Ok...my computer is running slow and so is my brain. I reread Chapter 2 and it was listening to Charlie Brown's teacher.
However...Chapter 2 is..."If It Ain't Broke..." (I'm editing and publishing as I go...there's a thunderstorm rolling in and I don't want to lose my work if the lights go out!)
White points out that there are two extremes in Christianity -
- "change for the sake of change" - if it's old it can't be good.
- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - if it's new it can't be good.
There's a middle road that chooses to examine things for what they are - not because they're old or new. Tradition is not Scripture; we are not to seek "new truths" that take us beyond Scripture, which is sufficient. But we are not to be so attached to traditions, to "we've always done it this way" that we are unwilling to change/improve/grow.
It does seem that over the last few years (relatively speaking) that there have been perhaps too many translations made available.
Tony
Tradition is not Scripture; we are not to seek “new truths” that take us beyond Scripture, which is sufficient.
Tradition is not "new truths". Tradition is ancient truths further clarified by subsequent ecumenical Councils guided by the Holy Spirit.
It does seem that over the last few years (relatively speaking) that there have been perhaps too many translations made available.
That's why I'm glad to have a few approved translations, marked with Imprimatur and Nihil obstat. Helps me from being led astray by translations of men. 😉
Moonshadow
It does seem that over the last few years (relatively speaking) that there have been perhaps too many translations made available.
In English. I'm not sure other languages are as blessed as ours with fresh translations.
Why new translations? Certainly scholarship calls for them. Some years back, the critical apparatus of NA27 added some papyri variants and translation teams are more open to following a variant reading.
Readability, changes in everyday English, ideological reasons - 'though such charges usually come only from critics rather than the stated purpose of the translators themselves. I'm thinking here specifically of inclusive language issues but also a preference (or dislike) for technical vocabulary.
Tony mentions the mark of authenticity that Catholic Bibles carry.
Questions of authenticity are not a significant concern in any corner of Bible translation work today and never really have been. Rather White's book addresses the greater matter of manuscript preparation, the text underlying the translation, a perennial pursuit.
But, tell me, picking up on Tony's comment, am I the only one who glances at the List of Translators inside the Bible's front flap looking for familiar names? When selecting a new translation, don't we say, "Now, there's a trustworthy publisher ... Oh, I've heard of him." If we need guidance, we pick by reputation and recommendation from pastors, family, friends, sans shame.