Question Regarding the Need Of vs The Effort.

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Junior
Hello all. Though I am busy at the moment, I do have a question that has been pressing my mind that some may want to answer since it is a weekend and some may have time. Before I started my Puritan project, I was in the process of translating the French Complete Works of Augustine into English via DeepL. Now that my Puritan project is kind of winding down, the thought has been coming back if I want to take that up again, as well as the potential of translating the Complete works of Luther by the same method. My real question is, are the Complete Works of both kind of extra? What I mean, is we all know that a lot of both Augustines and Luthers works are already available free in English, but many of them are not. Is what is offered plenty for people to get a grasp of both Augustines and Luthers theology without the need for translation? I ask, because again I go back to the estimation that Africa, within 20 years, will be the largest Christian continent in the world. And we all know many in Africa cannot afford as much theological material as we can in the US. In the spirit of wanting to make as much sound theological material available as possible, for free, would these translation projects be worth the effort? Of what I understand both Augustine and Luther are considered foundation for a good understanding of the Reformed tradition; would a continent or nation with a lower income be missing out from a lack of having access to these works? It is hard to complain of copyright violations, when an alternative is present and we dont take advantage of it. Currently, the only English Complete of Augustine is around $1300 digitally, and $3000 physical, and Luthers $250 digitally, and $1000+ physical. There are many in Africa that make only $10 a day. Below is an excerpt of the translation of Augustine I was doing using DeepL.

So far I have "Against the Academics, Letters, The Confessions, and The Retractions" done.

1. At the same time I wrote, under the inspiration of my zeal and my love, two books to seek the truth about things that I especially wanted to know, questioning and answering myself, as if there were two of us, reason and I, although I was alone. That is why I named this treatise Soliloquies; but it remained imperfect; and nevertheless the first book seeks and shows what must be the one who wants to possess wisdom, this wisdom which one perceives not by the senses, but by the intelligence: and at the end of this same book it is established by a certain argumentation that what is true is immortal. In the second book, the immortality of the soul is discussed for a long time, but the discussion is not brought to a complete end.

2. In these books, I do not agree with what I said in a prayer: "God, who wanted only the pure of heart to know the truth". For it may be answered that many who are not pure in heart know many truths; and I do not define here what kind of truth only the pure in heart can know; nor do I define what it is to know. In the same way for this passage: "God, whose kingdom is all the world which the senses ignore;" it was necessary to add, if it is question of God: "You whom the senses of a mortal body ignore." And if it is a question of the world which the senses ignore, that is to say of the future world formed of a new heaven and a new earth, it was necessary to add also: the senses of a mortal body. But I was still using this way of speaking which attaches to the word "senses" the meaning of corporeal senses. So I do not have to come back again and again to the remarks I have made above on this subject; please refer to them each time such a locution appears in my works.

3. When I said of the Father and the Son, "He who begets and he whom he begets are one," I should have said they are one, as the divine Truth itself says, "My Father and I are one. I am also displeased to have said that in this life the soul, in begetting God, is already blessed, unless it is in hope. In the same way, this passage does not ring true: "There is not only one way to wisdom. For there can be no other way than Christ who said, "I am the way." I should have avoided offending religious ears here; though yet other is this universal way, other the ways which the Psalmist sings: "Make known to me your ways, O Lord, and teach me your paths." Then, when I wrote: "It is absolutely necessary to flee from these things," I had to be careful not to appear to be inclined towards the false maxim of Porphyry, who affirms that it is necessary to flee from everything that is body. It is true, I did not say "all sensible things": I said "these things", that is to say corruptible things. But it would be better to say: "Such sensible things will not exist in the new heavens and the new earth of the future age."
Not open for further replies.