06 Jul GS 2019 art 66
GS 2019 Article 66 – CBT (Committee for Bible Translations)
- 1.1 Report of the Committee for Bible Translation (CBT) (188.8.131.52)
- 1.2 Letters from the following churches: Willoughby Heights (184.108.40.206), Fergus-North (220.127.116.11), Attercliffe (18.104.22.168), Grassie-Covenant (22.214.171.124)
- 2.1 GS 2016 mandated the CBT to:
- [4.1.1] To solicit, receive and evaluate comments from the churches on the ESV;
- [4.1.2] To submit worthy translation changes to the ESV editorial committee;
- [4.1.3] To prepare and distribute a report to the churches in advance of the next Synod.
- 2.2 The Committee consists of two members, the Revs. Dave de Boer and Rodney Vermeulen. The Rev. de Boer has completed nine years on the committee and is scheduled to retire. Therefore, the committee requests that General Synod release Rev. de Boer and appoint a replacement.
- 2.3 The CBT did not receive any materials or inquiries from the churches and did not pass on any suggested translation changes to the ESV editorial committee.
- 2.4 The CBT reports that an updated version of the ESV2011, the ESV2016, has been provided by the publisher. The CBT reports on changes to 29 verses which were incorporated into the ESV2016, of which the most significant change was to Genesis 3:16. The opinion of the CBT is that the translation of this text in the ESV2011 is to be preferred.
- 2.6 The CBT, on its own initiative, provided some information about the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) but noted that it had not done a study or evaluation of the CSB and did not provide a recommendation for or against the use of this translation in the churches.
- 2.7 The CBT recommends that General Synod maintain the CBT as a resource for the churches with the same mandate as given by GS 2016.
- 2.8 The Willoughby Heights CanRC appreciates the information provided by the CBT on the CSB but notes that this was not part of the Committee’s mandate and recommends that General Synod mandate the CBT to serve the churches on Bible translation matters brought to the attention of the Committee by a church.
- 2.9 The Fergus-North CanRC wonders if the CBT’s original mandate from GS 2010, i.e. “to thoroughly evaluate the updated NIV translation when it is released in 2011” (GS 2010 Art. 72) has been fulfilled. It suggests that as the substantive portion of the CBT report issued to the churches in 2011 is under 10 pages while the 1995 CBT comparison of the NASB, NIV and NKJV was 235 pages, a thorough evaluation has not been completed. It therefore requests that General Synod mandate the CBT to complete the study mandated by GS 2010.
- 2.10 The Attercliffe CanRC endorses the CBT report and agrees with the CBT’s conclusion regarding Genesis 3:16 and considers the other changes to be less significant.
- 2.11 The Grassie-Covenant CanRC recommends that the CBT suggest to the publisher of the ESV that changes should only be made once every generation and that the translation of Genesis 3:16 in the ESV2016 be reverted to the wording in ESV2011 in the next edition. Grassie-Covenant also believes it would be worthwhile for General Synod to mandate the CBT to further investigate the CSB.
- 3.1 The Committee has fulfilled its mandate from GS 2016.
- 3.2 The Committee provided some general information about the history, background and translation methodology of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) on its own initiative but has not recommended to General Synod that it be mandated to further evaluate the CSB. Since only one church considered it worthwhile to further investigate the CSB, General Synod does not believe this warrants further study at this time.
- 3.3 The recommendation of the Grassie-Covenant CanRC that the translation of Genesis 3:16 in the ESV2016 be reverted to the wording in ESV2011 in the next edition is a matter that falls within the mandate of the CBT.
- 3.4 The Fergus-North CanRC requests that General Synod mandate the CBT to complete the study of the NIV2011 mandated by GS 2010, which it believes was not completed. By only providing a comparative page count of the CBT’s report and quoting statistics regarding the number of changes between the NIV1984 and NIV2011 (see Obs. 2.9) without any consideration of the significance of those changes, Fergus-North does not sufficiently prove that the evaluation conducted by the CBT and issued to the churches in 2011 was insufficient.
- 3.5 The Willoughby Heights CanRC is correct when it states that the CBT’s review of the CSB was not within the mandate given to it by GS 2016. It appropriately requests that General Synod mandate the CBT to serve the churches as a resource for Bible translation matters brought to the attention of the Committee by a church, rather than on its own initiative.
That Synod decide:
- 4.1 To thank the committee for its work;
- 4.2 To thank the Rev. D de Boer for his work on this committee;
- 4.3 To mandate the Committee for Bible Translation (CBT):
- 4.3.1 To solicit, receive and evaluate comments from the churches on the ESV;
- 4.3.2 To submit worthy translation suggestions to the ESV editorial committee, including recommending changing the wording of Genesis 3:16 back to the ESV2011 version;
- 4.3.3 To serve the churches as a resource for Bible translation matters brought to the attention of the Committee by a church;
- 4.3.4 To appoint one of its members to validate and submit to the treasurer of the General Fund all expenses being submitted for committee work.
- 4.3.5 To prepare and distribute a report to the churches 6 months in advance of the next General Synod.