08466
June 19, 2008
General Assembly backgrounder: Heidelberg Catechism
30 seminary faculty support ‘corrected’ translation of German confession
LOUISVILLE — Thirty-two history and theology faculty members from the 10 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries have signed a petition calling for a better translation of the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism.
Their petition supports three overtures to the upcoming 218th General Assembly, June 21-28 in San Jose, CA, that call for a return to a more traditional translation of the catechism that is used by most other Reformed churches, including such conservative denominations as the Christian Reformed Church.
Christopher Elwood and Amy Plantinga Pauw, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary faculty who are leading the petition effort, say the current translation poses problems for teaching Presbyterian Heritage.
In particular, they say it distorts Reformbed accounts of God’s covenant with humanity and obscures the Reformed teaching of our adoption in Christ. Moreover, they add, it misleads readers by adding phrases that suggest that the catechism took a clear stand on issues of sexual orientation and practice.
Professor Edward Dowey, chair of the Special Committee of the General Assembly that oversaw the production of the Book of Confessions, has acknowledged that he and the committee as a whole failed to notice these errors, and are in this respect “guilty of negligence.”
“With three overtures coming before the General Assembly calling for a new Heidelberg translation,” says Elwood, “we thought this was a good time for the seminary faculty who have special responsibility for teaching the confessions to weigh in. The Heidelberg Catechism has been the Reformed confession most frequently translated into English, and so there are many good alternative translations to choose from.”
Each of the Heidelberg overtures to be considered by this year’s General Assembly proposes different remedies.
An overture from the Presbytery of Northern Kansas simply asks for the replacement of the current version of the Heidelberg “with a translation that more faithfully renders the original text.” Boston Presbytery is calling for the General Assembly to adopt the Christian Reformed Church’s translation. A third overture, from the Presbytery of Newark, seeks to keep the present version but proposes specific changes to correct mistranslated passages.
This year’s overtures mark a revisiting of issues that first surfaced at the 1997 and 1998 General Assemblies. At both Assemblies, recommendations from the Assembly Committee on Theological Issues and Institutions to consider changes to the catechism were voted down on the assembly floor.
“Somehow, issues of faithful translation were hard to disentangle from other issues that Presbyterians have tended to argue over,” Elwood suggests. “We’re hopeful that this year the church can come together to affirm the value of being honest and careful with the confessions that have defined what it means to be Reformed and Presbyterian.”
Not all academics are in favor of the change. Robert A. J. Gagnon, who teaches New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary posted comments on his blog harshly critical of the Heidelberg revision efforts. According to Gagnon, issues raised about covenant and the redemptive work of Christ “are just smokescreens to get at the real reason for calling for a retranslation — namely, to eliminate from the confessions explicit negative reference to homosexual practice.”
Question 87 of the Heidelberg Catechism is the heart of the translation dispute. Gagnon believes that in this question the Heidelberg Catechism means to quote 1 Cor 6:9-10, but in the original German leaves out terms that Gagnon takes to refer to sexual immorality.
Those who translated the Heidelberg Catechism in 1962, in the version that was incorporated into the Book of Confessions, changed the text by adding terms from the New English Bible translation, including the phrase “homosexual perversion.”
Was this proper? Yes, says, Gagnon. “Such an addition is in keeping both with the Scripture on which the German is based and with the church's historic teaching.”
Elwood and Pauw disagree, noting that issues of sexual orientation and practice were not subjects of discussion in the sixteenth-century church. They insist that careless translations and unauthorized additions to the confessional documents do not serve the church’s contemporary theological reflection.
“An inaccurate translation is not a basis for good theology,” declares Pauw. “When you put the translation [the PC(USA) has alongside other English translations, it sticks out like a sore thumb.”
Elwood and Pauw see the broad faculty support their petition has received as evidence that the petition is not about promoting a particular view of homosexuality. “Regardless of our differences on particular issues facing the church,” says Elwood, “a more faithful translation of our confessional documents is something we can agree on.”
Retranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism will be considered by the Assembly Committee 13 — on Theological Issues and Institutions.
The full text of the petition, entitled “Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism for the Church”:
We write as faculty members of Presbyterian seminaries who teach theology and church history to express our support for overtures asking the General Assembly to provide for a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.
According to the PC(USA) Book of Order, “those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church” (G-6.0106b).
As theologians and church historians we feel a particular responsibility to make sure that the translations of our confessional documents accurately represent the Reformed heritage that office holders pledge to uphold. We see this responsibility as in keeping with the mandate given to the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church( lines 269-70) “to deepen our understanding of our Christian and catholic identity and clarify key themes of the Reformed theological and constitutional heritage”
Though we have different perspectives on several of the issues that divide Presbyterians today, we are united in the desire to clarify the teachings of our confessional standards.
We are grateful to all who have come before us, preparing translations of historic texts for the edification of Christians and the upbuilding of the church. Yet because of key errors in translation, the version of the Heidelberg Catechism currently in the Book of Confessions presents at several points obstacles to contemporary readers who want to gain a clear understanding of the historic Reformed theological witness.
Specifically, it distorts Reformed accounts of God’s covenant (4.019, 4.074) and of redemption and eschatology (4.055) and obscures the Reformed teaching of our adoption in Christ (4.033). Moreover, it misleads the reader by suggesting that this historic text took a clear stand on issues of sexual orientation and practice that are lively issues before us in the church today — when in fact these were not subjects of discussion in the sixteenth-century church (4.087).
Professor Edward Dowey, as chair of the Special Committee that oversaw the production of the Book of Confessions, has acknowledged that he and the committee as a whole failed to notice these errors, and are in this respect “guilty of negligence.”
Now is the time to set things right. An accurate translation of our confessional standards is critical for a church that requires its office holders be guided by them. Moreover, accurate translations of the Heidelberg Catechism are not in short supply. Several alternative translations are readily available, including contemporary translations that reliably render the original text in lively, contemporary English.
| 
