New translation from Latin. Can the latin be wrong?

[mlgolden07]

With the new English translation from Latin, the Church wants the translations to be as literal as possible. My questions is:

Can the latin translation from greek be wrong? In the bible, the text shows “say the word and my servant will be healed” The new translation “… my soul will be healed”. It appears that the latin translation from greek is not that literal. I believe the centurion wanted his servant to be physically healed, not spiritually healed. Although soul can mean body and spirit, but that is not the word in the bible.

So, instead of fixing the translation from latin, why don’t the Church translate directly from the text (greek)?

Thanks.

 

[mro]

Never question the translators my friend… A many laymen have ended up branded as heretics for this and have been hauled off to the inquisition…

 

[ProVobis]

So what would you suggest?

Matthew 8:8

8 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη, κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς: ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.

8 Et respondens centurio, ait : Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum : sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur puer meus.

8 And the centurion, making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.

At least the Latin Mass left the Greek Kyrie eleison untranslated.

 

[MarkThompson]

With the new English translation from Latin, the Church wants the translations to be as literal as possible. My questions is:

Can the latin translation from greek be wrong? In the bible, the text shows “say the word and my servant will be healed” The new translation “… my soul will be healed”. It appears that the latin translation from greek is not that literal. I believe the centurion wanted his servant to be physically healed, not spiritually healed. Although soul can mean body and spirit, but that is not the word in the bible.

So, instead of fixing the translation from latin, why don’t the Church translate directly from the text (greek)?

Thanks.

That line is not supposed to be a translation per se, it is deliberately intended to recast the centurion’s words in a way relevant to the individual at Mass. By contrast, Matthew 8:8 in the Vulgate correctly has “… sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur puer meus,” where puer is intended in the sense of boy-servant or boy-slave.

You are right to note that the wording was changed for use in the Mass, though. This presents the question of why, if it is so important to quote the centurion’s exact language about “entering under my roof,” it is not equally important to quote his words about his servant. The question is, however, academic in this context, since the choice has been made in adopting the uniform Latin text, and ought not simply be altered by translators.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We’re echoing the words from Scripture as prayer, not merely just reciting Scripture. As Mark said, we’re adapting Scripture to become our own prayer. In comparison, in the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy we echo the repentant thief on the cross before Communion. We quote Luke 23:42, see the different translations here: bible.cc/luke/23-42.htm

But we invoke the words thrice with variation that it doesn’t read exactly as any one of those:

Remember me O Lord when you come into your Kingdom.
Remember me O Master when you come into your Kingdom.
Remember me O Holy One when you come into your Kingdom.

So its not so much a mere lifting of the quote from scripture anymore, but just referencing scripture into a faithful prayer.

 

[Hadrianus]

As has been pointed out this isn’t supposed to be a translation from the Bible, it is an adaptation for a different context. Generally speaking we are asking for spiritual healing, and not many people have servants anymore.

Whether in Latin, Greek , English or whatever most of the prayers of the mass, or the eastern liturgies come from the tradition of the Early Church which created them. And there is a certain commonsense element which suggests that when these prayers originally found in Latin or Greek are rendered into a living language the translation should be faithful to the original.

It seems only in the English speaking world—the same culture which refuses to learn other languages—that such a fuss is being made about all this.

 

[MarkThompson]

It seems only in the English speaking world—the same culture which refuses to learn other languages—that such a fuss is being made about all this.

I take it, then, that your view of what “the English speaking world” consists of is pretty well limited to the United States, and not the UK, South Africa, Belize, the Philippines, Bermuda, etc?

 

[roseo64]

remember that Jesus’s time on earth was always concerned about a person’s soul.
in my humble opinion He preformed miracles not because He wanted to as He so often asked people not to say anything. but us humans needed the miracles to believe He was no ordinary human.

 

[Hadrianus]

I take it, then, that your view of what “the English speaking world” consists of is pretty well limited to the United States, and not the UK, South Africa, Belize, the Philippines, Bermuda, etc?

THE US, Anglophone Canada, The United KIngdom (save Wales) Ireland. Australia, New Zealand, About Bermuda I really don’t know, never having been there, are they especially polyglot?

I’ll grant you Belize, the Philippines, and South Africa, Ghana too. But then these aren’t the ones who are complaining about the new translations as far as I know.

 

[mlgolden07]

We’re echoing the words from Scripture as prayer, not merely just reciting Scripture

I think this makes sense. It is just I was told also that the translation is also trying to translate correctly from the bible, just like “under my roof” portion, but why not just replace the word “my servant” to “I” and leave the rest as it is. It is not just consistent the way we do it that confuses me, that’s all.