12 Apr GS 1980 art 60
GS 1980 ARTICLE 60 – Heidelberg Catechism – New Translation
Committee Ill presents:
A. Material – Agenda VIII,
- C, 1 – Report of the Committee on Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.
- C, 2 – Letter from Rev. S. deBruin re: Translation. C, 3 – Letter from the Church at London re: Translation.
- C, 4 – Letter from the Church at Barrhead re: Translation.
B. Observations
- 1. Synod New Westminster 1971 appointed a Committee on the Translation Heidelberg Catechism with the following mandate (Article 83):
- “to revise the text of the Heidelberg Catechism
- a. by replacing difficult and anachronistic words and expressions, as far as proper equivalents can be derived from today’s English.
- b. by recasting sentences, which are too complicated, into positive and independent sentences, which form a direct answer to the question, in close adherence to the original German text.”
- 2. Synod Toronto 1974 continued the Committee on the Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism with the following mandate (Article 85):
- 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 proof-texts are;
- (2) whether the selection of Scripture references can be improved by replacing, deleting and/or adding to the original ones.”
- 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:
- 3. Synod Coaldale 1977 continued the Committee on the Translation Heidelberg Catechism with as mandate (Article 98);
- a. “to revise the second draft translation, taking into account the comments received, including those of the Advisory Committee for this Synod, and to use the following guidelines:
- i. adhere closely to the original German text (third edition, 1563);
- ii. replace difficult and archaic words and expressions if proper equivalents are available in today’s English;
- iii. restructure sentences which are too complicated into positive, separate sentences which directly answer the question;
- iv. provide reasons when deviation from the German text is necessary on theological grounds.
- b. to submit this revised draft together with reference notes to the Churches and to invite comments to be submitted to the Committee by January 1980;
- c. to submit their report with recommendations to the Synod 1980;
- d. to arrange for publication of this revised draft without comments in booklet form for use in the Churches on a trial basis by November 1978;
- e. to establish what the original proof texts are and to see whether the selection of Scripture references can be improved by replacing, deleting and/or adding to the original ones and to include them in the publication, if possible;
- f. to provide an index to cross-reference the Three Forms of Unity.”
- a. “to revise the second draft translation, taking into account the comments received, including those of the Advisory Committee for this Synod, and to use the following guidelines:
- 4. The committee reports that it was unable to fulfill its mandate. This was caused by the fact that part of the present committee has been involved in the preparation of the First Draft Translation, presented to Synod Toronto 1974, and part of the committee had worked on the Second Draft Translation, submitted to Synod Coaldale 1977.
- 5. The problem according to our Committee was that the work method used has been different.
- This difference concerns especially the basis for a new translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.
- The First Draft had used both the German and Latin text of 1563 and had regarded also the Dutch Text of 1611. (selective method).
- The Second Draft was mainly based on the German Text of 1563.
- The result was that the changes in the First Draft were less than in the Second Draft, since the present English text in our “Book of Praise,” as the Dutch Text, is closer to the Latin text of 1563 than to the German text of the same year.
- 6. The Committee in its report states that Synod Coaldale 1977 did not make an informed and well argued choice for the one or the other method, although the mandate given by this Synod puts much emphasis on the original German text.
- 7. The Committee requests Synod to give a clearer mandate as to which text to use as basis for a new translation.
- 8. The Committee adds to its report a “Draft Translation 1979” covering Lord’s Day 1-23 and informs Synod about the method followed, basically the one used to prepare the First Draft.
- 9. The Committee did not finish this draft since it was not in accordance with the mandate given by Synod 1977, deviating more from the German text than was necessary on theological grounds.
- 10. Rev. S. DeBruin asks Synod to make a few changes in the proposed translation.
- 11. The Church at London writes Synod that “we would much sooner keep the present English text than accept the proposed revision.”
- As reasons are given that the proposed translation has
- a. a considerable number of “Dutchisms,”
- b. expressions which are too colloquial,
- c. too many incomplete sentences,
- d. in some instances altered the meaning,
- e. changes which spoil the elegant style and rhythm.
- 12. The Church at Barrhead proposes a number of changes in the “Draft Translation, 1979.”
C. Considerations
- 1. Synod Coaldale 1977 gave as guideline for a revision of the “second draft translation” of the Catechism, that the Committee “adhere closely to the original German text (1563).” Synod New Westminster 1971 had given a similar guideline by stating that in the revision of the text of the Catechism, the Committee should do this “in close adherence to the original German text.”
- Synod Coaldale 1977, however, made this binding to the original German text more rigid by stating that the Committee should only deviate from this German text when this was necessary on theological grounds and, that in such a case, reasons for deviating from this text should be given.
- Synod Coaldale 1977 did indeed give no further information nor any arguments for this definite choice.
- 2. The reasons why the present Commmittee wishes to put less emphasis on the original German text are sound:
- a. Although the German text is the original, the Latin translation was already published before April 3, 1563 and was used by the National Synod of Dordt to judge the contents of the Catechism.
- b. The Dutch text of 1611 (also used by the Synod of Dordt) can be regard ed as more or less authentic.
- c. The present English text of the Heidelberg Catechism, used in our Book of Praise, although never officially adopted, has by its use in Catechism preaching, teaching, etc. obtained an ecclesiastical character and is closer to the Latin translation of 1563 than to the German text of the same year.
- d. Consequently, when the German text is chosen as main basis for a new translation this will lead to unnecessary deviation from the present English text which has been used for decades by the Churches.
- 3. The request of the Committee for a clearer mandate is therefore justified.
D. Recommendations
- 1. Gratefully to acknowledge the work done by the Committee for the Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, appointed by Synod 1977.
- 2. To continue the Committee with the following mandate:
- a. To complete the “Draft Translation, 1979,” considering the comments received from Rev. S. DeBruin, the Church at London, Ontario, the Church at Barrhead, Alberta, and to use the following guidelines:
- (i) to make use of the first and second draft translation and the present English text, taking as basis the German and Latin texts of 1563 and the Dutch text of 1611;
- (ii) to replace difficult and archaic words and expressions, if proper equivalents are available in today’s English;
- (iii) to re-structure, with discrimination, sentences which are too complicated, into positive and separate sentences which directly answer the question.
- b. To submit its final draft translation to a panel of three English language experts before submitting it to the Churches, with the under standing that this panel is to be appointed by the Committee and must include one of its members.
- c. To submit to the Churches the (revised and completed) “Draft Translation 1979” together with reference notes where needed and invite comments to be submitted to the Committee before November 1, 1982.
- d. To submit their report with recommendations to Synod 1983.
- e. To establish what the original proof texts are and to see whether the selection can be improved by replacing, deleting and/or adding and to include them in the “Draft Translation, 1979.”
- f. To provide an index to cross-reference the Three Forms of Unity.
- a. To complete the “Draft Translation, 1979,” considering the comments received from Rev. S. DeBruin, the Church at London, Ontario, the Church at Barrhead, Alberta, and to use the following guidelines: