The Nicene Creed: A New Translation

[ryancarter]

In using the Nicene Creed, we have run up against two major problems. First, the simple presence of the term catholic has been difficult for Hispanics who have struggled hard to leave Catholicism. No matter how many times we say "catholic just means universal" that word still seems to be a barrier for them. Second, the translation we use is elegant, but terse. It uses several theological terms that require some explanation. Explanation is fine, however, it seemed that at our satellite, the traditional translation of the Creed was bringing up more difficulties than we could address.

Solution: A new translation of the Creed. I searched high and low for something like a 'New Living Translation' of the Nicene Creed. I found several translations, however, each one contained both the term catholic and several theological terms that required a great deal of explanation.
So, I found a standard Greek edition of the Creed and made a new translation. This is not a revision of a traditional version, but a completely new translation.
In this translation I was attempting to do three things: 1) To render theological terms and phrases interpretively rather than literally, 2) Be true to the sense of the original and 3) Eliminate the term catholic.

I am certain that some will object to this new translation on the grounds that difficulties in understanding the Creed bring about many teachable moments. Agreed. However, I would argue that the concepts contained in the Creed, apart from confusing language, are deep enough to create teachable moments. Indeed, in my experience using this translation, people understand what the Creed is saying and begin to wrestle with the ideas rather than the words.

I have posted a document containing three columns: The Greek I used, The Traditional Translation, and The New Translation.
I crave your feedback. I also have no qualms about anyone using this translation (or any variation of it!).

Thanks,
Ryan


***A note on the translation of the Greek term catholike: This term has two facets: everywhere and at all times. Unfortunately, the only English word that conveys the same two senses is 'universal.' I say unfortunately because universal (when applied to the church) has become a specialized theological term. My choice of 'worldwide' admittedly falls short of the full sense. In certain groups where the term is understood, universal is clearly preferable. Another option is to add the phrase "and throughout history" to the creed. This, however, makes things rather cumbersome. If someone has a better suggestion, I am all ears!

[Don Davis]

Greetings, dear brother!

Thanks for this post on the Nicene Creed, and your modern translation of it. Your translation offers you and others as missionaries and teachers the opportunity to clarify and explain some of the more difficult and thorny concepts that the historic Creed sought to defend and affirm. In my judgment, although an alternative translation (such as yours) may claim to alleviate the problems with the ideas, in a real sense it would be better to suggest that such works should be used as commentary on the Creed rather than a replacement. Not only is the traditional version anchored in centuries of scholarship, debate, research, and liturgical and spiritual usage, it carries the weight of common usage in the Church globally and historically. Your personal translation of the Greek can be tremendously helpful in instruction, exegesis, and even in some limited cases, worship settings. Nevertheless, it must not be seen as either equal to or as weighty historically as the common, traditional rendering of the Creed.

I liken what you have done here to exegesis of a passage, based on your own translation of the Hebrew or Greek. Such efforts in exegesis and teaching can be profoundly clarifying and helpful. However, your attempt to clarify concepts via your translation may only muddy the waters even more, since these concepts were historically understood as moments in an ongoing conversation about the nature of God, the Trinity, Christ, the Spirit, and so on. These concepts were not merely an issue of language usage only; rather, these concepts were the subject of dramatic and intense conversations on the precise truths which the language referred. For instance, the term translated catholic, which has been the subject of so much trouble in our Latin church planting circles, has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism as a historical entity. This is not a matter of language, but of history. Teach the truth about the context which gave birth to the Creed, and expect Latino converts to understand the difference.

It should be known that TUMI's use of the traditional version was done neither unthinkingly nor without attention to its cultural challenges. It is more important here to teach the historical truths in context, using the original documents, and exposing urban Christian leaders to the historic orthodox definitions of the faith (language included) so they can in fact have the right to wrestle with them unedited or nuanced by us. We are not the final arbiters nor interpreters of the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed's final meaning; their reflection took place centuries before Rome ever made any claims about the Roman bishop's prominence. Rather, we hope to equip leaders who in fact understand and can dialogue over the classic, historical, documents that have defined Christian faith, without our ammendments or changes. I find your translation compelling if it is used merely as a way of helping others interact with the original, traditional version.

