A Consideration of the Proposed Contemporary Version of the Nicene Creed

Stephen Eyre

It appears that our denomination is getting the message that indeed theology does matter. I attended the 1997 and 1998 General Assemblies. Both years, I observed the committees assigned to deal with theological issues.

In both 1997 and 1998 the theology committees received overtures calling for a retranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism to remove the answer to question 87. That answer makes an explicit statement about homosexuality as sin.

I was impressed at the skill displayed in politics and debate by the theology committees at both General Assemblies. The advocates for removing the statement from the Heidelberg Catechism identifying homosexuality as sin cloaked their position by appeals for a more accurate and contemporary translation. Both years, the motion for a new translation made it out of the committee and onto the floor of the General Assembly. However, both years the motions were defeated on the floor of the Assembly.

In addition to the Heidelberg Catechism, there was a motion both years to place a new translation of the Nicene Creed into our Book of Confessions. As with the Heidelberg, the motions made it out of committee. The difference was that the motion for a new translation of the Nicene Creed was passed on the floor of the GA. (There was one difference between the actions of the two committees on the Nicene Creed.. The first year, the committee pondered a parenthesis around the filioque clause. They decided not only to remove the parenthesis but the entire clause as well! Thankfully, when the Nicene Creed came up for consideration the second year, 1998, the clause had been replaced and the parenthesis removed.)

As a result of the 209th General Assemby’s action in 1997, a Special Committee on the Nicene Creed was appointed by the Moderator, Patricia Brown. After the Special Committee on the Nicene Creed reviewed the proposed translation, they brought it back to the 210th General Assembly which then affirmed the work of the Special Committee on the Nicene Creed and sent it to the presbyteries for a vote. Two-thirds of the presbyteries must approve the new version for it to replace the Traditional version in the Book of Confessions.

The proposed replacement version of the Nicene Creed, commonly referred to as the Ecumenical Version, was produced by The English Language Liturgical Consultation in 1988. The ELLC, constituted in 1985, was charged with preparing contemporary translations of thirteen basic liturgical texts. The Ecumenical Version of the Nicene Creed was one of those thirteen basic texts. In making their translations, they used the following guidelines:

I. In order to avoid pastoral disruption, only necessary changes should be made.

II. Language for human beings should be inclusive.

III. Since these texts are intended for use in worship, the ease with which they can be said, heard, and sung should be an essential element of revision.

IV. Language should be contemporary, intelligible, and dignified.

As we consider replacing the Traditional version of the Nicene Creed in the Book of Confessions with the “Ecumenical Version,” it might be helpful to keep in mind that the Ecumenical version is already used by the PC (USA) in the Presbyterian Hymnal which contains both the Traditional and the Ecumenical translations. In addition, the Book of Common Worship uses the Ecumenical version throughout. However, neither the Presbyterian Hymnal nor the Book of Common Worship has confessional status. A two thirds vote would give the Ecumenical version confessional status by replacing the traditional one now in the Book of Confessions.

As they bring forth the Ecumenical version for our vote, The Special Committee on the Nicene Creed has made known that they believe the term “Ecumenical Version” is a misnomer. According to the Committee, both the Traditional version and the Ecumenical version are translations of the original texts and both are expressions of the tradition of the church coming to us from the Councils of Nicea, 325 and Constantinople, 381 and both versions are used ecumenically. The difference between the two is simply that of an older versus a more contemporary translation.

As we consider the proposed version of the Creed we must ask how extensive are the changes to the Nicene Creed and what differences do they make? It was the intention of the appointed the Special Committee on the Nicene Creed to be faithful to historical orthodox theology. As I cast my vote on these changes, I want to be confident that some clandestine group is not using cloaking devises that allow them to slip their agenda into the historical orthodoxy of Nicea.

Although the intention of The English Language Liturgical Consultation was to make minimal change, by my count there at least thirty differences. The accompanying chart offers a comparison between the Traditional and Ecumenical versions.

The Proposed Contemporary Version of the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Initial Observations

Some changes update language. “Sitteth” and “proceedeth” are changed to “ seated” and “proceeds” (line 22,26).

Some changes involve the capitalization of a word. In the Traditional version “Maker” to “maker” in the new (line 3). “The Lord and Giver of Life” concerning the Holy Spirit becomes “the Lord, the giver of life” (line 25). “Church” becomes “church” in the Contemporary version (line 29).

