09 Jun GS 1980 art 111

Posted at 18:40h in CanRC, GS 1980 by

GS 1980 ARTICLE 111 – Bible Translations

Committee IV presents:

A. Material –  Agenda Viii,

  • G, 1 – Report of the Committee for Bible Transla­tions, appointed by Synod Coaldale 1977, plus appendix.
  • G, 2 – Letter from the Church at Edmonton re: Re­ vised Standard Version.
  • G, 3 – Letter from the Church at Carman re: Revised Standard Version and New King James Ver­sion.
  • G, 4 – Letter from the Church at Cloverdale re: New International Version.

B. Observations

  • 1. The Committee on Bible Translations was mandated by Synod Coaldale (Acts, Articles 104-5) “to continue to make recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee for changes considered necessary in the Revised Standard Version translation”; “to keep the Churches posted as to the developments in new editions of the Revised Standard Version”; “to make a comparative study of the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version with the Revised Standard Version and the King James Version 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 transla­ tion”; “to report to the next Synod on the progress or the result of its work.”
  • 2. The Committee reports that it concentrated its efforts on the comparative study and for that reason made no recommendations for changes to the Standard Bible Committees of the R.S.V.
  • 3. As a result of its comparative study, the Committee reports:
    • (1) “None of the four translations can be qualified as unscriptural.
    • (2) The KJV cannot function any longer as a translation in contemporary English and as the best rendering of the original text.
    • (3) It is generally felt that the NIV is the most appealing but not the most exact one.
    • (4) The NASS, in spite of its closeness to the KJV in sticking to the letter of the accepted text, misses the appeal which the KJV once had because of the beauty of its language and style and the clarity of expression.
    • (5) The RSV is acknowledged as a scholarly, sound translation in digni­ fied English. A weak point in the rendering of textually disputed places in the Prophets is that the RSV in more than one instance, without absolute necessity, gives preference to the readings of the ancient versions over the readings of the Hebrew masoretic text in its first edi­ tion of the Old Testament.”
  • 4. The Committee understands its mandate in such a way that one modern translation should be recommended to the Churches. It asks the ques­ tion: “did our study of the NASS and the NIV result in a preference of one of these modern translations above the RSV?” It answers, “on the basis of our comparative study our answer is negative.”
  • It states that the KJV has become “obsolete,” that the N.A.S.B. is “100 literal to be lucid and clear,” that the N.1.V. is “too free for use in the pulpit.”
  • 5. As for the R.S.V., the Committee notes that previous Synods have left it in the freedom of the Churches, that the R.S.V. recommends itself as a scholarly word for word translation, that the English of the R.S.V. is digni­ fied and best suited for liturgical use, that it has broad acceptance, and that the future offers good hope for more improvements.
  • On the basis of the afore-mentioned, the Committee recommends that Synod decides:
    • 1a. “to use the Revised Standard Version for the Scripture quotations in the linguistic modernization of the Creeds and the Liturgical Forms as much as possible.
    • 1b. to recommend to the churches, for the sake of desired uniformity, to use this translation in the worship services and for catechism instruction.”
  • Furthermore, the Committee recommends,
  • “to leave it in the freedom of the churches to use the King James Version, The New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, if the acceptance of the Revised Standard Version meets with insurmountable objections.
  • Grounds.
    • a. The use of one and the same Bible Version, though desirable, is not an ordinance of God nor a rule of the Church Order.
    • b. The question which version should be used by the churches has been a controversial point within the churches for decades. To make the use of one particular version binding does not solve the controversary and does certainly not promote peace and unity in and among the churches.”
  • 6. A Minority Report of the Rev. W. Huizinga is also included with the Com­ mittee’s report. It states “that a completely acceptable translation has not come as yet.” The K.J.V. is “outdated,” the R.S.V. is “scholarly and sound” but “its faithfulness to the original text is the problem,” the N.1.V. “is one of the most faithful …. However … it tends to be too interpretative, and in this sense is not always as faithful to the original text as it should be.”
  • The Minority Report recommends that the use of the K.J.V. “cease,” unless a local church has insurmountable objections to the other transla­tions. It desires to leave the churches “free to use any of the three modern translations which were investigated – R.S.V., N.A.S.B., N.1.V.”
  • It further recommends that a new committee be appointed to make recommendations to various translation boards, to keep the churches posted, to continue the comparative study, to invite submissions and to report to the next Synod.
  • 7. The Church at Edmonton asks Synod to consider adopting the Minority Report.
  • It states that it has certain misgivings about the Majority Report due to the fact that the “work of our previous Committees (1974/1977) was not weighed sufficiently,” that emphasis is placed on “dignified and con­ temporary English instead of on accuracy in translation.” It also states that “we have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that its Committee on Translation will faithfully translate from the accepted Hebrew and Greek text without adding all kinds of emendations.” This fear is added to by an enclosure sent to Synod dealing with the intent of a certain Task Force in which a call is made to remove “sexist” language from the R.S.V.
  • 8. The Church at Carman expresses concern about “unnecessary correc­tions and emendations” in the R.S.V., gives several examples of this, and urges Synod to warn its Committees to be on their guard.
  • It also requests Synod to include in the mandate of the to-be appoint­ed Committee the New King James Version, because “If this edition combines the old faithful honoring of the text of the A.V. with the gain of present availability of manuscripts unknown in 1611, it is worth looking at.”
  • 9. The Church at Cloverdale recommends that Synod “refrain from leaving the use of the N.1.V. to the freedom of the churches.” It bases this recom­mendation on the fact that the N.1.V. with its dynamic equivalent approach promotes greater clarity at the expense of faithfulness and fidelity to the original text (cf. Matthew 13:32; Luke 9:51-53; John 3:5; Acts 10:20; 11:12; James 1:2), that its method of translation makes it doubtful whether this translation can be left free for liturgical use, and that its “recent” character which means that it is still undergoing examination and “has yet to pass the test of durability and general ecclesiastical acceptability,” makes it premature to leave such a version in the freedom of the churches.

