::: 칼빈신학 :::

361 113 통계카운터 보기   관리자 접속 --+
Name   ahn

Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (2 vols; Library of Christian Classics 20-21; London, SCM Press, and Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1960) has become the standard one in general use, and unlikely to be superseded in a hurry. Yet it is far from perfect. The aim of this web-site is to collect and list errors in Battles’ translation, for the benefit of users (and perhaps in the longer term as one preparation for a new translation).

Contributions are invited, and should be submitted to Jon Balserak. A few simple guidelines will be helpful.

*This exercise relates only to the text, including Calvin’s opening address to the reader and his preface, and not to the annotations.

* Errors should be clearly identified by a reference to Battles – always page number (and preferably line number also) and book/chapter/section (e.g. Inst. 3:6:10). The identification must enable Balserak to track the Latin source in the Opera Selecta or Calvini Opera, if contributors cannot provide this.

* Balserak will receive all submissions and add them to the web-site according to their order in the Institutes in a uniform style.

*We retain a modicum of editorial discretion in cases which may reflect matters more of interpretation than translation.

*We are open to refining these guidelines in response to suggestions.

Section headings: users of Battles’ translations should be aware that the section headings are his work and do not derive from Calvin’s text. For example, Battles 464: the title to Book 2, chapter 12 is Calvin’s own, but not the summary of sections 1-3 in italics in brackets nor the heading for section 1, similarly in italics.

Lectori; Battles, 5; OS III, 6, 30-31: instead of Battles’ ‘approach Scripture’ T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s NT Commentaries, 53, proposes ‘approaches the commentaries’, which the context undoubtedly confirms. The Latin has no object to the verb accedat.

Lectori; Battles, 5; OS III, 6, 32: huius instituti should be ‘intention’ or ‘aim’, not ‘instruction’ (Parker, ibid.). Battles is wrong. A better translation would be design, as per Allen. The Latin phrase is huius instituti ratio, and "the reason for this purpose" or "aim" would not make any sense (Blacketer).

Praefatio; Battles, 23; CO 2, 34: Battles omits a phrase, specifically: hoc est, ne in sceleratum populi consensum una ipsi conspirarent.

1:15:6; Battles, 193; CO 2, 141: Battles wrongly translates vim concupiscendi as ‘the capacity to desire inordinately’ instead of simply as ‘the power of desiring.’ Additionally (as David Sytsma notes) Battles omits this reference to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics [who distinguishes between irascible (vim irascendi) and concupiscible (vim concupiscendi) appetites, as Calvin does here]. Battles also inaccurately cites Themistius, whom Calvin does cite but not until later in this section.

2:2:26; Battles, 286; CO 2, 207: Battles misunderstands the sentence beginning Nihil ergo…. Battles’ rendering is: ‘Therefore whether or not man is impelled to seek after the good by an impulse of nature has no bearing upon the freedom of the will.’ But as Calvin refers in the preceding sentence to a natural inclination which both animals and humans possess, it is clear that in the sentence beginning Nihil ergo, Calvin is drawing the conclusion that this natural inclination towards good cannot possibly be used as an argument for free will, since humans possess it in common with animals (Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 259 n.60). Beveridge comes closer to the sense of the text: ‘The question of freedom, therefore, has nothing to do with the fact of man’s being led by natural instinct to desire good.’

2.8.59; Battles, 401; CO 2, 309. Battles obscures Calvin's meaning by translating 'venialia' as 'pardonable' rather than simply as 'venial,' as Beveridge does.

2:14:1; Battles, 482; OS III, 458, 18-19: e Virginis utero templum sibi delegit should be ‘he chose for himself from the Virgin’s womb a temple.’

3:3:1; Battles, 593; OS IV, 55, 16: continuo means ‘immediately, promptly’, not ‘constantly.’

