Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mistranslations of the OSB

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Gardner
    ... 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 the
    Message 1 of 77 , Apr 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...> wrote:
      >
      > I just wanted to know has anyone noticed the mistranslations in the
      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
      I noticed are:
      >
      > Genesis 3:15 & Genesis 4:8
      >
      > I especially noticed that Genesis 4:8 is omitting a specific passage
      found in the Septuagint where Cain tells Able "Let's go out to the
      field." This phrase is missing from the Orthodox Study Bible, but is
      clearly present in the Septuagint. What's going on?
      >
      > Peter A. Papoutsis
      >

      I noticed this kind of thing also (and others on the internet have as
      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.
    • Matthew Johnson
      ... (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 they
      Message 77 of 77 , Apr 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Penner" <ken.penner@...> wrote:

        > POxy.237 vii 37-38 (2nd century CE) seems to mention an hERMENEUS
        (court interpreter).
        > ἐκέλευ[σε]ν δι᾽ [á¼`ρ]μηνέως αὐτὴν ἐλεγχθῆναι

        http://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
        start.

        > Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
        > 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
        the 30s.
        >
        > "So if you could point out such evidence, that would be a valuable
        > contribution to the thread."
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.