Murcott’s effort is also not really a translation, but rather an interpretation inspired by Rhys Davids’ translation. It’s riddled with errors and came in for generally negative reviews from Pali scholars.
Lily de Silva:
The expression sabbe kāmā samacchinnā ye dibbā ye ca mānusā is translated “I have ended the hunger of gods and humans” (p. 53), though it means: the desire for all pleasures both divine and human has been eradicated. Lūnakesī pankadharā is translated “I cut my hair and wore the dust” (p. 46), though the rendering misses the point that what is referred to are two austere Jain practices of plucking out the hair and keeping the teeth unclean. She renders the term uddhamsotā as “entered the stream” (p. 64), which she explains as stream-entry, when the term actually means “gone upstream” and refers in this context to a non-returner. There are many such instances throughout the book where simple consultation of the Pali Commentary, or the accurate prose translation by K.R. Norman with its extensive annotations, would have prevented misunderstanding. Her commentary to the verses is also of an uneven quality. While she provides us with many interesting points of historical information on women in ancient India and on the background to the verses, she is also prone to fall into factual error and ill-considered judgements. Thus she assumes that the precepts which a sikkhamānā—a probationer to bhikkhuni status—has to observe (pp. 43, 197) are identical with the five precepts of a layperson (with the addition of the abstinence from food after midday), and thus concludes that a sikkhamānā does not have to reject the company of men (p. 43). In fact the third precept of a sikkhamānā is changed from the layperson’s abstinence from unlawful sex to the rule of strict celibacy. A Western feminist point of view has coloured the author’s comments on Ven. Moggallāna’s rebuff to Vimala’s overtures (pp. 123–26).
Moggallāna only spoke of the real nature of the human body and such realistic understanding is absolutely essential for the attainment of the ultimate goal of Nibbāna. Her accusation of cruelty and defensiveness against the great disciple hardly makes sense in relation to a man who had extinguished all defilements. Her speculation that Vimalā may have accepted Moggallāna’s rejection because of her own self-hatred is hardly plausible: it is clear she did so because the elder’s comments made her realise the repulsiveness of the body and the hollowness of sense pleasures.
https://www.bps.lk/olib/nl/nl022.pdf
And Tessa Bartholomeusz:
The First Buddhist Women - Translations and Commentary on the Therigatha.by Susan Murcott.pdf (287.3 KB)