B. Considerations

  • 1. The Committee has fulfilled a part of its mandate, namely with regard to making a “comparative study” of various translations. It saw no need to inform the Churches concerning new editions of the R.S.V., since none were produced during the last three years. It was unable to make further recommendations for change to the Standard Bible Committee of the R.S.V., due to its concentration on the comparative study. This part of the mandate remains uncompleted.
  • 2. The comparative study reveals that none of the four translations investigated can be called unscriptural; however, each translation suffers from some shortcomings. According to the Committee, the K.J.V. “can­ not function any longer,” the N.I.V. is “not the most exact,” the N.A.S.B. lacks in “the beauty of its language and style and the clarity of expression,” the R.S.V. has “a weak point in the rendering of textually disputed places in the Prophets.”
  • 3. The Committee has correctly interpreted its mandate so as to result in the expression of a preference for one of the translations. It has declared that it cannot express a preference, since the result of the comparative study was “negative.” Nevertheless, the Majority Report of the Committee does express a “preference” for the R.S.V.
  • 4. The Majority Report of the Committee bases this preference on the fact that the R.S.V. is a “scholarly word for word translation,” that the English of the R.S.V. is “dignified and best suited for liturgical use,” and that the future offers good hope for more improvements. Furthermore, the Majority Report expresses the opinion that the R.S.V. best lends itself “for the Scripture quotations in the linguistic modernization of the Creeds and the Liturgical Forms,” and that the use of the R.S.V. should be recom­mended to the Churches so that uniformity results as to which translation should be used in the worship services and catechism instruction.
  • 5. The Minority Report of the Committee does not wish to express any pref­erence but to leave the Churches free to use the R.S.V., the N.A.S.B., and the N.I.V. It calls the K.J.V. “outdated” and wants its use “to cease.” It designates the R.S.V. as “scholarly and sound,” yet goes on to state “its faithfulness to the original text is the problem.” The N.I.V. is said, on the one hand, to be “one of the most faithful in using the original text,” but, on the other hand, it “tends to be too interpretative” and is “not always as faithful to the original as it should be.” This Report speaks in a contradic­tory fashion regarding the R.S.V. and the N.I.V. Neither does it address itself to the matter of linguistic modernization of the Creeds and Liturgi­cal Forms, nor to the issue of uniformity, as far as translation is con­cerned.
  • Furthermore, its recommendation that a new committee be appoint­ed to make recommendations to various translation boards is unrealistic if one takes into account the amount of time and personnel this would take.
  • 6. The Church at Edmonton, although requesting that Synod adopt the Min­ority Report, does not detail its criticisms of the Majority Report, does not base its fears on an accomplished fact but on what may happen in the future with the R.S.V.
  • 7. The Church at Carman, in urging Synod to warn “its Committees to be on guard” with respect to “unnecessary corrections and emendations” in the R.S.V., is urging Synod to do something which is already included in the mandate of the Committee (see Acts 1977, Article 104. Recommenda­tion 2, a).
  • In addition, its request for a study of the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson) is based, not on a submission which proves that this translation is worthy of consideration, but on an “if” (“If this edition … “). Such a basis does not form a proper ground for adding to the mandate of the Committee on Bible Translations.
  • 8. The Church at Cloverdale, in requesting Synod to refrain from leaving the use of the N.I.V. in the freedom of the Churches, points to its translation method which results in greater clarity at the expense of faithfulness and fidelity, and on the “recent” character of this translation.
  • The Majority and the Minority Reports of the Committee both point to a lack of exactness and faithfulness with respect to the N.I.V. for its “free” translation.
  • The recent character of the N.I.V. also warrants consideration since it is a known fact that over the years a number of translations that have been widely endorsed and that have enjoyed favourable sales, have later faded on the ecclesiastical scene (cf. A.S.V., Berkeley Version, Jerusalem Bible).

C. Recommendations

Synod decides:

  • 1. To thank the Committee on Bible Translations for its faithful labours.
  • 2. a) To use the Revised Standard Version for the Scripture quotations in the linguistic modernization of the Creeds and the Liturgical Forms as much as possible.
    • b) To recommend to the Churches to use this translation in the worship services and for catechism instruction in order to come to uniformity of practice.
  • 3. To leave it in the freedom of the Churches to use the K.J.V. and the N.A.S.B., if the acceptance of the Revised Standard Version meets with insurmountable objections.
  • 4. To re-appoint the Committee on Bible Translations with the mandate:
    • a) To continue to make recommendations to the Standard Bible Commit­ tee for changes necessary in the Revised Standard Version transla­tion:
    • b) To keep the Churches posted as to the developments in new editions of the Revised Standard Version;
    • c) To report to the next Synod.
  • 5. To send the letter of the Church at Carman to the Committee on Bible Translations asking it to take into account the recommendations mentioned.

ADOPTED

Print page