WELS TRANSLATION FEASIBILITY
It is better to have tried and perhaps to have failed than to fail simply because one never tried. This truism might well apply to the present situation in WELS in regard to the matter of Bible translations. For several reasons:
1. This matter has come up several times in WELS in the past 60 years, but now it has reached a higher stage of debate in the synod than ever before.
a) In the 1950’s the synod asked the Seminary faculty to begin a translation of the NT when it seemed that the KJV was not serving our people well any more. A translation of Galatians was published in the Quarterly, but too many pastors were not yet ready to use a translation other than the KJV.
b) By 1970 pastors in various parts of the synod were beginning to use translations other than the KJV in sermons and in Bible classes.[1] The Commission on Christian Literature called a meeting of about 70 people in 1973 to discuss the situation. None of the translations reviewed at this meeting was considered acceptable. But the Seminary faculty was asked to review the entire NIV when it was published[2] with the hope that it might be useable. The meeting also adopted a resolution suggesting that synod begin a translation project in order to avoid being faced with a similar translation crisis in the future.
c) The NIV was accepted by synod for use in publications, but in 2005 a new edition labeled TNIV proved to be too controversial and didn’t win widespread acceptance.
d) The 2011 NIV was reviewed in WELS by 40 men. Although there were not many passages that were deemed unacceptable, there were a striking number of passages that were described as not really good but something we might have to live with. This seemed to “damn the NIV 2011 with faint praise”[3] in the eyes of more than a few WELS pastors. It seemed to them that acceptance of the NIV would not be approving a “good” translation but one that would have to be “good enough.” It isn’t just a matter of “translational preferences” (as some have suggested), but also of concerns that relate to conveying God’s message faithfully.
2. The prospect of finding a good translation coming from conservative evangelical cirles in the future doesn’t look bright.
a) The original NIV was a translation produced mostly by conservative evangelicals who held to the view that the Bible was inspired and inerrant. However, this view is slipping in conservative circles as is evident from the fact that the number of helpful books published by Eerdman’s and Zondervan has decreased considerably.
b) If WELS gives temporary approval for the use of the 2011 NIV, another revision of the NIV is planned before 2020. The 2005 TNIV and the previous fact (a above) also point to the likelihood that this future edition of the NIV will cause more debate among us than the 2011 NIV did.
c) Now might be the time for our synod to begin to try to produce a “good” Bible translation during the next 15 years rather than facing the possibility of being forced to produce a translation in a more hurried fashion in the 2020’s.
3. A Bible translation project can be a daunting task for our synod, but the task can be eased a bit by doing four things:
a) Revising a published Bible instead of starting from scratch
aa) The AAT (An American Translation) was a translation done by a conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran professor. Some of the cons listed by Translation Evaluation Committee in regard to this translation were these: not available in an electronic format, colloquial style, some idiosyncratic translations. Notable by its absence is the fact that it is not described as lacking in faithfulness.
bb) Some important pluses are: it is available to us to use for a revision without cost; and the NT has undergone a major revision (New Evangelical Translation – NT, published in 1990) done by a team of a half dozen or so LC-MS, WELS, and ELS pastors and professors.
cc) The OT has also undergone a revision (AAT fourth edition, 2000) that made significant improvements, or another option would be to use the WEB as the base for the OT (cf. dd below).
dd) The Translation Feasibility Committee noted that a translation such as the World English Bible might be used as a base translation for a revision, but that a set of translation guidelines would have to be developed in order to bring about a Bible revision that was consistent in philosophy and style. That would be especially true if the NET were used as a base for the NT and WEB for the OT.
b) Spreading the Bible revision of a base translation over 15 years and breaking it into three parts
aa) The goal would be to do a NT revision that would be ready for distribution (either electronically or in paperback) in five years.
bb) Then the goal would be to do a revision of the OT historical books in five years, and the poetical and prophetical books in a subsequent five years.
cc) This would ease the burden of a Bible translation project by spreading the manpower and financial needs out over a longer time.
dd) If doing a Bible translation project would prove to be beyond our capability, this would become evident in the first part of the project (i.e. trying to do a NT revision).
ee) This prospect of using the “debatable” NIV 2011 only for a decade or so, and hopefully producing a “good” translation for our people sometime in the 2020’s, may accomplish two things: 1) It may ease the present debate a bit by saying WELS will at least try to produce a better translation; and 2) If we succeed in doing a revision, we will have a Bible translation over which we will have total editorial control as revisions become necessary in the future – rather than being at the mercy of what conservative evangelicals will produce in their future revisions. (cf. #2, a and b above)
c) Using retired pastors and professors to help in one or more parts of this project
aa) There are over 400 retired pastors and professors in our synod (cf. Synod Yearbook), and this number can be expected to increase over the next 15 years as the larger classes that graduated from the seminary in the 1960’s and 1970’s begin to retire.
bb) Though most may not have the physical stamina any more to serve full-time in the pulpit or classroom, many retain the mental ability that they used in doing writing and editing for Northwestern Publishing House in the past.
cc) If some present retirees could be persuaded to work on the first part of a translation project and were qualified to do so, they might have the time. And, if their interest is such that they would be willing to do this work for a small honorarium, this would ease the financial cost considerably.
d) Doing the Bible revision book by book in three or four phases
aa) The first phase might involve 6 to 8 men who would do the first draft of the revision book by book. How they would function as a group would be up to them.[4] These men could be all retirees, or some retirees and a couple active pastors or professors whose ministry would be lightened for several years in lieu of their participating in one part of the translation project (i.e. NT, OT1, OT2 - see b, aa and bb above).