For the purpose of meter and ease in reading there are deletions of the “and” at the beginning of some sentences. On the other hand there is the addition of “We believe” to the second section (line 5). “And in one Lord Jesus Christ” in the Traditional version becomes “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ” in the new (line 5). “And we believe in the Holy Spirit” becomes “We believe in the Holy Spirit” (line 25). “And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church” becomes “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church” (line 29).

There are changes in the use of some prepositions. “God of God” and “Light of Light” are changed to “God from God” and “Light from Light” (line 8).

Other changes involve deleting or changing words:

“The only begotten Son of God: becomes the “only Son of God” (line 6)
“Very God of Very God” becomes “true God from true God” (line 9)
“being of one substance with the Father” becomes “of one Being with the Father” (line 11).

There appear to be a couple of changes for the sake of gender sensitivity:

“for us men and our salvation” becomes “For us and our salvation” (line 13)
“And was made man” is changed to “and became truly human” (line 16).

Then there are changes which add words or delete them

In the phrase the “only begotten son of God” “begotten” is dropped and becomes “the only son of God” (line 6).
In the phrase “He suffered and was buried” the word death is added to become, “He suffered death and was buried” (line 18).

Reflections and Questions

I support a contemporary translation that will make the creeds we have more accessible. But apart from making the language more contemporary and easier to read, What do the changes mean and how will they affect our theology? What follows is not an exhaustive reflection. My first purpose was simply to consider selected phrases for gaining insight into the approach and purpose of the translators. I also intended to look at significant phrases that have a bearing on the historic doctrinal issues addressed by the Nicene Creed.

Let us look a little more deeply.

The Contemporary version has “God the Father, the Almighty” while the Traditional version has “God the Father Almighty” (line 2). According to the commentary on the new translation, “the Almighty” picks up on the significance of the Greek word pantocrator which is a noun and not adjective. While this may be true, the translation “the almighty” seems to shift the dynamics of this first section on God the Father.

Was not the intention of the framers of the Nicene Creed to portray God as the Almighty Father, not as the Father in one role and the Almighty as an additional one? Another way to ask this is, Does the new translation perhaps break the internal structure and rhythm of the Creed around the one God who is the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?

The change of from “Maker” in the Traditional to “maker” in the Contemporary seems to have no significance as far as the Greek is concerned. Greeks did not use upper and lower case letters. Does it have a significance in our understanding and use of English?

“Of all that is, seen and unseen” replaces “of all things visible and invisible” in the Traditional (line 4). Is there any substantive change in meaning when “visible and invisible” are replaced with “seen and unseen”? What may be more worth pondering in the preceding phrase, is the change from the Traditional phrasing “of all things visible and invisible” to “of all that is, seen and unseen.” The Traditional word phrasing strengthens the affirmation that nothing exists that God did not create.

One of the historic purposes of the Nicene Creed was to combat the Arian heresy that Jesus Christ was a created being. The word they chose, “begotten,” for Christ’s relation to the Father, was intended to make a distinction from the process of physical birth. The Traditional translation uses the word begotten three times, the Contemporary uses it twice. According to the commentary on the Contemporary translation “It was thought sufficient to use “begotten” twice in English: it was dropped in line 6 as unnecessary and retained in line 7 to distinguish the truth conveyed by the Greek from any idea that the Son was created in time, or alternatively born in eternity.” Is it in fact sufficient?

Dropping “only begotten” leaves us with “the only son of God” in line 6 in the Contemporary translation. Of all the changes in the Creed, this one gave me the greatest concern. Does this new translation adequately protect the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that there will never, can never be, any other only begotten Son of God?

Continuing with issues of Christ’s generation, “Eternally begotten” replaces “begotten before all worlds” in the Traditional translation. The Contemporary translation picks up nicely on the Greek text, which says that Christ existed before the ages–before time “pro panton ton aionon” and not merely before all worlds were created.

“God from God,” and “Light from Light” in the Contemporary version replaces “God of God” and “Light of Light” (line 8). The word “from” is a reliable translation of the Greek word “ek” which is commonly translated as “from” or “out of.” “Very God of Very God” in the Traditional becomes “True God of True God” (line 9). The use of the word “True” is a better choice than “Very” for contemporary believers and is a fine translation of the Greek.

Another of the crucial issues addressed by the Nicene framers concerned the nature of Christ: Was he or was he not God? The Nicene articulation of this in the Greek was the word homoousios. How best to translate this into English? The Traditional translation used the word “substance.” The Contemporary translation uses the word “Being.” Which is better, “Substance” or the Contemporary translation “Being?” In this case “Being” is perhaps a better translation.