3:3:19; Battles, 614; OS IV, 77, 15. Battles’ ‘both kinds of grace’ too loosely translates utraque gratia, which carries no implication of different kinds. In the context, ‘each grace’ would sufficiently point to the ‘each of two’ which utraque conveys. An earlier translator (Beveridge) gives ‘both graces’. See also on 3:11:1.

3:4:2; Battles, 625; OS IV, 87, 20. Perhaps the fault of McNeill’s editing error, Battles’ translates the phrase ut quisque amare deflendo sua peccata se ... magis acuat in such a way that the verb acuat is left out entirely. His reading ‘what his displeasure and hatred’ should be ‘whet’ or ‘incite his displeasure ...’. Beveridge gives ‘stimulate himself more and more to dislike and hate.’

3:11:1; Battles, 725; OS IV, 182, 9. Battles seems to avoid the clear meaning of the Latin in writing ‘the second of these gifts’. It should be simply ‘the second grace’ (quae secunda est gratia). Earlier in this section Battles rightly translates Calvin’s duplicem gratiam as ‘a double grace’ – although most Calvin scholars prefer ‘twofold grace’. See also on 3:3:19.

3:11:6; Battles, 732; OS IV, 187, 21-22: percipimus – ‘receive’, not ‘perceive.’

3:20:37; Battles, 900; OS IV, 347, 10-12: Battles omits a negative here, and should read ‘his father’s heart cannot pretend not to be moved by such entreaties’ (non enim tum se paterna viscera dissimulare possunt quin ad tales preces commoveantur).

4:8:16; Battles, 1165; OS V, 150, 18-21: Battles misconstrues the construction, and potentially the meaning, of the sentence beginning Nemo excepit…. By omitting his ‘to the notion’ one gets it more or less right: ‘No one objected that the church could add something of its own, that the Spirit had not revealed everything to the apostles, or at least had not transmitted everything to posterity.’ The rendering of the third clause varies among translators, since some (e.g. Beveridge, Allen) assume that ‘the apostles’ must be the subject of prodidisse (‘or at least that the apostles had not transmitted everything to posterity’), but this assumption seems quite insecure.

4:15:22; Battles, 1323; OS V, 303, 19-20: Accedit postea sacramentum sigilli instar should be rendered ‘There is added afterward a/the sacrament like a seal’ (Battles: ‘a sort of seal is added to the sacrament’).

4:16 title; Battles, 1324; OS V, 303, 32-33: optime is probably not so much ‘best’ as ‘very well’, since both comparatives and superlatives were widely used to express emphasis ( and of what could infant baptism be said strictly to be ‘best’?).

4:16:1; Battles, 1324; OS V, 304, 8: Battles omits to translate non parum habitura sit momenti: ‘so to organize this discourse that it will have no little importance for explaining the mystery of baptism more clearly’ [perhaps clarius better ‘very clearly, really clearly’, without strict comparative force].

4:16:5; Battles, 1328; OS V, 309, 9-10: ad infantes destinetur Baptismi verbum, not simplistically ‘the word “baptism”’, but ‘the word of baptism’ in the sense of ‘the promise, meaning, substance of baptism.’

4:16:20; Battles, 1343; OS V, 324, 33: ‘regeneration’ instead of ‘resignation.’

4:16:27; Battles, 1350; OS V, 332, 8-11: Battles’ translation is at best ambiguous: ‘For they make more than a merely childish error when from these passages [i.e. Matt. 28.19, Mark 16.16, Matt. 3.13, Luke 3:21-22] they derive the first institution of baptism which [quem, i.e. baptism] from the beginning of his preaching ….’

4:17: 10; Battles, 1370-71; OS V, 352: in this section Battles translates three times the verb exhibeo and once the noun exhibitio by ‘show, showing’. Without entering into debates about Calvin’s theology of the supper, we can all agree that ‘show’ is an inadequate rendering of exhibeo.

