Monday, February 16, 2009

The Bay Psalm Book

I find it interesting that in John Cotton's introduction to the psalms, he justifies their translations by saying that they have respect for the original prayers. However, he derides other translations, such as the Sternhold-Hopkins one, saying that they paraphrase the word of God. It seems to me, after looking at the differences between the biblical text and the translation of psalm 23 that the Bay Psalm book translations are paraphrased as well. For example, the word evil is replaced with the word ill in the Bay Psalm book, most likely to help children understand it better. This type of change in the translations seem to be common according to the introduction of the chapter. It leads me to wonder what Cotton means by accusing Sternhold-Hopkins of paraphrasing and taking the meaning out of the word of God.

1 comment:

  1. I tend to lean on the side of the Puritans and Protestants with their belief that the Bible should be translated into English. By only allowing a Latin bible, spoken through the clergy, the Roman Catholic Church turned religion into an elitist experience. Once the Bible was translated the people, lower classes, were given more power. When Cotton belittles the other translations he is guilty of the same crime as the Church. After fighting for his religious freedom, he is denying the freedom of others by calling for his interpretations to be accepted as correct. Some Puritans and Pilgrims became the very monster of repression they were fighting against.

    ReplyDelete