As a rule, I would not advise you or any of our partners to consider rewriting any historical creeds, regardless of the questions and difficulty that they encounter within particular contexts. I would trust the Holy Spirit will provide ways to enable those leaders and churches who are raising questions about these creeds to engage them as Christians have throughout history. We are a contentious bunch; the apostles and elders had to host Councils even in the apostolic age regarding issues of importance for the Church. We ought to expect genuine and ongoing dialogue over these things, but should not change them to suit the current flow and understanding of the concepts.

The essence of good contextualization is to do precisely what you have attempted; to so translate truths as to get to the heart of the meaning behind the words. While this is noble and necessary, great care has to be given when your translation of the words are substituted for the traditional version. Call your fine work a "help" a "tool" a "fresh look" or whatever, but it should never be set in juxtaposition over against the traditional version as an alternative reading of the Creed. From the beginning missionaries have put in the language of the people the Scriptures, hymns, creeds, and other relevant historical matter that have made indigenous churches thrive and grow. I say let's continue this fine tradition. Yet, we must be extremely careful not to change language quickly or without deference to the traditional versions of those translations. In this case, we should not be quick to substitute our versions for versions currently used in the same language by the church-at-large. Frankly, some of the new emergent creeds strike me as both historically and theologically distant from their ancients counsins.

With such centuries-old historical and theological reflection having been done on the traditional version, and given its nearly ubiquitous status among the Church in the world (i.e., virtually all traditions that ascribe to Creed ascribe with virtually little change to the traditional version), we should teach the traditional version, and allow for other teachings helps to get at the core the meaning behind its language. Your translation, in my judgment, fits into this area of helps. A great tool for clarification, but not a replacement for the original version.

Again, I love your three-columnar approach--the Greek version, the traditional version, and your version. Let's help the church of Christ in the city to understand and interact with the documents of historic orthodox faith, equipping them to be sophisticated enough to engage history without being anachronistic in their treatment of it.

Don

[ryancarter]

Don,
There is much to agree with in your comments. I especially appreciate your emphasis on the ubiquity and universality of the traditional version(s) as opposed to the individuality and idiosyncracy of my version. Of necessity, my version will reflect a particular exegesis of the creed.
We agree that the traditional version has, in some sense, earned its place in the church.

Ideally, a new translation would be done by one with an extensive knowledge of both the history of the creed and its English translation, as well as grammarians understanding of NT and early church Koine Greek. I possess neither. I have a working understanding of church history and a basic concept of how this creed came to us in this form. (I would love to know more! Can you suggest a resource or two?) I also possess a working knowledge of NT Greek. I am certainly inadequate to produce The New Translation of the Nicene Creed.

However, I disagree that one is not needed. I like what you said about reading the modern version alongside the traditional version. I would love to see an agreed upon interpretive translation that could be read with the traditional version. Again, I do not claim that my little project is that translation. However, I do believe it would be helpful enough for the church to expend some effort in this work. I understand that as soon as the concept of 'interpretive translation' enters the conversation, unanimity exits. But, even the traditional version has not achieved unanimity. It has achieved acceptance in variant forms. Why could we not start the same sort of conversation for an interpretive translation to be read alongside the traditional versions.

Ryan

[Jason Phelps]

This issue has been raised as well in St. Louis.

We have had church plants re-write the Nicene Creed in their own version for their specific context and church. The purpose was twofold, first, understanding and contextualization and secondly for unity (rallying behind a Creed that was their very own). While at face value this seemed noble, strategic, and healthy. It actually caused a detachement from the "catholic" church later down the line!

In one Capstone Class that I was leading, God the Son, we were discussing the practical usage of the Nicene Creed when trying to understand and have a solid understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. So we asked the question how can or do you know who Jesus is, did & will do? Obviously the Bible was the answer. Absolutely! However, there are not too many people that have disciplined themselves enough to master all of the Holy Script's teaching on the person and work of the Messiah (except for maybe Don and Anthanasius), and none of those people were in my class that day. So, we saw how helpful this Creed from Nicea is in concising the Biblical understanding for us, so we can be rooted and rooted quickly in the Bible's teaching.

