So the revamped Catholic Bible was released today. The NT is the same as the last translation fix, and this one only covers the OT. Some scriptures that were re-translated in the 70's were restored to the original, others were clarified to be closer to the original Hebrew, and some were made "inclusive", but there's a disagreement about some.
This is one of them:
"One dispute focused on Psalm 1:1, where the bishops proposed changing, "Happy the man who follow not the counsel of the wicked," to, "Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked."
Vatican officials argued that the verse was a prophecy of Jesus and that the pronoun must remain masculine and singular. Though the revised version has not been submitted for use at Mass -- which would require Vatican approval -- Psalm 1 follows the Vatican ruling: "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked." "
Should the focus of translation be to make things more modern and accessable, or on preserving the original intent? How many other translation issues walk this line where the desire to modernize leaves the question of who it applies to in question? (this is not a biblical only issue - it applies to all ancient texts translated to English)Answer Question
Answer by UpSheRises at 3:32 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
Answer by asmcbride at 3:39 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
I don't know. Sometimes I like modernization as long as they provide notations or include the literal translation in notes. For example, I really liked reading Stephen Mitchell's version of the Tao Te Ching, but it's literal in some places and improvised and modernized in others. He has notes in the back to expand on meanings and include literal translations that he adjusted. Sometimes literal translations can seem stale--especially in the case of the Tao where someone fluent in language but not a practicing Taoist translates it. Mitchell is a long time Taoist and wrote it with the intent to give us insight into Lao Tzu's mind--sometimes this was literal and sometimes he expands on ideas to make it relevant to us in our time. I would not like it if changes were made to purposely change meanings though, but that often happens too.
Answer by pam19 at 4:58 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
Answer by jesussaves58 at 7:47 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
Answer by ObbyDobbie at 8:19 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
Answer by adnilm at 8:21 PM on Mar. 9, 2011
I would think that having the text be as close to the original Hebrew would be most important
Answer by CRoseJS4 at 5:12 AM on Mar. 10, 2011
Answer by momto2boys973 at 2:49 PM on Mar. 11, 2011
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: