14 Mar GS 1977 art 105

Posted at 20:22h in CanRC, GS 1977 by

GS 1977 ARTICLE 105 – Bible Translations – Examination other Bible Translations

Committee II presents the second part of its report on Bible translations.

II.   Examination of Other Translations

Observations

  • 1. The Church at Winnipeg requests Synod to appoint a Committee with the mandate to make a comparative study (with the RSV) of two other conservative Bible translations, namely, the New American Standard Bible and the New Internation­al Version.
  • Winnipeg’s grounds are:
    • a. The Churches must have the best translations available;
    • b. The RSV shows weaknesses: “evidence of unscriptural influence”;
    • c. A responsible decision about “what is the best” can only be made after an in­vestigation of other conservative translations.
  • 2. The Church at London requests Synod to appoint a Committee to test the NASE on basically the same grounds as Winnipeg adduces. In an appendix the Church at London gives 25 cases from the 59 texts listed by the Committee on the RSV for changes, where the NASE has the proposed change, or partly has it.
  • 3. The Church at Smithers endorses the request from the Church at Winnipeg, and in a second part of its letter requests Synod “not to adhere to the recommendation of the Committee for the Doctrinal and the Liturgical Forms: ‘that all Scripture quo­tations in all the Forms be changed in accordance with the RSV.’ “
  • 4. The Church at Hamilton proposes that Synod “appoint a Committee which has as its mandate:
    • a. To make a comparative study of the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version with the RSV and the KJV, to determine which one translation can be positively recommended for use by the Churches. The most important criteria in this study will be the faithfulness to the original text and the up-to-date character of the translation.
    • b. To solicit any help it needs from persons who are considered competent in this field;
    • c. To report to the Churches at the proper time so that there is sufficient lime to study the results and to make proposals to Synod.”
  • 5. The first three grounds of the Church at Hamilton are the same as those of the Church at Winnipeg. The difference is that Hamilton’s Church comes with an elaborate indication of the evidence of unscriptural influence taken from the Committee reports on the RSV to Synod 1974 and to Synod 1977.
  • 6. The Church at Hamilton, then, adds that “this repeated and mounting evidence should show the inadequacy of the previous Gen. Synods’ consideration for reject­ing a similar proposal; nl.: ‘The Committee’s claim of weaknesses in the RSV has not been proven to be of such a nature that it warrants taking another translation of the Bible under study.’ (Acts 1974, Article 182, B II).”
  • 7. To the three grounds, adduced by the Church at Winnipeg, the Church at Hamilton adds a fourth one, in which it attacks the second consideration in the above (sub 6) mentioned proposal at Synod 1974. This second consideration reads: “having more than one modern translation under study with a view to use by the Churches may lead to confusion.” Hamilton is of the opinion that this consideration is also inade­quate and without sense.
  • 8. Synod 1974, dealing with the same matter (Acts, Article 182 sub B), was first con­ fronted with a proposal of its Advisory Committee, reading: “not to adopt the recommendation of the Committee( on the RSV),” namely, “to study another (or other) translation(s).”
  • Synod 1974 rejected this proposal of its Advisory Committee.
  • After this rejection of the proposal: not to study another translation, Synod 1974 also rejected two (slightly different but basically similar) motions proposing to study the NASB (and the NIV).
  • 9. The Committee on the RSV in its report to this Synod expresses as its fear that there is indication of unscriptural influence in the RSV. It nevertheless recom­mends to leave the use of the RSV free, also on the ground that no other modern translation has been tested for use by the Churches.

Considerations

  • 1. The proposal of the Churches at Winnipeg, London and Hamilton, endorsed by the Church at Smithers, was rejected at the Synod of Toronto 1974.
  • 2. The first two grounds for the proposal, as submitted by the Churches at Winnipeg and Hamilton, were also given as grounds at Synod 1974. London’s Church uses the same three grounds as given for the (rejected) last proposal in this matter at Synod 1974.
  • 3. When the Church at Hamilton comes with indications of the weaknesses and un­ scriptural influence in the RSV, mentioned under Observation 5, it does not appeal the considerations made on these points by Synod 1974 in Article 182 sub B., nor the conclusion that the Committee on the RSV did not give conclusive proof of un­ scriptural influence in the RSV.
  • 4. When Hamilton attacks the two considerations of the Advisory Committee to Syn­od 1974, Hamilton opposes something that is not there, since Synod 1974 rejected that proposal.
  • 5. The new and valid ground of the Churches at Winnipeg and Hamilton, which makes their proposal to Synod admissible is: that a responsible decision in this matter can only be made after, and on the basis of, a comparative study.
  • 6. Synod 1974 made a strange combination of decisions in this matter. It first decided not not to study another translation. As the logical conclusion from this double negative a positive decision could have been expected: namely, to examine other translations. However, twice a proposal in that direction was also rejected.
  • 7. A testing of the NASB and NIV in comparison with the RSV and the KJV will an­swer the question which of those translations is the best: either the RSV (which. then, can continue to be recommended l, or another one (which will replace the RSV in this respect). This will bring the uncertainty to an end, and prevent further requests.
  • 8. With respect to the proposed testing of the NASB and NIV it must be considered that in 1968 the NASB was not well-known yet, and that at this moment only the New Testament of the NIV is ready.
  • 9. The second part of the request of the Church at Smithers deals with the Book of Praise and received already an answer in Article 60 of the Acts of this Synod.

Recommendations

Synod decide

  • 1. To broaden the mandate for the Committee on the RSV, changing its name into “Committee on Bible translations.”
  • 2. To add to its mandate:
    • a. to make a comparative study of the NASB and the NIV with the RSV and the KJV, in order to determine which one translation can be positively recommended for use by the Churches, whereby the criteria are: faithfulness to the original text, and linguistic character of the translation;
    • b. to report to the next Synod on the progress or the result of its work.
  • 3. That pending this study only the use of the KJV and the RSV is in the freedom of the Churches.

ADOPTED

Print page