Herman Bavinck’s Our Reasonable Faith=The Wonderful Works of God – corrections to the translation

This is a truly wonderful book, written in Dutch in 1908 with the title Magnalia Dei, translated in the 1950s and called Our Reasonable Faith, and now reissued in the same translation as The wonderful works of God. I have contacted the publishers but they have not been permitted to correct mistranslations; but I have found a number which I have checked with native Dutch speakers as well as with my own copy of the Dutch. Here they are, free to all on the internet!

Magnalia Dei mistranslations, suspected mistranslations and suggested emendations by Chris Bennett, 26rd Jan 2021

Page numbers not in brackets are in the old English translation, called Our Reasonable Faith. Square brackets contain references to the new WWG edition.

P19, line 1: the world should read eternity.  (P9, line 11 in the Dutch) [WWG: page 41-ish, first sentence of paragraph starting “Now we learn from…”]

P86-7, the sentence from one page to the next:  do not annul the promise and do not achieve it   should read   do not annul the promise and do not earn it (or secure it?)   “Achieve” is not quite right.     (P86, seven lines from the bottom, in the Dutch) [WWG: p132, sentence starting “And these three measures…”]

P92, third last line: might should read power or dominion.   (P93 line 21 in the Dutch) [WWG: page 140-ish, sentence starting “It passed from one….” in the para starting “After the captivity..”]

P96, second last line and last line:  reported should read recorded, and on the next line Num. 32:2 should read Num. 33:2.           (P98 near the top, in the Dutch) [WWG: page 146, sentence starting “And when Israel has come…” in the paragraph starting “First, God frequently charges…”]

P135, second paragraph, 7th line:  all of His incommunicable attributes should read all of his communicable attributes.  This is a howler!   (P141, eighth line from the bottom, in the Dutch)

P185, line 10:  Him (referring to God) should read him, referring to man.

P263, line 8: a whole of ideas about God and the world should read a whole set of ideas about God and the world.      (P292, paragraph 3, lines 3-4 in the Dutch)

P267, last line: than does that of creation and redemption should read than does that of creation and providence.      (P298, first 2 lines in the Dutch)

P273, first line:  that is the religion should read  that it is the religion            (Dutch ref not needed)

P282, top line:  that Christ began to exist, unlike us, at His conception and birth should read that Christ began to exist – unlike us – not at His conception and birth.  Or recast it:  that Christ did not – as we do – begin to exist at His conception and birth.                   (P313, lines 4-5)

And second error on p282:  second last line:  was exalted to the Lord should read was exalted to be the Lord.     (Dutch ref not needed)

P284, fourth last line:  an always closer approximation of God to His people should read an always closer approach of God to his people.                (P316 last sentence of paragraph one, in the Dutch)

P285, last sentence of first paragraph, one suggested emendation, one mistake:  They all walk on the same way, be it that the light which falls   should read   They all walk along the same road, albeit that the light which falls.      (P317, last sentence of second paragraph in the Dutch)

P325, second paragraph, line 4:  a constantly closer approximation of God to man should read a constantly closer approach of God to man – same point as in comment on p284.    (P362 line 3 in the Dutch)

P327:  Zylstra has omitted the section break (gap with 5 stars) after the first paragraph here – he normally heeds them so I think it’s just a mistake, not deliberate or logical.       (P364 in the Dutch)

P362, near the bottom of the page, after the Isa. 53:10 reference there is a section break in the Dutch, with 5 stars normally in the English.   (P406 in the Dutch)

P368, paragraph two, line 7-8:  a spiritual resurrection, that is, regeneration and renewal, could take place in Christ   should read   a spiritual resurrection, that is, regeneration and renewal, could not take place in Christ.  Another bad one: Bavinck means a spiritual renewal can’t take place in Christ, who never died spiritually, he was always holy; so it must be a physical rather than a spiritual resurrection.   And the Dutch is very clear – niet.              (P413, 9th line from the bottom in the Dutch)

P369, second paragraph, line 2:   He who made God to be sin for us    should read   He who was made by God to be sin for us.                                     (Dutch not deeded; it’s 2 Cor 5:21)

P383, second paragraph, the last sentence of the paragraph is a mistaken duplication of part of the first sentence of paragraph 3.    So the first occurrence of   Every local church is a body of Christ, and the members of the church.       should be omitted.                 (Dutch not needed; but it’s top of P432)

P396, second paragraph, second last sentence:  communion between the Father and the Son, on the one hand, and between the disciples, on the other  should read   communion between the Father and the Son, on the one hand, and the disciples, on the other.      (P447 last sentence of first paragraph in the Dutch)

P453, second line from the bottom: from piece or fragments should read   from pieces or fragments.                      (Dutch not needed)

P466, second paragraph, third last line:   defeated by the sense of guilt, drives to Christ himself    should read   defeated by the sense of guilt, to Christ himself.      (Dutch not needed)

P468, just over halfway through the big paragraph:   where thieves do not break through nor steal (Matt. 6:19-20)   should read        where thieves do not break through and steal (Matt. 6:19-20).           (Dutch not needed)

P481,  second paragraph, the two sentences from lines 4-13.  A couple of errors here, based it seems on Bavinck saying something about the centrality of faith in sanctification that doesn’t sound terribly Reformed in the traditional sense (but there is no doubt that he generally takes a view of this that is at the margin of the 17th century view, across the piece, in this book and in his Dogmatics). 

First:  But when they discuss sanctification, they maintain that faith alone is adequate   should read   But when they discuss sanctification, they maintain that faith alone is inadequate.   The Dutch word is ongenoegzaam!   And Bavinck is about to disagree with “them” – yes, he is maintaining that from our end faith is the key to sanctification.  He does that at length in Reformed Dogmatics vol 4, in the chapter on sanctification. 

Second: the next sentence should start not with           And even though it is altogether true   but it should start  Even though it is altogether true  –  the addition of And, which is not in the Dutch, confuses the argument and the relationship between the sentences; if one were to add anything there, it would be But not And.                            (P546 paragraph from the second line of the paragraph in the Dutch)

This is a very serious mistranslation and undermines Bavinck’s line on sanctification, which is closer to Luther and Calvin and the late Puritan Walter Marshall than to the mainline 17th century writers.

P501, fourth last line and the line after:   the blessing which has accrued, not only to the public preaching, but also to the reading, study, and meditation of the word   should read   the blessing which has accrued, not only from the public preaching, but also from the reading, study, and meditation of the word.     This is another howler:    uit has been translated to instead of from, and in a way that doesn’t fit the flow of the argument; I guess Zylstra may have thought Bavinck was talking about the blessing of the Spirit on the word as means, but the sentence as a whole does not justify that thought; it’s clearly meant to be uit, from.           (P570,  sentence starts at 6th line of second paragraph in the Dutch)

P510, fourth line from the bottom:  (faith) is not in its inner nature certainty  should read  (faith) is in its inner nature certainty.    Another real howler; I guess Bavinck is not as close to the details of 17th century teaching as Zylstra would like him to be!  But Bavinck very clearly, time and again, sides with Calvin against the 17th century on faith having assurance in it.     (P581 lines 3-5 in the Dutch)

P563, eighth line from the bottom:    It is not a natural, but a physical body    should read   It is not a natural, but a spiritual body         Yes, another howler.  The Dutch is very clear and it sounded from the English as if something was wrong.                         (P641 line 11 in the Dutch)