With that we turned our attention to the Nicene Creed. I had asked if everyone had seen this before. And my dear brother (from one of our W.I. church plants formerly mentioned) looked at me and said, "We got one at our church that's kinda like dat, but it ain't this one!" The sad truth is that he didn't recognize this Creed as his Creed. His was something else, unique and modern, not historic and universal, even though his was a contextualized translation of the very Nicene Creed we say before every class. Ultimately, he felt disconnected instead of rooted in history along with his church.

Your version was a very helpful tool for me to read. I had not thought of some of the wordings you used to express the truths taught by our Creed. Thank you for your work and help in my own reading of the Creed. But please don't let those training underneath you mentally detach themselves, their disciples, and churches from the history that we've been grafted into!

Grace and peace,

[Don Davis]

Simply superb thoughts, brothers!

Jason highlights how important the Creed is in maintaining a "rule of faith" whereby we can simply yet clearly summarize the major teachings of Christians from our beginning. Ryan, undoubtedly, you are correct in the use of variant forms of the Nicene Creed currently in use by various traditions, but, as far as I can tell, none of them seek to eliminate any hard-to-understand concepts, or deliberately interpret the language of Nicea rather than translate it. There are several issues here that can easily be confused and/or conflated and may lead to an unnecessary appearance of conflict in our assessments of the Creed, and its use both in circles of theology and liturgy.

The first is on the usefulness of the traditional version, and the need of an "interpretive translation." As you know, theological disputes have largely been about language, terms, and the scope and referents signified by them. In other words, theology as a discipline is a language about concepts using language as the vehicle to make those concepts clear. The Nicene Creed communicated conceptions of God, the Trinity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, baptism, and the life of the Age to come in specific terms, which have been vetted, discussed, and argued over for centuries. To attain the level of unanimity regarding the truths which the Nicene Creed espoused has demanded centuries of dialogue, research, discussion, historical analysis, among other things. This is what makes its statement so formative and critical for all biblical theology. The traditional form has been the documental heart of this Story which we hold dear, confess, and bear witness to in the Scriptures.

What is most significant is not merely, however, the concepts, but the context. This document was forged out of a lively debate of bishops barely on the heels of a persecution-free unified Church, committed to gather and defend the apostolic tradition made plain in the lived experience, teaching, and worship of their churches. For this reason alone, given the circumstances and exigencies that gave rise to this document, we should respect it as a significant historical evidence of the shared faith of the ancient unified church. (This is the reason, by the way, that I have always taught and always will teach it as a historical document as well as a theological one. I want my students to feel and understand the issues the Church dealt with to garner a unity of thought on the things that matter most to us).

Second, on the need for an "interpretive translation," I personally would rather join the lively historical debate on whether or not the Creed covers all the formative issues, or does so in a way that is best useful in mission and ministry. In other words, while I don't believe we need another document to explain the major elements of the Christian faith (i.e., the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed have been used in church worship and training for literally centuries as an ancient version of the earlier "rule of faith" mentioned by the Fathers), our understanding of it demands immediate and fresh interpretation.

For instance, why doesn't the Creed mention the covenants of God, and their role in leading up to the incarnation? I would think there was no controversy over the covenants, and that these councils were formed for the express purpose of giving answer to particular heresies, ideas, and schisms contradicting the ancient faith. We should encourage new theological discussions about the meaning of the Nicene summary of Christian orthodoxy, but we should not respond to every new or even thorny question with an altogether different translation. As a professor/mentor/facilitator/teacher, I would prefer engagement (however spirited) on the language of the traditional version, versus the multiplication of new ones. After all, a number of us know Greek, and have the potential to write our own (albeit non-binding) versions of the Creed, as well as other historic documents.