In addition to his deity, the framers of the Nicene Creed addressed Christ’s humanity. What does the Contemporary version lose and or gain by seeking to be gender sensitive and changing “was made man” in the Traditional version to “became truly human?” One of the central battles of orthodoxy during the first four centuries when the church was clarifying our Christology was that Jesus Christ did not merely take on the form of a human being as the Docetists advocated, but that he was truly human. In this regard the Contemporary translation is faithful to Nicene orthodoxy. It clearly says “he became truly human.” On the other hand Jesus did not only become a human, he became a male. Does this formulation “became human” lay down a land mind that might perhaps explode in some future theological debate? Perhaps.

The Contemporary translation has “he suffered death and was buried” where the Traditional has “he suffered and was buried.” The Traditional is more literal in reflecting the Greek. However, the addition of death makes clear that both in the meaning of the Greek word and in the context of his crucifixion, the suffering addressed here is in direct relation to his death, not merely to the suffering he had to endure in relationship to birth and ministry in a sinful world.

Conclusions

I have three concerns:

The phrase “the Father, the Almighty.”
Does this reflect a subtle change in the way we express the nature of God? Is he the Father almighty or the Father and the Almighty one?
The dropping of the phrase “only begotten.”
I do not think the theology of the Creed is damaged, but the older version makes the point of Christ’s uniqueness even more strongly.
The change of “made man” to “became human.”
While this reflects the intention of the Nicene Fathers, it also may open up problems over gender issues in the future.

Much of the new translation work is good. In most cases, it makes the intent of the Greek clearer and does produce a contemporary version that reads well. My analysis did not produce any concerns that will prevent me from voting “yes” for the proposed Contemporary version of the Nicene Creed.

We should, however, continue to ask ourselves: What problems does the Contempoary version resolve and what potential problems might it create?

Nicene Creed Comparison

2. Contemporary Version: “the Father, the Almighty
Traditional Version: “the Father Almighty
3. Contemporary Version: “maker”
Traditional Version: “Maker”
4. Contemporary Version: “Of all that is,”
Traditional Version: “of all things. . .”
4. Contemporary Version: “seen and unseen”
Traditional Version: “visible and invisible”
5. Contemporary Version: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ”
Traditional Version: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ”
6. Contemporary Version: “the only Son of God”
Traditional Version: “the only begotten Son of God”
7. Contemporary Version: “eternally begotten of the Father”
Traditional Version: “begotten of the Father before all worlds”
8. Contemporary Version: “God from God”
Traditional Version: “God of God”
8. Contemporary Version: “Light from Light”
Traditional Version: “Light of Light”
9. Contemporary Version: “true God from true God”
Traditional Version: “Very God of Very God”
11. Contemporary Version: “of one Being with the Father”
Traditional Version: “being of one substance with the Father”
12. Contemporary Version: “through him all things were made”
Traditional Version: “by whom all things were made”
13. Contemporary Version: “For us and for our salvation”
Traditional Version: “who for us men and our salvation”
14. Contemporary Version: “he came down from heaven”
Traditional Version: “came down from heaven”
15. Contemporary Version: “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”
Traditional Version: “and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary”
16. Contemporary Version: “and became truly human”
Traditional Version: “and was made man”
17. Contemporary Version: “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate”
Traditional Version: “and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate”
18. Contemporary Version: “he suffered death and was buried.”
Traditional Version: “He suffered and was buried”
19. Contemporary Version: “On the third day he rose again”
Traditional Version: “and the third day he rose again”
20. Contemporary Version: “in accordance with the Scriptures”
Traditional Version: “according to the Scriptures”
21. Contemporary Version: “he ascended into heaven”
Traditional Version: “and ascended into heaven”
22. Contemporary Version: “and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”
Traditional Version: “and sitteth on the right hand of the Father”
23. Contemporary Version: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”
Traditional Version: “And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead”
24. Contemporary Version: “and his kingdom will have no end”
Traditional Version: “whose kingdom shall have no end”
25. Contemporary Version: “We believe in the Holy Spirit”
Traditional Version: “And we believe in the Holy Spirit”
25. Contemporary Version: “the Lord, the giver of life”
Traditional Version: “The Lord and Giver of Life”
26. Contemporary Version: “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”
Traditional Version: “who proceedeth from the Father and the Son”
27. Contemporary Version: “who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified”
Traditional Version: “who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified”
28. Contemporary Version: “who has spoken through the prophets”
Traditional Version: “who spoke by the prophets”
29. Contemporary Version: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”
Traditional Version: “And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church”
30. Contemporary Version: “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”
Traditional Version: “one baptism for the remission of sins”