The period between the deaths of the Apostles (roughly the end of the 1st century AD) and the formal finalization of the New Testament canon (late 4th century AD, specifically AD 367 by Athanasius, and later ratified by councils) saw the rise of essential New Testament translations. These were crucial because, as Christianity spread beyond the Greek-speaking Roman East, the writings needed to be accessible to local populations.
Here is a detailed look at the major early translations and the controversies surrounding them, especially regarding accuracy to the Greek autographs:
Earliest New Testament Translations (Before the Canon)
The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. As the message spread, the texts were translated into the common languages of the Roman Empire and its neighboring territories. The most significant early translations include:
Old Latin (Vetus Latina) (Late 2nd Century AD onwards):
Origin: The earliest Latin translations emerged organically, not through a single official project, in places like North Africa and possibly Gaul. As Latin replaced Greek as the primary language in the Western Church, Christians needed a version they could read.
Nature: This was not a single, unified translation but a family of diverse Latin texts. Different communities or even individuals made translations from the available Greek manuscripts.
Old Syriac (Peshitta and Vetus Syra) (Late 2nd/Early 3rd Century AD onwards):
Origin: These translations originated in the Syriac-speaking regions of the Eastern Church (such as Edessa).
Nature: The Old Syriac (Vetus Syra), evidenced by manuscripts like the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac, represents an early and important textual tradition. The Peshitta (meaning "simple" or "straight") is the most widely adopted Syriac version and became the standard for the Syriac churches, compiled slightly later than the earliest Old Latin.
Coptic Translations (3rd and 4th Centuries AD):
Origin: As Christianity took hold in Egypt, translations were needed for the native Coptic population.
Nature: These were translated from the Greek into various Coptic dialects, most notably Sahidic (Upper Egypt) and Bohairic (Lower Egypt). These translations are incredibly valuable for textual critics as they often reflect early Greek textual traditions.
Were They Attacked for Lack of Fidelity to the Autographs?
The primary controversy surrounding these early translations was not a widespread, organized "attack" on them for failing to meet the standard of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), which is a modern theological concept. Instead, the issues stemmed from two main problems: textual divergence and stylistic inconsistency.
1. Internal Criticism and Textual Divergence (The "Old Latin" Problem)
The most direct criticism focused on the lack of uniformity within the Old Latin tradition.
The Problem: Because the Old Latin translations were unofficial, they varied wildly. Copyists and translators freely corrected, revised, or simply mistranslated passages based on their local Greek copies, their own Latin literacy, or theological understanding. This led to a plethora of diverging and corrupted texts.
The Response: The most famous response to this chaotic situation came from Jerome in the late 4th century (c. AD 382). Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to standardize and revise the Latin Scriptures because, in Jerome’s own words, the Latin versions were riddled with "error."
Detail: Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin Gospels was explicitly undertaken to achieve greater accuracy by comparing the Latin against the best Greek manuscripts he could find. His work eventually formed the core of the Latin Vulgate. Thus, the older, pre-canonical Old Latin was heavily criticized because of its poor translation quality and corruption over time, which often departed from the Greek original (the "autographs," or at least the earliest available copies).
2. Translation Philosophy and Linguistic Purity
While Jerome’s work was aimed at accuracy, his own translation methodology spurred debate, demonstrating that fidelity was indeed a concern, but sometimes in tension with readability:
Jerome's Struggle: Jerome himself acknowledged the tension inherent in translation. In his famous letter to Pammachius (c. AD 395), he stated that in secular literature he preferred to translate meaning for meaning (sense-for-sense), but for Scripture, which he viewed as divinely inspired down to the very words, he felt compelled to translate word for word (formal equivalence).
The Old Latin’s Literalness: Ironically, the Old Latin translations were often too literal, retaining Greek grammatical structures and idioms that made the Latin awkward and unintelligible—a direct consequence of trying to be too faithful to the form. The need for clarity was a major impetus for Jerome's later revision.
In summary, the early Church's concern, much like Paul’s vision for Gentile readers, was that the message must be understood while retaining its divine truth. The Old Latin was internally criticized and ultimately superseded by Jerome's revisions because its inconsistent and error-ridden nature obscured the original meaning of the Greek—a clear effort to return to the best available Greek sources to ensure the translation was accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment