Francis Turretin handles not a few topics that other systematic theologies might leave out (including the legitimacy of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions of Scripture). I'm intrigued that he relates some thoughts on the nature of Bible translation:
"All versions are the streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority. Nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Here we must carefully distinguish a twofold divine authority: one of things, the other of words. The former relates to the substance of doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form. The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to words and things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human and not in divine words." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 125-26)
First, I think Turretin appropriately walks a fine line as to the question of scriptural authenticity. Speaking as someone involved in Greek tutoring, I get concerned both when I sense a student is being flippant about the study of the biblical languages and also when a person who doesn't have the chance to study them says sadly that they've heard about how wide and long and high and deep is the Greek text and how lame our English translations are. To the former I want to say with Turretin, "Study hard 'the fountain whence [the versions] flow!'" To the latter I want to say with Turretin, "[A]ll authority must not be denied to the versions!" (Or, better syntactically, "Not all authority must be denied to the versions!")
Second, what should we make of Bible translation strategies today? If it's impossible fully to capture the "accidental form" of Hebrew and Greek passages (we have no choice if we're going from one language to another), should formal equivalence geeks (including this blogger) lighten up a bit? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment