[redgolum]

There were more than a few words put in the Vulgate that were not their in the Greek or Aramaic.

Google “Moses’s Horns”. In old Catholic icons, it pictures Moses with horns coming down from the mountain. That was a slip of Jerome, the more modern translations read it as his face shown.

[Dr. Sivana]

That was a slip of Jerome, the more modern translations read it as his face shown.

Thanks for the reference. I was not familiar with that particular issue. I wouldn't call it a slip, though some might consider it a tortured reading and definitely at odds with the septuagint. A slip would mean using the wrong word altogether or using a provably bad manuscript.

In general, I find that many of the modern translators (including those of the newer Catholic bibles like the New American and its successors and the Jerusalem Bible) have a predisposition to demystify whenever plausible.

TAN Books used to publish a booklet called Which Bible Should You Read which is now out of print, but is still available as a free PDF download by clicking on these words, for numerous good examples. To its credit, the original KJV is NOT included in the comparison list. I believe that is because it actually fared pretty well compared to almost all of the newer translations.

Given the language in Ezechiel, the Transfiguration and the Apocalypse, I will withhold judgment as to whether Moses had, appeared to have, or figuratively had horns. I'll wait for my personal judgment or maybe even the Final Judgment for the definitive answer to that one.

[roamer_1]

[...] In old Catholic icons, it pictures Moses with horns coming down from the mountain. That was a slip of Jerome, the more modern translations read it as his face shown.

Huh... You know, it just occurred to me that the same argument revolves around Cain - whether God's curse upon him made him glow or gave him horns... He (or his seed) is depicted among the profane in both ways... I wonder if that is due to the same translational problem...