# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1926_S161
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1926. 161

make only the most necessary corrections, and to embody in the new
edition the set of versicles which’ Concordia Publishing House is now
printing separately.

4, Publication of the old gray hymnal was ordered discontinued
as well as of the old Pittsburgh hymnal, as soon as the English Dis-
trict has given its consent.

Revision of Catechism.

Revision of Enchiridion and “Exposition.”
(Memorial 505.)

Geo With ' a view to the forthcoming four-hundredth anniversary of

« the first publication of Luther’s Small Catechism, one of those out-

-; standing Reformation undertakings which certainly deserves fitting
commemoration; and with a view to certain catechetical needs of
to-day, needs that make themselves increasingly felt by those who
must teach this Catechism to the American youth, Synod is hereby
petitioned to direct its publication authorities (the faculties of our
theological seminaries and the Board of Directors of Concordia Pub-
lishing House) —

1. To make earnest and patient efforts to collaborate with the
sundry Lutheran church-bodies in America, — particularly with those’
that work extensively in the English language,—so that a uniform
and standard English translation of this Catechism may be issued;

2. To edit, or cause to be edited, such a revision of Schwan’s
“Short Exposition” of the Catechism as will be less technically theo-.
logical in its verbiage and more in popular diction and understand-
able for children and catechumens generally.

In support of these two propositions the following might be
added : —

Ad I. Though it is well known that Dr. Luther himself revised
the Small Catechism from time to time, so that in his day and after
his death several slightly differing versions may have been extant,
yet it appears that in its German form this Catechism soon became
well standardized. Among German Lutherans there is a uniformly

F accepted text. Unfortunately this is not so when it comes to the
® English translation. Here we find a variety of texts accepted by the
E various synods, the variants appearing very pronouncedly in the
several versions of the Decalog. And, in addition to that, there is
a constant divergence in the English diction of the several and
sundry translations, even where the translators worked with a uni-
form original. To mold these various translations and versions into
one common standard text will be a considerable task, but it is worth
a sincere, patient, and persistent effort, with the forthcoming anni-
versary (A. D.1929) adding impetus to such effort. Already in 1917
‘@ proposal for such a uniform English text was made, but it was
ll