LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 156

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

156

District and Congregational Services

Whereas, The copyright limitations placed on the 1986 translation of Luther’s Small Catechism limit its distribution (e.g., on the
Internet, church Web sites, catechism study books and worksheets,
audio recordings, posters and artwork, etc.); therefore be it
Resolved, That the congregations of the Rocky Mountain District
memorialize the Synod in convention to direct the Board of Directors
of Concordia Publishing House to release the Six Chief Parts of the
1986 translation of Luther’s Small Catechism for non-profit use only.
Rocky Mountain District
2-10

Whereas, No LCMS convention ever authorized CPH to use the
ESV in almost all of its publications; and
Whereas, The title page of the ESV states, “The Holy Bible,
English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard
Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights
reserved”; and
Whereas, CPH has refused to answer letters asking if CPH has
had to pay the NCC any money for use of the ESV; and
Whereas, A review of the ESV in the April 2005 Concordia
Journal of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, said:
The text of the English Standard Version feels antiquated, if that is the
desired outcome. However, the use of archaic English is not helpful
... The advanced reading level alone makes this translation difficult
to read ... Outside of an articulate minority, the AAT (Beck) never
caught on in the LCMS. Yet, the AAT provides a more readable and
understandable translation ....

To Publish Orthodox Christian Translation
of Bible
Whereas, In 1963, Concordia Publishing House published the
New Testament section of An American Translation of the Bible in
the Language of Today by William F. Beck; and
Whereas, An LCMS convention asked CPH to publish Beck’s
entire An American Translation (AAT); and
Whereas, At one time, CPH enthusiastically promoted Beck’s
AAT ; “Beck’s Bible Coming in Early 1974,” a story in the summer
1973 CPH Commentator, said,
The thousands of users of the late William F. Beck’s New Testament in
the Language of Today will rejoice in the news that Beck’s Old Testament (together with his popular New Testament) is now being readied by CPH for publication. Target date for the complete Bible is early
1974.

and

Beck’s New Testament is one of the translations used in the special paperback edition of the Billy Graham organization’s The Four Translation
New Testament, originally published by Moody Press.

Whereas, Liberals in the LCMS, particularly at Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, did not want CPH to publish AAT. (They
wanted the Revised Standard Version [RSV] of the National Council
of Churches [NCC] to become the Bible promoted by CPH. They
opposed Beck’s defense of the inerrancy of the Bible and his opposition to the destructive higher critical views of the NCC’s RSV
translators. Most of the RSV translators rejected historic Christianity.
When the liberals were successful in stopping CPH from publishing Beck’s entire AAT, the Beck family brought to Christian News
[CN] the boxes of AAT manuscripts worked on by the various solid
Lutheran editors at CPH. Assigned the task of evaluating and improving Beck’s work, they spent hundreds of hours doing so before all
four editors recommended publication of AAT. Beck’s work was
improved by CPH editors Norden, Allwardt, Stallman, and Foelber.
CN accepted almost all of their suggestions.); and
Whereas, When CN published Beck’s AAT in 1975, it sold some
250,000 copies and CN was commended by many in the LCMS for
publishing AAT; and
Whereas, This commendation of CN for publishing AAT displeased some in leadership positions in the LCMS and CPH, who
then began a campaign to discredit AAT because it was published by
an uncertified editor who opposed the LCMS “bureaucracy” for not
disciplining liberals on the LCMS clergy roster; and
Whereas, In 1977, CPH highly praised and sold Beck’s AAT
when it was published by A. Holman Company, a division of J. B.
Lippencott (CN, August 24, 2009); and
Whereas, The “plates” Holman used were given to Holman by
CN without charge; and
Whereas, CPH and the LCMS Commission on Worship have
insisted that both the RSV, copyrighted by the NCC, and the English
Standard Version (ESV), which is 91 percent the NCC’s RSV, are
accurate translations in the language of today; and

and

Whereas, Professor John Brug, editor of the Wisconsin Lutheran
Quarterly, wrote in the Fall 2006 edition:

While the ESV does enjoy some advantage in not introducing as much
interpretation into the text, it reads less smoothly than the NIV. It is not
that its language is very archaic and hard to understand like the King
James, but just that it does not have the natural flow of contemporary
English. In many places it sounds quite stilted even to a reader used to
the idioms of the King James. Perhaps some of this is due to the fact
that the ESV is not a fresh translation but a touchup of the RSV, done
in part to meet the need for a quickly available alternative to the TNIV.

and
Whereas, Mark L. Strauss of Bethel Seminary, San Diego, who
has been a consultant for several Bible translations, wrote:

So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have
heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of
the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate
for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems
to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the
Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually
write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV,
NASB, NKJV, NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church.
This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”

and

Whereas, A survey (CN, August 24, 2009, pp. 16, 17) comparing the AAT and ESV showed that some 90 percent who responded
preferred the language and doctrinal accuracy of the AAT over the
ESV; and
Whereas, When CPH and the LCMS Commission on Worship
were invited to publish this comparison chart in The Lutheran Witness
in order that hundreds of thousands throughout the LCMS might have
an opportunity to respond, CPH and the commission refused; and
Whereas, When CPH and the Commission on Worship were
invited by a pastoral conference to conduct a discussion between
scholars who supported the AAT and CPH scholars who favored the
ESV, both CPH and the commission ignored the request; and
Whereas, Dr. William Beck in his “What Does the Text Say?”
(The Holy Bible: An American Translation, 3rd edition, pp. 341–444)
shows that the RSV undermines various doctrines of the Christian
faith, including the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus Christ; and
Whereas, When CN published the AAT in 1976, and the CN editor’s preface concluded, “No translation is perfect. Suggestions for
revisions in any future printing will be gratefully accepted and considered,” CN sent a copy of the AAT to every LCMS congregation,
inviting suggestions for a revision, and a committee of leading Bible,

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 156

4/15/10 2:39 PM