What I love about your effort is your obvious passion for clarity and truth. I suggest that we enable our students to engage in the rich tapestry of the Great Tradition of the Christian faith with both respect and yet with critical disposition, to test all things, and to hold fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5.21). I love the discussion, but I am leary of "replacements" of historical documents. Translations (of whatever stripe) will continue to be written for the sake of the translators' purpose; we cannot prevent that. What we must be careful of, I repeat, are efforts which wind up changing or eliminating language for the sake of clarity. I'd rather wrestle with the traditional versions than create new ones.

To be sure the traditional version will continue to cause wrestling among our students, mentors, and satellites. By the way, wrestling with truths where everything is at stake is precisely the purpose of TUMI and its satellites. By all means, dear brothers, let's wrestle on!

Don

[Don Davis]

Pardon me, but, in answer to Ryan's request for some references on the Creed, I intended to include a link that will direct you to our Amazon store bibliography on the Nicene Creed. Here is the link;

http://astore.amazon.com/theurbaninstitut?_encoding=UTF8&node=69

[Don Allsman]

I believe a new translation of the Nicene Creed is a bad idea for four reasons:
1. It undermines the power of the Creed to provide identity and unity
2. It appeals to an American cultural value of innovation for the sake of the individual
3. It is not good leadership development methodology
4. It opens the door to potential schism and heresy

Undermining the Power to Provide Identity
The power of the Creed is its historical ability to draw a thick line between who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. It gives us clarity about what local churches are “inside” and those who are “outside.” By giving us an unambiguous statement, unchanged and accepted for over 1600 years, we can have the unity Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-23). It is the unchangeable-ness of the Creed that renders it so powerful and stable, a shelter to every believer amongst a host of shifting cultures and philosophies.

The Creed allows us to represent Christ and His Kingdom, giving us the clear boundaries in which we can innovate. It is the boundaries that give us confidence. Those boundaries calm our minds when confronted complex and confusing questions. We are free to simply re-state the truth rather than have to know how to debate every wind of false doctrine.

One of the most powerful things I’ve ever heard is an account of Johnny Carson’s interview of the Archbishop of Canterbury over Jesus being the only way to God: “As a Christian, I work with the documents of the faith handed down in the Church. I’m not really free to disagree or reinterpret Jesus. I am committed as his follower to teach what he has taught.” Ancient Future Faith (p. 190). The Creed makes it possible for us to be at rest and simply represent. Belief in the Creedal assertions makes following Christ possible for anyone, even a child. We do not have to be highly educated to follow Jesus, we simply have to believe in the One He has sent (John 6:29).

The Creed is rooted in specific language that took a long time, and great effort to produce. Each word is rooted in years of experience and hours of lengthy debate. Anyone who has participated in a strategic planning sessions knows that a mission statement is a summary of many hours of thinking and debate. Each word represents many hundreds of words behind it. If a group attempts to casually edit a previously-made mission statement, it will likely be met by resistance for those who crafted it, saying, “that word meant something to us–don’t rush in to change it too quickly!!”

The Creed reminds us of the common roots we have with other followers of Jesus: Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. Our Latino brothers, who rightfully struggle with the culturally-imposed practices of Roman Catholicism, need to understand that they share our spiritual DNA. While we try to separate out what is biblically acceptable and what is culturally-imposed, we need to help our TUMI students understand who is within the “thick line” of the Creed. Because of this, we should be happy that the word “catholic” is in the creed because it forces us to approach this from a standpoint of historical unity rather than division. We should start with what we have in common for the sake of the “catholic” (throughout time, across cultures, across traditions) Church. Rather than try to eliminate it from the creed, we should emphasize it to gain proper understanding.

Writing a new translation of the creed would clarify the meaning for some sub-cultural group, but it ends up working against the purpose of drawing everyone into unity under one tent. One could write a hip-hop version of the Creed, which would undoubtedly put it in language that is meaningful to that sub-culture. But by so doing, those outside the sub-culture will find no connection to it. It ends up dividing rather than unifying. It is the static, fixed nature of the Creed that gives it power to unite.

