Re: [GTh] Book Query
- Don wrote:
> Since "rOme" ("rwme") is used in the Sahidic NT to mean bothI agree with you there, Don. But you know, since you joined the
> "man" and "human being" (see Bruce Metzger's lists, p. 5), we
> should let context and common sense be our guide. The reality,
> of course, is that saying it is easier than doing it.
group on August 3rd, you missed a series of notes that I wrote
back in May about the "manless" translations of Meyer and Patterson.
In particular, I reported on a brief email exchange with Meyer, in which
he wrote this:
"I translate ROME as person because it corresponds to the Greek
As I learned, and as you know, and as Meyer _should_ know,
ROME was also used to translate anEr/andros (used of males).
Unless he was being disingenuous with me, Meyer has been
following this incorrect principle for over a decade, and probably
influencing others (Patterson? Bethge?) to do the same.
In his defense, Meyer pointed out that Coptic has a word for 'male',
namely 2OOYT (hoout). This is true but irrelevant, since Meyer
never translates 2OOYT as 'man/men', even in Th.114.2, where
it would make more sense than his literal but awkward "you males".
As a result, the words 'man'\'men' never appear in his translations
- except by mistake (e.g., two places in TCG). This is surely
contrary to the intentions of the original writers, as judged by
translators such as Layton and DeConick, who have attempted
to distinguish truly gendered occurrences of 'rOme' from those
which are essentially ungendered.