GS 1974 ARTICLE 85 – Translation Heidelberg Catechism

Advisory Committee IV presents:

MATERIAL:

– Agenda D 1, 2, 3, 4.

INFORMATION:

• D 1. Report of “Committee on the Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism”, appointed by Synod 1971.
• Contents: a. information that, after the death of the Rev. H. Stel, the cooperation of Dr. J. Faber.and Rev. J. Geertsema was acquired.
  • b. Six Recommendations re: the use of
  • c. “Draft Translation.”
• D 2. Consistory Barrhead stating that not a revision of the Catechism was meant but a revision of the translation, suggests that no ‘additions’ should be accepted by Synod (mentioned are answers 32, 57, 85, 93). They also object to the heading or title of this draft.
• D 3. Consistory Smithville submits four objections against the Recommendations, including the Draft:
  • a.  that this draft “be tested in Catechism classes”;
  • b. “that Scripture references are given in the R.S.V.”
  • c.  that the Committee calls itself “Committee on the Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, while Synod 1971 only spoke of “revise the text”;
  • d. that any modernization “tends to weaken the riches of Scriptural expres­sions and concepts.”
• D 4. “General Comments” on Draft Translation Heidelberg Catechism, by A.H. Oosterhoff  and  S.M.S.  Oosterhoff,  containing  corrective  remarks  on all 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism, dealing with:
  • – wording, style, terms, sentence construction;
  • – paragraphing of the  answers;
  • – suggested corrections which, in several cases, run parallel to remarks made on the floor of Synod during preliminary discussions.

CONSIDERATIONS:

• 1. ad D I sub c. The Committee on Translation Heidelberg Catechism has, indeed, worked along the line of its mandate:
  • “a. to replace difficult and archaic words and expressions;
  • b. to recast complicated sentences into positive and independent sentences.” In doing this it not only consulted the original German Text and the recently adopted version by the Dutch Sister-Churches, but also, in many cases, repeated part of the question in the answer. Committee IV applauds this although it would have preferred to see more consistency in this.
• The Committee deserves the gratitude of Synod in this respect.
• 2. ad D 4. The “General Comments” contain, in the judgment of your Committee, so many improvements on language, terms, etc. that – in fact – the draft produced by the Committee on Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, cannot be received as ready for printing and being made available to the Churches, let alone, “to test it in Catechism classes”, without having given the Churches the opportunity to evaluate these extensive comments and corrections.
• 3. ad D 2. As to the suggestions of Barrhead re: answers 32, 57, 85, 93 and the title, the Committee deems only those on 57 and 85 acceptable, while the title chosen by the Committee is the original one except the words “METHOD OF” which should be deleted.
• 4. ad D 3. Objections of Smithville.
  • a.  the objection against “testing” this draft in Catechism classes can be accepted but only because it has now been proven to be an unfinished product.
  • b. the objection against the use of the R.S.V. in Scripture references need not be accepted in the light of the Synod 1971 decision on the R.S.V. and because the draft, even when ‘finished’, is only a draft, only provisional. This objection might partly be met by adding (R.S.V.) to the references.
  • c.  the objection against the name of this Committee is unjustified because this is the official name given by Synod 1971, Acts Article 96 sub 4.
  • d. the objection against “a new translation” in general on the ground that “modernizing on language tends to weaken the riches of Scriptural expres­sions and concepts” should be rejected, if it were only on the ground that God’s Word and the Church’s confession of that Word must and can be heard in present-day language without doing damage to “the riches of Scriptural expressions and concepts.”
• 5. ad D I Sub b. The six Recommendations of the Committee on the Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism (see the Report page 2.)
  • ad 1. “Synod appoint(ed) a Committee”, Committee IV, which came to the conclusion that D 4 renders this draft an unfinished product, not ready for this Synod to make any responsible decision re: testing and using.
  • ad 2. Synod cannot as yet send this draft to the Churches “for further examination and comment” because it is unfinished in the light of D 4.
  • ad 3. For the same reason it is not ready “to be tested in Catechism classes.”
  • ad 4a. For the same reason it should not be “printed in the Acts” nor “prepared for publication” yet.
  • ad 4b. The recommendation re: “prooftexts” is a separate issue, demanding a new mandate.
  • ad 5. Synod should continue the Committee.
  • ad 6. This Committee, then, receive the mandate to revise this first draft by evaluating and eventually incorporating the “General Comments”, some suggestions of Barrhead and whatever more criticism, comments, correc­tions etc. it may receive from the midst of the Churches.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Synod,

• 1. express the gratitude of the Churches for the work done by this Committee and by others who have contributed to a new version of the Heidelberg Catechism.
• 2. continue the Committee with the mandate,
  • a. to prepare a second draft, with the use of comments etc. which were received by this Synod;
  • b. to further solicit comments etc. which must be submitted to the Committee within the time-limit of six months after this decision has become public;
  • c. to make this second draft available to the Churches one year after this Synod has come to an end, in order to give the Churches ample time to examine it.
• Synod further decide,
  • d. to add to this mandate: to study the matter of the proof-texts added to the Catechism questions and answers, which study should include:
    • (1)  establishing what the original prooftexts are;
    • (2)  whether the selection of Scripture references can be improved by replacing, deleting and/or adding to the original ones.

ADOPTED