bb) The second phase might be to have 20 to 40 active pastors and professors[5] who would serve as reviewers of the first draft of each book as it is put online. They might work independently or in Skype groups of two or three to make suggestions for improvement book by book.
cc) The third phase might be to have a couple men (retired or active) who have special editing skills review each book after it has gone through phase two.
dd) The men doing phases one, two and three might be changed completely or in part as the project moves from part one (NT) to part two (OT1) to part three (OT2). This would spread the work among the available manpower over the course of the 15 year project. It would also allow men who could not take part when they were in the active ministry to do so if they retire during the course of the 15 year project. Inconsistencies resulting from changing people like this could be kept at a minimum in two ways: holding men to the set of guidelines developed for the project; frequent consultation of men in one part of the project with those who did a previous part of the project.
ee) A fourth phase might be to make each book available online for anyone in synod (pastor, teacher, professor, layman or woman) to make suggested improvements. Using a policy that requires that any comment on a passage must also include a suggestion for improvement will help keep the number of suggestions from becoming overwhelming.
ff) Obviously, producing the first draft of a revision will require the most time and effort. Point aa above places the burden of this phase of a revision entirely or mostly on able and willing retirees. Point bb involves men in the active ministry who would have much to contribute to this project, but it reduces the burden placed on them to reviewing rather than producing a revision.
gg) The fourth phase (ee) might prove to be unnecessary, but allowing everyone in synod who has an interest in this project to offer suggestions book by book would help toward winning a wider acceptance of the final product.
5. Unless the offer has been recently withdrawn, an offer was conveyed to Pres. Schroder that $250,000 would be made available to do the first part (i.e the NT part) of a translation revision when and if synod approved such a project.
1. The money would be provided at the rate of $50,000 each year for the five years of the NT part of the project.
2. The offer stipulates that this be a project undertaken by synod rather than merely a private group within synod.
A couple added general observations.
a) When the People’s Bible project was first proposed by the Committee on Christian Literature in the 1980’s, this proposal was met with general skepticism in synod. A couple people in influential offices in synod actually tried to scuttle the project. Where would we find enough qualified pastors or professors who would be able to give the time and the effort that each of 35 plus books would require? Where would the finances come from to enable such a massive project? Would there be enough laypeople who would use these books to make the project worthwhile? The Commission on Christian Literature said, “Let’s at least try the project out by doing a couple books.” The synod approved this project on a trial basis and the results are obvious.
Few, if any, of the men who were asked, welcomed the task of working on a book in this series in addition to their regular ministry. But since the project was proving to be a blessing for many in synod, they took up the bit for a small honorarium and did what was asked. And the wide acceptance of these books in synod (and eventually also in LC-MS) took care of the finances.
A Bible translation project seems to have raised the same concerns as the People’s Bible project did. But couldn’t the Bible translation project also be begun on a trial basis?
b) On occasion, the concern is also raised that we might not be able to produce a translation that turns out to be a literary masterpiece such as Luther’s Bible or the King James Version, or a widely accepted translation such as the NIV. Should our goal be a literary masterpiece, or a widely accepted translation? Or should our goal be, as Luther’s was, to produce a translation that communicates God’s word to our people (including the increasing number of second language people) in a simple, clear way that is faithful to the original languages?
Certainly it ought to be good literature, but it doesn’t have to be a masterpiece. Certainly it should be able to be used beyond our synod if some other church bodies would find it acceptable. But our first obligation is to give our people a translation that if faithful. A church body that treasures pure doctrine should seek nothing less than that in choosing or developing a Bible translation for use in its publications. If we debate in this regard in connection with the NIV 2011, shouldn’t we at least try to produce a translation that meets the criterion of being “good” rather than just “good enough”?
c) Perhaps it should also be remembered that the Scripture in the original languages was not stylistically consistent. The Spirit combined different levels of vocabulary and style in the Bible (e.g. John’s simpler vocabulary and style alongside Peter’s advanced vocabulary and style), and also different approaches such as John’s circular thought progression along with Paul’s linear thought (e.g. 1 John, Galatians). This is not meant to suggest that we pay no attention to producing a Bible translation that is consistent in philosophy and style. Rather it is meant to suggest that while these things are important, what is even more important than philosophy and style is faithfulness.
d) As the Translation Feasibility Committee’s report says, “If we were to produce a good, accurate, non-idiosyncratic translation, we would have ready answer to accusations the translation is sectarian.” If some should choose to call it sectarian because all of its translators are Lutherans, why would this keep us from trying to give our people a good Bible any more than the accusations that the WELS is narrow-minded and unecumenical keep us from striving to give our people pure doctrine?
e) In the light of all this, wouldn’t it seem to be better for our synod to at least try to give our people a good Bible revision (and perhaps to fail) - rather than to continue to face the prospect of using a debatable translation simply because we never tried??
David Kuske (retired professor)
1
[1] Some were using the AAT, others Julian Anderson’s translation, still others NASB or TEV or the Living Bible.
[2] The NIV NT had appeared and seemed to be better than any of the other translations reviewed at this 1973 meeting, and the OT was to appear in a year or two thereafter.
3 This expression originated with Alexander Pope, but it became an idiom describing words that may seem to
favor an item but actually condemn it.
[4]For example, each might work independently and then share suggested revisions with each other by email and use Skype conferences to resolve disagreements. Or using Skype to work in groups of two or three and sharing suggestions for revision in a group Skype conference. Et. al..
[5]Reference the Translation Feasibility Committee’s lower and higher manpower models.