Culturally Driven
It is ironic that the Protestant Reformation was founded on the belief that Roman Catholicism had chosen the prevailing culture over apostolic faith. In the same way, American Evangelicals appear to be eager to embrace the prevailing culture over apostolic faith, of which this question is a good example.

We Americans believe that everything can be improved upon, that innovation should be applied to every aspect of life. This is a good quality in many respects, and has brought blessing to the world in the form of medicine, government, and economics. However, not everything should be tampered with just because we can. The Creed is one of those things that should remain “hermetically sealed.” Once the wrapping is taken off, and it is exposed to the air, its properties change simply by the act of doubting it’s properties.

Americans also relate everything to the individual. The individual is the starting place. So if something is not working, we seek to innovate or market a new product that will meet that need. A new translation seems rooted in this impulse to market a new product for TUMI students are don’t feel the old one meets their needs. Rather, we ought to help TUMI students understand that their acceptance or comfortableness is not an issue. The Creed is fixed and will stay fixed whether they like it or not. Once a TUMI student accepts submission to the apostolic faith, then seeking to understand can be pursued.

Americans are profoundly anti-historical. We do not value any history, even our own. We are more concerned about the present and the future. American evangelicals tend to draw an arced line from the end of Acts to Revelation, and ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in the world from A.D. 100 to the present. Or, more commonly, we believe the Holy Spirit ceased His work at Constantine and didn’t resume until the Reformation. We are spiritually destitute when we become anti-historical. We are a community with a direct link through the “catholic” church, which came from the apostles, which came from Israel, which came from creation, which came from the Trinity. We need to be nourished by the works and writings of the Church all the way through our history. A desire at a new translation seems profoundly anti-historical.

Leadership Development
I love representing TUMI because we focus on leadership development over education. I want to train warriors for the Kingdom, not be an educator. When I think back of the profound leadership development experiences I’ve had, one was through a graduate class on strategic management.

The professor had us read case studies and then engaged us in open dialogue about the case with the other students. There were no rules, no guidelines, no “answers.” All of us spend inordinate amount of time in preparation, terrified by the ambiguity of each debate. We didn’t know what to expect or how it might turn out. My point is that confusion can be a wonderful motivator, shaping leaders to dig deep. My professor understood that he was shaping us to be business leaders by introducing confusion. He believed in us enough to know we could respond to the challenge. Our TUMI mentors need to do the same. They need to believe in the historic power of the Creed to shape our identity, and also that urban leaders can work through the language and come to a rich understanding, without spoon-feeding a new translation to them. Yes, mentors should work hard at developing understanding, but not by ignoring all that is behind the power of each word in the Creed.

The American Constitution defines what it means to be an American. It is only 200 years old, but it takes an act of Congress and 3/4 of the states to amend one word of it. A good civics teacher would not recommend changing the wording of the preamble simply because a student didn’t understand what “domestic tranquility” meant. Instead, a good teacher would help a student understand the historical depth of that phrase, and all that it meant to the founding fathers. I do not want to equate the Constitution with the Nicene Creed, but want to illustrate the wisdom of keeping the Creed intact and resisting the urge to formulate a new translation.

I agree with the advice to use extensive footnoting or annotation. Use the original version of the Creed as the master document, but footnote frequently and generously so as to help leaders get to the richness of the deeper meaning and significance of each word.

If students are still struggling, I suggest having a special session to meet with students who want to engage on various points and help them achieve that deeper understanding until they appreciate more of what the Creed means to us.

Potential Heresy
When people have tampered with the Creed, fringe groups have resulted. Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy come from those who want to keep parts of the Creed but not others. They refused to submit to the Creed and created their own. They applied American innovation to suit their needs. They refused the fellowship inside the circle of the Creed and independently went out on their own. The result has meant eternal destruction to countless souls. The Creed provides a safeguard against us being accessories to confusion. The Creed has served the Church for hundreds of years. We should not seek to tamper with it. I don't want to give it up.

