07 May 2010
Justification or Rectification?
Dale Coulter suggested here that English-language translations of the New Testament drop “justification” for “rectification” because the former unavoidably raises the specter of a forensic or legal understanding of Christ’s atoning work while the later suggests an inward change of becoming righteous. My alternative: change the translation of the adjectival form of dikaiosunē from “righteous” to “just.” Consistency and accuracy! (Not that this suggestion is original. Nicholas Wolterstorff made this point at some length in Justice although it was one of the few of his arguments on which I failed to blog last year.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scott, I'm enjoying your recent posts. It's an interesting discussion and one that has potential for problems on a myriad of fronts. As you likely know, the King James Version (in its original form) will be celebrating it's 400th birthday next year. Undoubtedly, some of the scholars made mistakes back then, but as I see it, we have a great potential for making more mistakes as we adjust a word here or there in either a modern translation or an older one.
ReplyDeleteNot saying it isn't important to try to get it right, just that I think there is a risk considering the evolution of language. Words change meanings constantly based on the current vernacular, but imagine how much they have changed in 400 years - and from the "Queen's (King's) English."
Just some food for thought. Bob Maxey
Bob -- Thanks for reading and for your observation. Tongue-in-cheek doesn't always come across in writing. As far as I know, all English-language translations used "righteous" in almost all cases of the adjectival form of dikaiosune. Contemporary American English, however, tends to associate "righteous" with "self-righteous," which can create a misleading understanding.
ReplyDelete