14 Mar GS 1977 art 104

Posted at 20:12h in CanRC, GS 1977 by

GS 1977 ARTICLE 104 – Bible Translations – Revised Standard Version

Committee II presented:

Material – Agenda 8.

  • E, 1 – Report of the Committee on the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) appointed by Synod Toronto 1974. (See Appendix IV, p.76.).
    • a.  Appendix A –  Suggested Improvements.
    • b. Appendix B – Synod Decisions from 1954-1974.
    • c. The archives of the Committee on the R.S.V.
  • E. 2 – The Church at Winnipeg, Manitoba, re: Study Com­mittee on the New International Version (N.I.V.) and New American Standard Bible (N.A.S.B.).
  • E, 3 – The Church at London, Ontario, re: Study Commit­tee on the N.A.S.B.
  • E, 4 – The Church at Hamilton, Ontario, re: Study Committee on the N.I.V. and N.A.S.B.
  • E, 5 – The Church at London, Ontario, re: not to acquiesce in the recommendation of the R.S.V. Committee.
  • E, 6 – The Church at Smithers, B.C., re: support for the overture of the Church at Winnipeg, and a request not to use the R.S.V. in the Doctrinal and Liturgical Forms.
  • E, 7 – The Church at New Westminster, B.C., re: R.S.V. Bible translation.

I.        The Revised Standard Version

Observations

  • 1. The Committee on the R.S.V. reports that, according to its mandate, (see Acts, Article 182 D of Synod 1974), it continued the work of checking the R.S.V. and sent:
    • a. a number of (59 – see Appendix Al recommendations for changing the present text of the R.S.V.: and
    • b. a copy of the decision on the R.S.V. of Synod 1974 to the Standard Bible Committee.
    • It informed the Churches about the work, when the report to this Synod was ready.
  • 2. The Committee mentioned that it interpreted the mandate “to continue the work of checking the RSV” in the light of the decision of Synod 1968: “to study the RSV as to faithfulness to the original text and ‘Schriftgelovig karakter’ “(Acts, Article 46, IV): and that it therefore “also sought to evaluate the RSV with a view to the Theological presuppositions that may have entered into the translation work.” (In Appendix B the synodical decisions made from 1954 through 1974 re: the use of an English Bible version are all rendered.)
  • 3. The Committee, then, points at “the background and sponsorship” of the RSV. It was sponsored by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCCC). The Committee shows that the NCCC can for the greater part be identified with liberal protestantism.
  • 4. Although the Committee first says that it is “proven that all orthodox doctrines can be accurately formulated on the basis of the RSV,” it then indicates that there are unscriptural and evolutionistic influences:
    • a. it mentions 5 texts where the RSV speaks of the “Holy Spirit which” instead of the “Holy Spirit who” (whom): Romans 5:5, 8:11, I Corinthians 2:12, Ephesians 1:14, I John 3:24;
    • b. it points to some texts: Genesis 11:1, Joshua 10:12, and Psalm 51:18, where an evolutionistic view could be suspected;
    • c. it adds as a third indication that in a few cases the RSV has unnecessary contra­ dictions between some texts; and does not give a similar translation when an Old Testament text is quoted in the New Testament, while in the original text there is no real ground for such a difference.
  • 5. The Committee concludes “that it is afraid that the RSV shows evidence of un­ scriptural influence.”
  • 6. The Committee does not want to recommend, on the basis of its fear of unscrip­tural influence, that Synod reject the RSV: it recommends in spite of that fear that Synod decide: “that the Churches be left the freedom to use the RSV with dis­cretion and care.”
  • 7. Grounds for this recommendation are:
    • 1. All orthodox doctrines can be deduced from it.
    • 2. Among the different present renditions the RSV ·•numbers among the more con­servative in its basic attempt to translate what is there as precisely as possible. In spite of its deficiencies, the RSV does not add to, nor take away from, the Word of the Bible books in its translation.”
    • 3. “At the moment no other modern translation has been tested for use in our Churches.”
    • 4. “Serious objections, be they of a different nature, can also be brought to bear against the exclusive use of the KJV in our midst.”
  • 8. The Committee is of the opinion that the work of testing the RSV has had suffi­cient attention. It, therefore, recommends in the second place that Synod decide: “not to appoint a new committee for the checking of the RSV.”
  • 9. The Committee, however, recommends in a postscriptum that Synod “maintain a study committee on the RSV, which continues to make recommendations for changes to the RSV – Bible Committee; and (which) keeps the Churches posted as to the developments in new editions of the RSV, which strengthen the recom­mendation to Synod (to leave it in the freedom of the Churches), or which make it imperative to reconsider this recommendation.”
  • 10. In connection with this postscriptum the Church at New Westminster proposes to Synod:
    • 1. to appoint a study-committee on the RSV with the mandate:
      • a.  to make recommendations to the RSV Bible Committee for changes con­sidered necessary in the RSV translation:
      • b. to keep the Churches informed as to the developments in the new editions of the RSV;
    • c. to report to the next General Synod;
    • 2. to invite the cooperation of all the church members to send to the Committee any criticism on the RSV they may have.
  • 11. The Church at London requests Synod not to adopt the recommendation of the Committee on the RSV, “that the Churches be left the freedom to use the RSV with discretion and care,” on the following grounds:
    • a. A translation which “shows evidence of unscriptural influence” and can be used “although with care” does not come well recommended.
    • b. °The ground of the Committee that “the RSV numbers among the more conser­vative” is a “faulty argument,” because it admits: ” … no other modern trans­lation has been tested.”
    • c. “There is, ought to be, enough struggle against liberalism, that should prevent Synod from leaving a Bible translation from the ‘liberal camp’ in the freedom of the Churches.”
    • d. The statement of the Committee that “serious objections, be they of a different nature, can also be brought to bear against the exclusive use of the KJV” is not substantiated; the “nature” undefined; “and hence cast aspersions on the KJV.”
    • e. The fact that the Committee speaks of the possibility that new editions of the RSV can “make it imperative to reconsider this recommendation” (for careful use) makes the recommendation senseless.
    • f. The statement that “all doctrines can be deduced from it” is used as a criterion for recommendation of the RSV, which criterion “does not agree with the ori­ginal mandate: “to study the RSV as to faithfulness to the original text and ‘Schriftgelovig karakter.’ ” Besides, this statement is not proven. Only refer­ence is made to a certain publication.