[ryancarter]

At this point in the conversation, I think it will be helpful to clarify those points upon which there is total agreement and those points where we differ. There is much to appreciate in your responses. However, I remain unconvinced that a new translation of the creed is an invalid undertaking. In response, I will first outline what I think are important agreements in all our thinking. Second, I will draw an analogy from the world of Bible translation. I will use this analogy to respond directly to the criticism by clarifying some distinctions that I believe are being blurred. I will explain why I believe a translation like mine is helpful, again using the analogy of Bible translation. Third, I will address some of the ministerial and missiological concerns.

Points of Agreement
Like most theological debates, I think we agree in the majority of what we are saying. This kind of intramural debate inevitably exaggerates what amount to small differences. For the sake of our Christian brotherhood, I want to remind myself, and others of our large agreement in this issue.
It seems that we harmoniously affirm the following:
1) The Nicene Creed is a normative statement of doctrine for the church. Its contents should never be changed, nor should anyone presume to stand in judgment over the doctrines espouses. Here I love the quote that Don A. gave us: “As a Christian, I work with the documents of the faith handed down in the Church. I’m not really free to disagree or reinterpret Jesus. I am committed as his follower to teach what he has taught.” Amen Brother! I am a Nicene (and Chalcedonian, and Protestant, and several other things!) Christian. In the words of a fine Church Historian, Dr. Jeff Bingham, ‘If you deny the historic creeds, don’t claim the name ‘Christian.’ Your faith may be something, but it is not Christian. Find another name, that one is already taken.’
(BTW, this is why I personally prefer to read the Creed minus the filioque clause. We cannot now debate the historical merit of the clause, but I view it as changing the Creed.)
2) The form of the Creed should be determined by its function. Don A. emphasized this well when he argued that a new translation of the creed might “Undermine the [Creed’s] Power to Provide Identity.” The Creed does function as a statement that both unites and divides. It unites orthodox believers (although it seems to me that one could affirm this Creed, while maintaining heterodox doctrines. I will address this below). It also divides orthodoxy from heterodoxy. However, per the parenthetical comment, I must disagree about the ‘thickness’ of the line it draws here. But we agree that at least on some very important issues it does this. As such, it should take a form agreed upon by those it unites.
3) The family of traditional English translations will not be dislodged, nor should it be. I apologize if my project came across as a project to replace the traditional translations. This is not my intention at all. I will say again, what I have already said, they have earned their place in the English-speaking church.

An Analogy from Bible Translation
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of scripture have been translated into English at various times by various individuals and groups with diverse text critical and translation philosophies. Today there exist hundreds of English translations with roughly 15 of these in relatively wide used as ‘standard’ translations (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NLT, HCSB, NASB, NJB, NET, NAB, CEV are the 15 that came to mind. Am I missing any?)
Anyone carrying any of these standard translations says that she is carrying The Holy Bible. And I think, with the exception of a few groups, most of us would agree. We might disagree about the relative quality of a given translation. But most of us would not tell someone carrying one of these versions that the book she holds in her hand is not the Bible. Why…because each of these translations, represent the original, albeit in different ways.
Translation of an ancient document may take various forms, each form with a claim, in some sense, to represent that ancient document. Which translation one sees as ‘truly’ representing the essence of that ancient document will depend largely on one’s philosophy about textual criticism, literality vs. dynamism, and gender issues.

The Point: It is entirely possible to make a translation that is both new and faithful. New translation does not equal changing the content of the ancient document. It is also entirely possible for such a new translation to co-exist with ‘older’ translations.
I fear that in our conversation this distinction has not been maintained. I believe very strongly that one can affirm the Nicene Creed in a robustly orthodox sense without agreeing that the traditional family of translations is the only legitimate expressions of that ancient document. I also believe that there is value in the multiplicity translations. Many Bible teachers urge their students to read from more than one translation. I agree that all of us should steer clear of using only one translation so that we do not make translations specific interpretations. I am not arguing that we need 15 different standard translations of the Creed. However, I am arguing that the debating and forging of words, phrases, and ultimately of translation is not at an end. In the words of the NT scholar Dr. Dan Wallace, ‘When did innovation stop? At what point in the history of the church did we draw a line and say, from here on out there can be no new ideas, no new interpretations, no innovations?’ I am urging for innovation, not in doctrine, not in theology, not in the wording of the document, and not in our universal faith, rather in translation philosophy.

