Latin in Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

To my shame, I have not read much of Hodge's Systematic Theology (in 3 vols.). I picked it up this morning to peruse it, and found a lot of Latin quotations. Sadly, I cannot even begin to read Latin. Is Hodge's ST still sufficient without being able to decipher these passages? (In other words, if I skip the Latin, how much of Hodge's ST have I missed?) Also, does anyone know if someone has translated all the Latin passages?
 
Hi Taylor,

Just me sharing some ignorance with you. When I was a brand new Christian, maybe a couple of years old, I got hold of Hodge's Systematic Theology and loved it. I think I got quite a bit out of it even though I know very little of Latin now, and even less then. I also love his commentary Romans. That, too was one of the first serious books I ever read some 42 to 43 years ago. I loved his four-fold method of exposition. I.e., Analysis, Commentary, Doctrine, Remarks.

But I'm sure you'll get some more educated answers then what I just gave you.

Have a great Lord's Day,

Ed
 
There is supposedly a translation floating around by Ida H. McCain. I've never been able to find it. I would rejoice at someone redoing his Systematic with the Latin translated.
I looked for this on worldcat and one of the two examples says the work of 39 leaves is only of vol. 1 of Hodge.
 
I looked for this on worldcat and one of the two examples says the work of 39 leaves is only of vol. 1 of Hodge.
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Translation_of_the_Latin_Quotations_in.html?id=oZKNrgEACAAJ

This link seems to indicate that there are multiple parts to this translation. That link reads "Part 4" and is 78 pages.
This next link reads 76 pages.

https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Translation_of_the_Latin_Quotations_in.html?id=cAF3HAAACAAJ
 
Worldcat locating only 1 copy of apparently part 1 only seems to underscore the difficulty in locating it. Does the work date to earlier or to the 1979 pub date?
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Translation_of_the_Latin_Quotations_in.html?id=oZKNrgEACAAJ

This link seems to indicate that there are multiple parts to this translation. That link reads "Part 4" and is 78 pages.
This next link reads 76 pages.

https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Translation_of_the_Latin_Quotations_in.html?id=cAF3HAAACAAJ
:up:
 
I believe he included so much Latin as a reaction to its decline with the younger seminarians during his time at Princeton. From what I’ve read he did it as a way to encourage his students to learn Latin.
 
I believe he included so much Latin as a reaction to its decline with the younger seminarians during his time at Princeton. From what I’ve read he did it as a way to encourage his students to learn Latin.

Yes. I just heard that on Steve Nichols' Five Minutes in Church History today.
 
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

To my shame, I have not read much of Hodge's Systematic Theology (in 3 vols.). I picked it up this morning to peruse it, and found a lot of Latin quotations. Sadly, I cannot even begin to read Latin. Is Hodge's ST still sufficient without being able to decipher these passages? (In other words, if I skip the Latin, how much of Hodge's ST have I missed?) Also, does anyone know if someone has translated all the Latin passages?

I have read all three volumes minus the Latin quotations, as I was never taught that language. I do not think that you are missing out on that much without the Latin citations.
 
Also, I would not worry too much about getting absolutely everything out of every book that you read. If one were to do so, I would probably have never finished most books that I have started.
 
It would be off topic for me to ask this question but I think it's still relevant to your issue. Is it necessary for anyone heading for the ministry to learn Latin? I mean its a dead language so the it would be useful for theological discussion since it's meaning never change. Charles Hodge's ST is a good example. Alister McGrath's Iustia Dei is full of Latin phrases and terminologies. But still, is it useful now?
 
It would be off topic for me to ask this question but I think it's still relevant to your issue. Is it necessary for anyone heading for the ministry to learn Latin? I mean its a dead language so the it would be useful for theological discussion since it's meaning never change. Charles Hodge's ST is a good example. Alister McGrath's Iustia Dei is full of Latin phrases and terminologies. But still, is it useful now?

As it is not a biblical language, it is perhaps not necessary for a minister to know Latin. That said, it may be useful for a minister to be trained in Latin so that he may read (or even translate) works of theology originally written in Latin and not available in English.

If a denomination stipulates that it expects divinity students to learn Latin, the student should have no complaints. He may not want to learn that language, but ministers (just like people in other jobs) often have to do things that they do not want to do - so they may as well get used to it in seminary.
 
My Latin is medium-ish and I did fine with Hodge's ST. Some of them, like his references to Augsburg, are translated in English. Hodge, especially volume 1, is indispensable.
 
I wish the Banner of Truth would consider publishing a newly typeset, cloth-bound edition with the Latin translation perhaps in the text or provided in the footnotes.

I'd like them to do the same with Matthew Henry's six volume commentary. Hendrickson's editions of Hodge and Henry are cheaply bound and unworthy of such works.
 
I wish the Banner of Truth would consider publishing a newly typeset, cloth-bound edition with the Latin translation perhaps in the text or provided in the footnotes.

I'd like them to do the same with Matthew Henry's six volume commentary. Hendrickson's editions of Hodge and Henry are cheaply bound and unworthy of such works.

I know another publisher that produces books of exceptional quality, and that also takes on academic translation projects. ;)
A new edition of Hodge isn't a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
To your shame??? We have very different ideas about what should be a source of shame! I read Hodge’s theology during the summer while in seminary. I found the protracted Latin sections distracting and a detriment to the work. (I have long since grown weary of the propensity to use Latin as if it is more sacred or more precise or more theological or something. Hog wash. Sola Scriptura means diddly squat. Say “Scripture Alone.”)

As to my assessment, here we’re supposed to act as if every old musty dusty tome that is found in some attic is a priceless theological gem... but truth be told, if you never read Hodge you wouldn’t be missing out. If you do invest in reading it, you’re not going to be on your deathbed saying, “At least I read Hodge before i came to die!” In fact, you may wish you’d read something better. His work is not as important as Bavinck - which is essentially distilled in Berkhof. If I could get my summer back - the summer I spent reading Hodge - I’d read Muller’s PRRD.
 
Last edited:
I found Hodge extremely beneficial, I don't read Latin either.

And while he quotes from other languages besides Latin, I didn't feel like I missed out on much...although it was annoying to see a page of Latin with the only explanatory comment being something like "and to the above we agree whole-heartedly"! Eh, I just moved on and didn't worry about it.
 
(I have long since grown weary of the propensity to use Latin as if it is more sacred or more precise or more theological or something. Hog wash. Sola Scriptura means diddly squat. Say “Scripture Alone.”)

I think it is unfair to insinuate that such is the reason Hodge offers quotes in Latin. The works he’s referencing were originally written in Latin. And, since most important historical works were written in Latin at that point in time, and they were not blessed with the plethora of translations of these works as we are, he wanted to encourage his students, no doubt, to maintain at least a little Latin.

As to my assessment, here we’re supposed to act as if every old musty dusty tome that is found in some attic is a priceless theological gem...

Who here is acting like that?

If you do invest in reading it, you’re not going to be on your deathbed saying, “At least I read Hodge before i came to die!”

That’s fine, really, because never ever has that been my motivation in reading these things.

———

Brother, I appreciate some of what you’ve said, I’m just trying to understand the apparently stringent tone in this post. Perhaps I have read you unfairly.
 
Hodge didn't bother to translate hte Latin because he knew most people back then, not having access to modern day educational methods, could actually read Latin.
 
Hodge didn't bother to translate the Latin because he knew most people back then, not having access to modern day educational methods, could actually read Latin.

But was not one of the main motivations for Charles Hodge writing his Systematic Theology precisely because people (including seminary students) were not sufficiently well-versed in Latin to read Francis Turretin's Institutes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top