게시물을 이메일로 보내기 프린트출력을 위한 화면보기
DATE: 2018.01.15 - 01:07 - Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/49.0.2623.112 Safari/537.36

 이전글 1559년 칼빈 기독교강요 다운로드
 다음글 개혁자 칼빈의 성경 해석과 성령 특강 동영상 안명...
글남기기삭제하기수정하기답변달기전체 목록 보기

체크된 항목 한꺼번에 보기
361Simple view배경식 박사의 칼빈신학 연구들 이야기 2019.04.12 115
360존 칼빈의 신학방법론으로서의 성경극중주의  양비론(兩非論)과 양시론(兩是論)을 오가는 ‘이중개념주의’와 ‘복잡성의 중도’ 사이에서.pdf [517 KB] 다운받기Simple view전대경: 존 칼빈의 신학방법론으로서의 성경극중주... 안명준 2019.04.08 119
359Simple view칼빈의 신학적 방법과 그의 신학의 애매함     존 ... 이야기 2019.04.08 141
358Simple view1559년 칼빈 기독교강요 다운로드 이야기 2019.03.21 152
357현재 읽고 있는 글입니다.CORRECTIONS TO FORD LEWIS BATTLES' ahn 2018.01.15 894
356Simple view개혁자 칼빈의 성경 해석과 성령 특강 동영상 안명... 안명준 2017.09.09 547
355Simple view칼빈의 해석과 성령 동영상 안명준 안명준 2017.08.22 414
354Simple view/resources/john-calvin-studies/ 안명준 2017.01.28 621
353Simple viewCalvin Bibliography Henry Meeter Center 안명준 2017.01.28 610
352Simple viewcalvins-works-in-english 안명준 2017.01.26 560
351Simple viewGamble  안명준 2017.01.11 501
350Simple view깔뱅의 윤리학 핵심은 감사와 책임  올리비에 아벨 안명준 2017.01.09 568
349칼빈의 겸손에 대하여.docx [28 KB] 다운받기Simple view칼빈의 겸손 김한영 박사 안명준 2017.01.03 562
348calvin002.pdf [516 KB] 다운받기Simple view갬블의 간결성과 용이성에 대한 비판적 고찰 황대... 안명준 2016.11.14 471
347Simple view칼빈 여행 관리자 2016.09.21 694
346Simple viewextra calvinisticum 안명준 2016.09.05 819
345Simple view칼빈의 전 작품 다운 로드 안명준 2016.04.15 1704
344Simple view칼빈의 작품  당 안명준 2016.04.12 754
343Simple view칼빈연구가 신복윤 박사님 소천소식 국민일보 안명준 2016.01.15 678
342Simple view칼뱅과 세베르투스에 대한 오해 권현익 안명준 2015.11.06 1636
341Simple view신학도를 위한 칼빈의 해석학 안명준 안명준 2015.08.21 2003
340Simple view기독교강요 듣기 영어 관리자 2015.07.27 878
339Simple view칼빈의 교회론 구춘서교수 안명준 2015.07.25 702
338Simple view칼빈 동상과 칼빈 길,  안명준 2015.07.25 861
337Simple view칼빈과 부.  이오갑 안명준 2015.05.29 787
336Simple view성령의 신학자 칼빈과 교회 이양호박사 안명준 2015.05.28 727
335Simple view이경직박사, 워필드의 칼뱅 안명준 2015.04.09 2003
334Simple view칼빈의 성령론 김재성박사 기독교학술원발표 안명준 2015.02.14 2039
333Simple view칼빈의 성령론 김재성박사 안명준 2015.02.07 856
332Simple view칼빈의 인간론 김영규교수 안명준 2015.02.02 944
체크된 항목 한꺼번에 삭제/복사/이동 하기
체크된 항목 삭제 체크된 항목 삭제
체크된 항목 이동 체크된 항목 이동
체크된 항목 복사 체크된 항목 복사
현재페이지가 첫페이지 입니다. 다음페이지
이전 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 다음끝페이지
글남기기 새로고침
이름을 검색항목에 추가/제거제목을 검색항목에 추가/제거내용을 검색항목에 추가/제거 메인화면으로 돌아가기