To that end, I would like to cite a short paragraph from the introduction to the New Living Translation: “We have avoided some theological terms that are not readily understood by many modern readers. For example, we avoided using words such as ‘justification,’ ‘sanctification,’ and ‘regeneration,’ which are carryovers from Latin translations. In place of these words, we have provided renderings such as ‘we are made right with God,’ ‘we are made holy,’ and ‘we are born anew.’” To this list I would add the terms ‘incarnation,’ ‘procession,’ and ‘catholic’ (Greek rather than Latin origin). I followed the translation philosophy of the NLT almost exactly. I feel comfortable that the NLT project was a valid undertaking. Even if some would disagree, I feel comfortable agreeing with the list of scholars who thought it was valuable enough to work on it. Unless the Creed has achieved some status that the Bible has not, then I would affirm that if it is ok to do with the Bible, it is ok to do with the Creed. I have already agreed that I am not of the stature of those who undertook the NLT project. However, I am not arguing that the very edition posted on this forum is the New Translation of the Creed. I do stand by the translation. However, to this point, our conversation has not been about the quality of the translation, rather the fundamental ideology involved in making it. I feel comfortable in affirming that if what the translators of the NLT have done with the Bible is valid, then a conversation about a similar translation of the Creed is valid.

Ministerial and Missiological Concerns
I believe a new translation of the Creed is a valid project. But is it a good idea? Does it make sense ministerially and missiologically? Obviously, my answer to this is yes. However, good and valid concerns have been raised on this front. The two most prominent concerns seem to be 1) the danger of disconnecting from the universal church and 2) the Pandora’s box concern.

The danger of disconnecting from the universal church is real. I readily acknowledge that we cannot use a new translation of the Creed disconnected from teaching the Creed as a historical document. Like Don D., I never present this as a merely theological document. I always situate it in history, and refer to it as a unifying statement for all parts of the church throughout history. I also would not want a new translation to push out the old. They need to be read in conjunction. Those reading a new translation need to understand what they are reading. They need to appreciate the fact that they are reading an alternative translation of an ancient document for which there is a more traditional translation. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of a good leader. I believe that a disconnect from the universal church can easily be prevented by good leadership. Where a disconnect happens, I would wonder if the leader truly understands the nature of the Creed.

I use the term Pandora’s box argument to refer to the idea that if we allow one ‘interpretive modern translation’ every student of Greek will make his own idiosyncratic translation and thus the unifying quality of the Creed will be compromised. This is not the kind of thing I would want to start. Rather, I envision a second family of translations; translations made with the same care, dialogue, and reverence as the traditional family, the difference being translation philosophy. The traditional family is a formal equivalence style of translation. I am simply asking for a dynamic equivalence style translation to be read in conjunction with it.

In Christ, and for the Sake of His Church,
Ryan

[ryancarter]

On Don D.'s comment about the incompleteness of the Creed
Don D. stated, “Second, on the need for an “interpretive translation,” I personally would rather join the lively historical debate on whether or not the Creed covers all the formative issues, or does so in a way that is best useful in mission and ministry.” I agree. This question has been in the forefront of my mind since I joined staff. I stated above that one could affirm the Nicene Creed while holding heterodox views. For instance, I see the monophysite view as heterodox. However, monophysites affirm the Nicene Creed. I also believe that a modalist could affirm this Creed. I disagree with the statement that we don’t need another document to explain the major elements of the Christian faith. As an orthodox Christian, I affirm more than the Nicene Creed. I believe, in particular, the definition of Chalcedon is normative. But there are other normative documents. It is true that there is no statement so concise yet so comprehensive as the Nicene Creed. However, I would like to see other conciliar documents read alongside it.

