:31–followed by AGWMEN, clearly in the sense, “Get up, let’s go!”), 11>> in the perfect tense, all others in the -QH- future and aorist>> tense-forms.>> Would you believe that BDAG refers to the sense “awake” or>> “arise” or “rise>> from the dead” in these instances as a “passive intransitive”?> >No, I do not want to uphold the “deponent” term. I agree with you that this>is not a helpful description at all.>Actually, I don’t think that the terms transitive or intransitive tell us>much about the function of Greek verbs. These are syntactic terms that are>not important. I find it more interesting to describe these verbs in terms>of semantic roles. For instance, EGEIRW can have two semantic roles, agent>or “causer” and experiencer. To “raise” is like “cause to stand up” and>involves an agent/cause that is different from the experiencer/undergoer.>When the two roles refer to the same person we get “stand up/rise/get up”.>This situation is close to the reflexive idea and in some languages may best>be expressed as reflexive. I would expect the Greek middle to be used for>this sense, but sometimes the active is apparently used for this particular>verb. When there is strong focus on the experiencer and the agent/cause is>completely suppressed, the passive form can be used.>I am not convinced that we can propose a description of the middle that will>work the same way for all verbs. Some verbal ideas lend themselves to the>middle being very similar to the active in sense, while in others, the>middle is very close to the passive in sense. For some verbs, the MP forms>are close to a reflexive sense, for other verbs, this may not be the case.This is good–helpful. I think that EGEIRW is a good verb in this respectbecause it does indeed have a transitive/active usage as well as an”intransitive” usage in the MP1 and MP2 morphoparadigms. And youraccounting of the two categories of usage is not far from my own notion oftwo voice categories: a “basic” UNMARKED category that is essentially (butnot quite wholly) active and and a MARKED “middle-reflexive” categoryincluding the morpho-paradigms that express middle or passive meaning.There was a time when I seriously considered “middle-reflexive” as the morehelpful term for what I’m more recently calling “subject-focused.” Ithought it was you, Iver, that moved me away from that, but my memory mayfail me.>> The fact is that I don’t think it’s very useful to speak of “passive>> intransitive” either. What I do think is that we ought to distinguish>> between designations of the morphoparadigms and the semantic roles of>> verbs. I object to the designation of the -QH- forms as “passive” because>> (a) quite frequently such forms are NOT at all passive in meaning, and (b)>> to call such -QH- forms “deponent” when they don’t perform a passive>> semantic role suggests that they are somehow irregular, when they are>> actually numerous and quite regular, even if they don’t have>> “active” forms>> (although EGEIRW certainly does have one, which is why, I guess, it hasn’t>> been labeled a “deponent” verb.>> >> You don’t like the term “subject-focused.” Well, perhaps a better term may>> yet be invented, but it seems to me that it does characterize the way that>> both the traditional “middle-passive” and the traditional -QH- “passive”>> morphoparadigms function in distinction from the traditional “active”>> morphoparadigms. In §§7 of my latest “New Observations” I’ve suggested>> “Basic” and “Subject-focused” as descriptive terms for the traditional>> “Active” and the traditional “Middle-passive” and “passive”>> morphoparadigms>> respectively, but in order to retain some continuity with traditional>> terminology, I’ve suggested that we continue to use the term “active” for>> the traditional “active” morphoparadigms while designating the traditional>> “middle-passive” morphoparadigms as MP1 and the traditional “passive”>> morphoparadigms as MP2.> >I would be happy to adopt “basic” and “MP”, which may be further specified>as “MP1” or “MP2” when needed. The reason I am not too happy with>“subject-focused” is that “subject” is a syntactical term that is usually>linked to the semantic agent. It seems to me that the MP forms are more>recipient-focused than subject-focused. The agent is often suppressed or out>of focus in an MP form. This is in accordance with your examples of having>one’s hair cut below.It would be nice if we could come to some sort of consensus on a term thatsomehow really DESCRIBES what the “subject-focused” or “middle-reflexive”morphoparadigms generally do. It’s true, as you say, that they comprise afairly broad range, although I think that they do generally have some sortof reflexive or “self-engaging” character–even in impersonals such asFrench “il s’agit de …” or German “es fragt sich ob …” Latin’s archaic”ITUR” (I recall our playful Englishing of that in High School as “it isgone …”).