Considerations

  • 1.  The Committee has fulfilled the mandate given by Synod 1974.
  • 2. The fact that of the 59 recommendations for changes many were of the same Bible books (8 in Isaiah 5-16, 15 in Philippians, 19 in Hebrews 1-9), so that more recom­mendations must be possible; and the fact that “the RSV Bible Committee is receptive to recommendations,” warrants the recommendation of our Committee to maintain the Committee on the RSV with the mandate to continue to make recommendations for changes to the Standard Bible Committee.
  • 3. Although the Committee points to the translation of a number of texts as indica­tions of unscriptural influence, and expresses its fear in this respect, yet, because only a few examples have been adduced, they do not constitute sufficient proof of an unscriptural influence in the RSV. (Compare Synod 1974, Acts, Article 182 B, Conclusion.)
  • There is therefore no reason to continue the Committee on the ground that the work of testing the RSV has had sufficient attention.
  • 4. As for the objections of the Church at London against the recommendation of the Committee the following is to be considered:
    • ad a: Over against the “evidence of unscriptural influence” in some texts stands the conclusion of the Committee on the RSV in its report to Synod 1974:
      • “I. Goddard’s dissertation shows clearly that there is much to commend about the RSV translation which in some cases is better than the KJV and statistically is more accurate” (Acts 1974, page lll, sub-conclusions). And a use “with care” does not as such speak against a cautious recommendation.
    • ad b: The fact that “no other translation has been tested” cannot be considered a denial of the conservative character of the RSV translation. Therefore it does not make this ground of the Committee “a faulty argument.”
    • ad c: London did not prove that leaving the RSV in the freedom of the Churches is giving in in the struggle against liberalism.
    • ad d: The fact that the Committee states as ground that objections against the KJV can also be brought up, without substantiating this statement, does not render this ground as such invalid. A careful testing of the KJV was not asked for.
    • ad e: Possible future reconsideration of the recommendation for a careful use of the RSV because of possible future wrong developments could only be considered a valid ground if the Churches were not yet using the RSV.
    • ad f: The statement of the Church at London that the criterion that all doctrines can be deduced from the RSV does not agree with the original mandate, is wrong. This criterion has everything to do with an examination on the point of the “Schrift­ gelovig karakter.”
    • On the basis of the above the objections of London’s Church are not sufficient to warrant a rejection of the recommendation of the Committee.
  • 5. As for the grounds of the Committee for its recommendation, “that the Churches be left the freedom to use the RSV with discretion and care,” the following con­siderations may serve:
    • ad 1: The fact that all orthodox doctrines can be deduced from the RSV speaks in its favour.
    • ad 2: That the RSV numbers among the more conservative translations “in its basic attempt to translate what is there as precisely as possible,’· and “does not add to nor take away from the words of the Bible books in its translation,” is also in its favour. Besides, this conservative character was one of the grounds for Synod 1968 to appoint a Committee to examine just this translation.
    • ad 3: Since no other modern translation has been tested for use in the Churches, the RSV is the only modern alternative besides the K.JV.
    • ad 4: Not to leave the RSV free for use would make the KJV the only English Bible that the Churches can use. The fact that objections. “although of a different nature,” can be brought in against this translation renders it advisable not to restrict the Churches to the use of the KJV,
    • The conclusion can be that the grounds of the Committee for its recommendation re: a careful use of the RSV are valid.
  • 6. Synod 1974 concluded that the Committee on the RSV did not submit conclusive proof of an unscriptural influence in the RSV.
  • 7. In its report to Synod 1977 the Committee on the RSV does not submit sufficient proof of an unscriptural influence in the RSV.

Recommendations

  • Synod decide
  • 1. Gratefully to acknowledge the work done by the Committee on the Revised Stand­ ard Version:
  • 2. To appoint a Committee on the Revised Standard Version with the mandate:
    • a. to continue to make recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee for changes considered necessary in the Revised Standard Version translation:
    • b. to keep the Churches posted as to the developments in new editions of the Re­ vised Standard Version:
    • c. to report to the next Synod.
  • 3. To terminate the mandate of the Committee to examine the Revised Standard Version on its “faithfulness to the original text and its ‘Schriftgelovig karakter.’ “
  • 4. Not to grant the request of the Church at London.
  • 5. To leave the use of the Revised Standard Version – though with discretion and care – in the freedom of the Churches.
  • 6. To send the Archives of the Committee to the Committee to be appointed.

ADOPTED

Print page