[Don Davis]

Great points, Ryan. I appreciate your nuanced, careful, and well-reasoned reply. Although, on clarification, our thoughts seem to be largely unified, it is clear that we pass like ships in the night on the function of the Creed in a satellite setting. In my view, our responsibility is not to primarily be concerned with new, different, modern, or interpretive translations of the Creed, but use it as the ancients did, as a rule of faith to outline the essentials of orthodox faith. It sounds to me as if you believe new translations would clarify the thorny difficult theological concepts covered in it. That may, to some degree be true, but unfortunately none of the substantive issues that must be articulated, understood, and fleshed out for our students would be ultimately resolved. In such cases, your (and any other translators) might help us better define the issues, but our students will inevitability have to deal with the historical terms, their meaning in context, and their possible meanings today.

I argue for rigorous dialogue and debate among mentors and their students, and less emphasis on our seeking to proliferate various versions of historic documents, regardless of our translation strategy or philosophy. A new translation can't assume that words are equivocal, as if new terms associated with thorny concepts cuts the barbs off of them. You are correct, Ryan: "Those reading a new translation need to understand what they are reading." I believe that, in theology, terms refer to concepts, and unfortunately, simply using different terms won't (or least, it hasn't) settled the conceptual difficulties.

I settle on this, as a theologian, mentor, pastor, and brother. I want everyone who sits under my teaching to wrestle with our historic faith, and to do so in the most open, candid, even-handed, and mature manner. This will involve listening to all the discussion from the beginning, using the language that those who framed the arguments did, read them charitably and fairly, and answer them openly and honestly. This will demand that we and our students be mature, good researchers, fair thinkers, and right dividers of the Word of truth. All data (including new translations of anything) are fair game for the discussion and wrestling; I simply don't think the answer to overcome the difficulty of theological concepts is necessarily found in new translations, even if they can be done accurately and in a missiologically-sound manner.

It seems we all desire clarification. Why not use the products of history, the interpretive attempts of good research, and the truth of Scripture to enable students to wrestle with things that the finest Christian minds in history have failed to fully plumb? What we need are the most serious minded students to engage the most difficults subject in the fairest and most thorough manner. I have been able to do this short of a new translation of the Nicene creed (the most ubiquitous of all of them, perhaps) or any other.

Let's strive to help our students wrestle with the rule of faith that the Nicene represents, and do that without prejudice. Again, as those who know Greek, we can come up with our own translations of the Creed, and even use our translations as helps in enabling our students to wrestle with the ideas. But, in the end, the ideas must be wrestled with. No translation of Bible or Creed will help any urban leader take a short cut to the truth. All true theological knowledge is earned.

Let's get to work.

Don

[Hank Voss]

Friends,

The level of conversation has gone up. I have been off of the forum discussions for a while, and I am really encouraged by what I am reading.

Ryan, thanks for your very helpful translation, and laying the three versions side by side as you have done. This is just invaluable.

It is amazing how far we have come in a decade. Ten years ago, there were a bunch of us who didn't even have the Creed on our radar screens. Today it is a rule regularly used to guide the interpretation of Scripture in dozens of TUMI classes around the world.

I hope that before another decade is out, we have a class on the Nicene Creed, and in it we walk through the Carter Chart as we wrestle through understanding the Creed today.

One question I have is where did we get our version of the "traditional text" at TUMI? There is a helpful article on Wikipedia that lists current English versions of the Nicene Creed. The one we are using at TUMI seems different than the three most common versions in use by the English speaking church in North America (e.g. the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and 1988 ecumenical version).

Looking forward to being with many of you at the summit in two weeks.

Grace,

Hank

P.S. Ryan, my Greek is not as good as yours or Don's but I did weigh in on a few items in the attached word document. You have to be able to view comments in MS Word to see them, let me know if you don't have that capability.

[ryancarter]

Hank,
Thanks for your response!
I have attached two docs, 1) the doc you posted with responses and 2) the newer three editions doc. I have changed the owrding of Traditional and Modern, to Literal and Dynamic, as this reflect the true difference between them. I have also updated the table boxes, as they were somewhat random.