>> What has impressed itself upon me in the course of my study of the middle>> and passive morphoparadigms and voice functions of the Greek verbs is that>> the categories in terms of which traditional grammar has described it–and>> perhaps those into which scientific linguistics seems to want to force it>> to fit–, don’t seem to apply very well to the way the language>> works/worked. We have wanted to see the Middle voice as a sort of half-way>> house between a fundamental polarity of Active and Passive, whereas it>> seems to me that the fundamental polarity of voice in Greek voice FORMS is>> of unmarked “Basic” forms, most of which are what we would properly call>> Active, but many of which are decidedly not so, and marked>> “Subject-focused” forms which generally describe an action in which the>> subject is deeply involved or a transition which the subject is undergoing>> or experiencing–or suffering or being subjected to. When informed by>> historical linguistics that proto-Indo-European had no true passive but>> used what is called “medio-passive” to express both “Middle” and “Passive”>> functions and that this is also true of the earliest Greek, I began to>> wonder whether passive function wasn’t ALWAYS in ancient Greek just a way>> of using the “medio-passive” morphoparadigms. Thinking about the way>> reflexive verbs in modern European languages function made me increasingly>> aware that these reflexive verbs–or many of them, at least–also>> functioned not infrequently for a semantic passive function. EMOI MEN OUN>> TOUTO hEUREQH hEURHMA MEGA: In my perspective, at any rate, this presented>> itself as a huge discovery.>> >> KEIRATAI may mean “he cuts his own hair” or “he has his hair cut (by>> another)”; XURATAI may mean “he shaves himself” or “he has himself shaved>> (by another).” I don’t think that the Greek psyche ordinarily thought of a>> distinction between “middle” and “passive” usage with these>> verbs; rather I>> think it is the modern translator who gets hung up on whether the>> “form” is>> Middle or Passive. KEIRATAI simply means “he gets his hair cut”>> and XURATAI>> simply means “he has a shave.” If there’s a need to specify who’s cutting>> the hair or doing the shaving, there is a regular agent>> construction, but I>> think that to the Greek-speaker the distinction was ordinarily irrelevant.>> >> I wouldn’t want to be dogmatically insistent that every GNT instance of>> hEUREQHN should be understood as intransitive or middle in function, but I>> am far from convinced that the meaning of this form is ALWAYS PASSIVE in>> sense. I called attention to the item in BDAG a few days back that there>> may be some value in calling attention to anew:>> >> hEURISKW 1.b. Pass. be found, find oneself, be (Dt 20:11; 4 Km 14:14; 1>> Esdr 1:19; 8:13; Bar 1:7; TestSol 7:6; GrBar 4:11) F. hEUREQH EIS AZWTON>> Philip found himself or was present at Azotus Ac 8:40 (cp. Esth 1:5 toiˆß>> EQNESIN TOIS hEUREQEISIN EIS THN POLIN; also s. 4 Km 2), on the>> other hand,>> a Semitic phrase )STKX B …=to arrive in, or at, may underlie the expr.>> here and in hEUREQHNAI EIS THN BASILEIAN Hs 9, 13, 2 (s. MBlack, Aramaic>> Studies and the NT, JTS 49, ’48, 164). OUDE TOPOS hEUREQH AUTWN ETI EN TWi>> OURANWi there was no longer any place for them in heaven Rv 12:8 (s. Da>> 2:35 Theod.); cp. 18:22, 24. OUDE hEUREQH DOLOS EN TWi STOMATI AUTOU 1 Pt>> 2:22; 1 Cl 16:10 (both Is 53:9); cp. Rv 14:5 (cp. Zeph 3:13). hINA hEUREQW>> EN AUTWi (i.e. CRISTWi) that I might be found in Christ Phil 3:9>> (JMoffatt,>> ET 24, 1913, 46).> >I think some of these translations are questionable. In Ac 8:40 we might as>well say “Philip was seen/discovered in Azotus” (by unspecified people.) It>is equivalent in sense to “he appeared in Azotus”, but making it reflexive>is not necessary for this verb, IMO.I don’t know about Acts 8:40. Maybe we could call that hEUREQH passive ifwe assume that the gendarmes discovered Philip at Azotus as the result ofan “all-points bulletin” issued upon him–but I think it more likely thatthe sense here is simply “he turned up in Azotus”–meaning that there’s norecord of his whereabouts in the interim since the previous account of hismeeting with the Ethiopian eunuch on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

Fanning and PorterFanning and Porter

Alan Patterson » May 25th, 2013, 11:25 am