... first few chaters of Genesis in the Orthodox Study Bible? If i m wrong, which I hope I am, please let me know. The mistranslations that ... found in theMessage 1 of 77 , Apr 1, 2008View Source--- In email@example.com, Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...> wrote:
>first few chaters of Genesis in the Orthodox Study Bible? If i'm
> I just wanted to know has anyone noticed the mistranslations in the
wrong, which I hope I am, please let me know. The mistranslations that
I noticed are:
>found in the Septuagint where Cain tells Able "Let's go out to the
> Genesis 3:15 & Genesis 4:8
> I especially noticed that Genesis 4:8 is omitting a specific passage
field." This phrase is missing from the Orthodox Study Bible, but is
clearly present in the Septuagint. What's going on?
>I noticed this kind of thing also (and others on the internet have as
> Peter A. Papoutsis
well). The OSB is NOT a translation of the LXX as advertised. It is an
LXX/MT hybrid. I don't know if they simply haphazardly worked on it,
are outright lying, or both, but it is not what it advertises itself
to be: an OT from the LXX.
I thought I was going to finally get a single volume Bible with an LXX
OT to butresse the NT, but I'm going to have to wait longer. I'm a
little angry over it and feel more than a little cheated by them.
... (court interpreter). ... http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=P.Oxy.+237&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.05.0181 This is good evidence that theyMessage 77 of 77 , Apr 27, 2008View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ken Penner" <ken.penner@...> wrote:
> POxy.ï»¿237 vii 37-38 (2nd century CE) seems to mention an hERMENEUS(court interpreter).
> á¼Îºá½³Î»ÎµÏ [ÏÎµ]Î½ Î´Î¹á¾½ [á¼`Ï]Î¼Î·Î½á½³ÏÏ Î±á½Ïá½´Î½ á¼Î»ÎµÎ³ÏÎ¸á¿Î½Î±Î¹http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=P.Oxy.+237&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.05.0181
This is good evidence that they did use court interpreters, at least
sometimes. I don't have time to read the context before I leave on a
week-long trip, so I have not been able to verify whether that
interpeter mentioned is courtroom staff, or an interpreter mentioned
in the events narrated in the legal document. I'm not even sure
whether the quoted text is from the case immediately at hand or from
Teitian's Memorandum. Perhaps you would be willing to add your own
interpretation of the context.
So it may not yet quite be evidence that they "would have used
interpreters for the trials of even (by their
standards) insignificant persons." But it is at the very least a good
> Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.the 30s.
> Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies,
> Acadia Divinity College
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> "We should presume that, if we have any historical evidence that they
> would have used interpreters for the trials of even (by their
> standards) insignificant persons. I never saw such evidence in my
> classics/history classes. Instead, I always presumed that like so many
> other conquerers in history, they simply expected others to use the
> language of the conqueror, much like the Japanese in East Asia in
> "So if you could point out such evidence, that would be a valuable
> contribution to the thread."