> Scribe? Why are you talking about a _scribe_? It is the NAB translator
> who did this.
The _scribes_ wrote words that translate quite literally
> to "harden his [Pharoah's] heart" (whether in Greek or Hebrew).
> It was the _traslator_ who chose to follow the translation philosophy
> called "dynamic equivalence", and render "hearden heart" as "make
Good, wasn't aware of that.
How would God form the words that would render the equivalent of
harden.? If He meant what He said and we are told different, what's
the use of even reading it?
It's remarkable how the translators can make an unmistakenly clear
unambiguos statement and turn it into a can of worms. We're not
interested in the result of the translator's politically correct
motives. Incidently, that impacts on your studies as well as you can
never depend on a reliable source.
Ptolemy did so, yes.
> What Codex are you talking about?
(Courtesy New Advent)
"(1) The Septuagint
...... Among the Latins its authority was explicitly recognized by the
Fathers of the Council of Trent, in compliance with whose wishes
Sixtus V, in 1587, published an edition of the Vatican Codex."
> > by the 400AD birth of the multi-language translations.
> What are you referring to here?
I meant ball park. Anywhere from 0 to -+400 AD.
"2) Version of Aquila
In the second century, to meet the demands of both Jews and
Christians, three other Greek versions of the Old Testament were
produced, though they never took the place of the Septuagint.
Aquila, taking the Hebrew as he found it, proves in his rendering to
be "a slave to the letter". When his version appeared, about 130, its
rabbinical character won approval from the Jews but distrust from the
Christians. It was the favoured among the Greek-speaking Jews of the
fourth and fifth centuries..."
It would seem more logical for Sixtus to use Ptolemy's version of
Sept. as the possibility for compounding errors would be lessened I