Horny Moses

[phrodeau]

Exodus 34:29 And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord.

This is the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate, and it is faithful. The Vulgate and the Septuagint versions of Exodus both use words meaning "horned" to describe Moses at that moment.

The original Hebrew word "qaran" appears four times in the scriptures. Three of those times is in chapter 34 of Exodus. The fourth is in Psalms 64:31.

"My praise will please the Lord more than an ox,
more than a bull with its horns and hooves."

The Vulgate translation was first commissioned in 382 AD, and was commonly used (by the clergy) through the time of Gutenberg, who printed it. Versions are still in use today, and regarded as the Word of God.

There are several depictions of Moses in art, showing him with horns growing from his head, most famously in the statue of Moses by Michaelangelo.

Most other translations regard the use of "qaran" in Exodus 34 to mean "shining" or "radiant". I have no idea why, since there's a perfectly good Hebrew word, "yapha", which means exactly that, and occurs several times in the original scriptures.

But regardless of the real meaning, we have the case of a Bible, considered infallible for centuries, being glaringly wrong. How can that be?

 

[Tryharder62]

Exodus 34:29 And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord.

This is the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate, and it is faithful. The Vulgate and the Septuagint versions of Exodus both use words meaning "horned" to describe Moses at that moment.

The original Hebrew word "qaran" appears four times in the scriptures. Three of those times is in chapter 34 of Exodus. The fourth is in Psalms 64:31.

"My praise will please the Lord more than an ox,
more than a bull with its horns and hooves."

The Vulgate translation was first commissioned in 382 AD, and was commonly used (by the clergy) through the time of Gutenberg, who printed it. Versions are still in use today, and regarded as the Word of God.

There are several depictions of Moses in art, showing him with horns growing from his head, most famously in the statue of Moses by Michaelangelo.

Most other translations regard the use of "qaran" in Exodus 34 to mean "shining" or "radiant". I have no idea why, since there's a perfectly good Hebrew word, "yapha", which means exactly that, and occurs several times in the original scriptures.

But regardless of the real meaning, we have the case of a Bible, considered infallible for centuries, being glaringly wrong. How can that be?

I'll be honest I wasn't aware of this controvery of meaning, so I have been looking around on the internet. I am not sure this is right but it seems interesting.

((((Anyway, the Hebrew word meaning to be radiant or cast a glow which is used in the above-quoted Biblical passage is “karan.” When Jerome’s Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Latin translation intended to be the definitive interpretation of the Bible, was composed in the 5th century CE, Jerome took the verb “karan” to be a literal form of the noun “keren” which means a horn.

So rather than meaning, “to emit rays,” he understood it to mean “to grow horns.” (You can see the connection between the two ideas and why the etymology would be similar, but context makes it pretty obvious that we’re not talking about antlers here.))))))

It looks like a translation issue to me.

 

[Sean]

I still want to know why god's arse is less holy than his face.

 

[Tryharder62]

Again these aren't my words but they say the same as the above.

((((But one of the most shocking aspects of the Moses is that the prophet seems to have horns. This was the common way of representing Moses in iconography, but the origin of this representation lies on a translation mistake. Saint Jerome, the translator of the Bible from Hebrew to Latin, made a mistake. When he translated the paragraph that explains the moment when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he made a mistake with the word karan, which can mean "brightness" and also "horn" in Hebrew. The context of this story of the Bible suggests that Moses´s head was surrounded by some kind of halo, but Saint Jerome wrote "horns" instead of "halo" and this conditioned many further representations of Moses in art history. )))))

 

[rosco rathbone]

Then there's those golden emerods.

 

[phrodeau]

Again these aren't my words but they say the same as the above.

((((But one of the most shocking aspects of the Moses is that the prophet seems to have horns. This was the common way of representing Moses in iconography, but the origin of this representation lies on a translation mistake. Saint Jerome, the translator of the Bible from Hebrew to Latin, made a mistake. When he translated the paragraph that explains the moment when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he made a mistake with the word karan, which can mean "brightness" and also "horn" in Hebrew. The context of this story of the Bible suggests that Moses´s head was surrounded by some kind of halo, but Saint Jerome wrote "horns" instead of "halo" and this conditioned many further representations of Moses in art history. )))))

Aquila of Sinope also mistranslated the word with the same meaning when he prepared the Greek-language Septuagint.

Imagine these guys coming across the word and having a what-the-fuck moment while they're preparing their manuscripts. They'd puzzle over it, pray about it, consult experts about it, and finally concede that it did indeed mean "horns".

Today we look at the original writings and determine that they must have had a different meaning, because the translation is ridiculous. Jerome and Aquila's earnest efforts are tossed aside as worthless.

So, how many other words in the Bible have been mistranslated for centuries?

 

[Tryharder62]

Aquila of Sinope also mistranslated the word with the same meaning when he prepared the Greek-language Septuagint.

Imagine these guys coming across the word and having a what-the-fuck moment while they're preparing their manuscripts. They'd puzzle over it, pray about it, consult experts about it, and finally concede that it did indeed mean "horns".

Today we look at the original writings and determine that they must have had a different meaning, because the translation is ridiculous. Jerome and Aquila's earnest efforts are tossed aside as worthless.

So, how many other words in the Bible have been mistranslated for centuries?

You make a very good point. I know you and I have had serveral discussions over passages that appear to conflict. That is why when asked which translation of the bible I feel is correct I say the original manuscripts. What we are able to read is just attempts at translation into our language.