Amplified translation?

[Bentaxle]

A protestant group sends me emails about various social issues and the latest one was about proposed abortion legislation to be introduced in Australia. This group has its heart in the right place on this matter, however when justifying their position with scripture, they chose to use an excerpt from the Amplified translation, worded as follows:

“…… whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19 Amplified translation).

Now I must admit that I find this a bit concerning, adding words to scripture. I feel that it has the danger of altering the message to what the writer thinks is correct. Does anyone else have similar reservations about this translation?

 

[Bithynian]

altering the message to what the writer thinks is correct

I think this touches on one of the more significant issues in translation: accurate to the text, fidelity to the Magsterium but also making it intelligible to the reader. It’s a delicate art to say the least.

In the case of that particular translation, I don’t see anything untoward: they have inserted glosses (explanations) of somewhat antiquated terms (bind and loose). But this is in effect a footnote, of which there are many in Bibles as it is.

 

[Bentaxle]

Yes I see your point about the art of translation, although I always thought that the concept of the Magisterium is not one that the protestants would recognise. I see the value of footnotes, placed literally at the foot of the text, but this amplification has been added to the text itself, not just the parts in parentheses. For example, the phrasing “must be what is already bound/loosed” I find unclear and can be understood in different ways. I haven’t seen it put that way before.

 

[Bithynian]

although I always thought that the concept of the Magisterium

You’re right, I should’ve clarified more. In the case of Protestants, the Magisterium would - in most ways - be substituted by the various theological schools to which they belong as well as their respective teaching authorities (if they have any).

but this amplification has been added to the text itself, not just the parts in parentheses. For example, the phrasing “must be what is already bound/loosed” I find unclear and can be understood in different ways.

It’s a very stilted translation. However, you needn’t fear that it’s an unorthodox translation as it’s actually quite faithful to the original Greek. Too faithful, in the sense that it’s trying to wrestle Greek grammatical structures and force them onto English. This doesn’t work especially well as we have our own significantly different grammar, hence the very inelegant phrasing.

Most Catholic (including the RSV-CE, NAB-RE, NRSV-CE, etc.) and non-Catholic (ESV, NIV, NRSV) prefer “whatever you bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven” which both captures the sense of the Greek and reads well in English.

 

[Bentaxle]

Thanks for that comment - I feel somewhat reassured. I get a little paranoid about stuff from non-Catholic sources. God bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Now I must admit that I find this a bit concerning, adding words to scripture. I feel that it has the danger of altering the message to what the writer thinks is correct. Does anyone else have similar reservations about this translation?

Yes, I don’t like it either. However, you stated it’s from a “Protestant group”. Protestants do all sorts of things that Catholics don’t agree with. The fact that they are trying to “justify their position with Scripture” and then adding things to the Scripture to bolster their argument just shows how far off the track they have gotten.

If you want to read Scripture, you should use an approved Catholic translation, which will avoid this sort of thing.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes I see your point about the art of translation, although I always thought that the concept of the Magisterium is not one that the protestants would recognise.

They vigorously object to the idea that any man or group of men should claim the right to interpret Scripture and to claim that their interpretation is infallible.

And they don’t see the irony of the fact that few of them speak ancient Greek and therefore have to accept the interpretations of men who do while at the same time arguing as though their own second hand interpretation is infallible.

I see the value of footnotes, placed literally at the foot of the text, but this amplification has been added to the text itself, not just the parts in parentheses. For example, the phrasing “must be what is already bound/loosed” I find unclear and can be understood in different ways. I haven’t seen it put that way before.

The standard that every bible must pass is whether it has been translated in line with Catholic Doctrine. If it doesn’t have a Nihil Obstat, just drop it and get a Catholic Bible.