ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CONFESSIONS 1 CON1-Q012 JANUARY 2005 CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY: CAPTION FIRST, INC. P.O. BOX 1924 LOMBARD, IL 60148 * * * * * This text is being provided in a rough-draft format. Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * >> JOSHUA: I have noticed that not all denominations use the same translation or wording of the creeds. How should we treat their language and specific use of words? Am I allowed to substitute a confessional hymn? >> DR. KLAUS DETLEV SHULTZ: Thank you for that question, Joshua. It is a very important one because it addresses the way we should treat the creeds in terms of how to translate them when we compare them to the original language. The Apostles� Creed, itself, has a number of versions that seem to float around in the church today. And the translations of the Apostles� Creed and also that of the Nicene Creed, which I'll address later, do reflect often also theological agendas. So as one looks at the translations, one also has to take into consideration such things as theology and not just the background; namely, the context itself. If we look at the Apostles� Creed now, you will see that there are, perhaps, four areas where translations vary. The first translation that is important to be looked at is the question of hell, the use of hell, �He descended into hell.� Now we know that that term often denotes methodology, the idea of, perhaps, a devil being down there with horns and a tail or something of that like. And we have to say, however, that the concept of hell goes back to the Latin, *et infernos, the Latin version of the Apostles� Creed, and also to the Greek understanding of hell that is Hades. Now if you look and compare hell to those two terms, we could say that it does speak not just of a neutral place where someone has found, separated from God, but in actual fact, that that place is also understood as a place where judgment is exerted over the individual being there and also the concept of fire and pain. Hell does denote that, so if we do translate it, and currently the Book of Concord, the new one, has translated into dead, the kingdom of the dead. So we have to ask whether that is an appropriate translation. Given the fact that we do not just want to impose on to hell the concept of neutrality, I think we should, perhaps, maintain that very translation as we as Missouri Synod still continue to translate it today. A second point is also that of heaven. �He ascended into the heaven.� Sometimes, that is rendered in the plural. And again, I have to refer to the new translation given to us in the Book of Concord. And therein we see that heavens is translated as it is, in the plural. That goes back to the Latin also that mentions it in the plural as well as also in the Greek. We, as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, as we confess the Apostles� Creed, will confess it as heaven denoting, thereby, perhaps, the idea that heaven is not a locality or that there is a multitude of heavens, but that there is only one. Another word that is worth discussing about is the translation of catholic church. That word is going back to the Latin *catholica, meaning, thereby, the catholic church itself, not to be confused, of course, with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic, as I have explained earlier on, means that it embraces the entire Christian church. So we in the Missouri Synod, when we confess the Apostles� Creed, have always said that instead of catholic, we say with Luther, Christian church and have always maintained that point in distinction to other denominations who have chosen the word catholic itself. Another word we should discuss here is a translation of flesh. As we know, there is this understanding that we will resurrect on the final day with our body. And so, many versions do confess, instead of using the word resurrection of the flesh, the word body. The Greek word *sarx, flesh, and the Latin word, *caro, both imply, perhaps, more flesh than body. Because it is perhaps more vivid in its understanding that one day, we will not just resurrect with our soul, but with our body as well. That very flesh that we have. The Nicene Creed itself also has a few versions. And it is probably in two areas where it's most important to focus on. The first one is when it speaks in the second article on Jesus Christ, where it says, "who for us men and for our salvation.� Now that word there, for us men, was traditionally understood as being gender-inclusive. It means it embraces every person in this world and, therefore, the Greek word *tousanthropous, from which the Greek comes from, there we would say that the traditional word man would embrace all people in this world. So that translation, �For us men and our salvation,� as we still confess in the Missouri Synod, really does not go against the concept of all-inclusiveness. Today, perhaps the connotations are more with men of being gender-specific and, perhaps, we could in this regard, take them into consideration as the Book of Concord, the new translation has done, who has replaced men for us people. Another point to be made is the word, Jesus Christ having become man. Now, there again, the translation sometimes referred to Him rather as becoming human being. Here I would say that another caution should be applied because Jesus Christ, admittedly, also became man beyond that of just becoming a human being. So I would, in this regard, plea that we would retain that term man, rather than just the term human being. You then add to your question also another one which is: How should we treat the language of the creeds? I think it would be very important to go back to the original languages of the creeds, and thereby, compare them to our current translations, if it is possible at all to do that. And then another step should be taken, which I believe is equally as important as comparing the translation with the original, that we also go back to the context of scripture. And we try to derive those places which already do speak about certain points and aspects that the creeds themselves make. And in comparison there, perhaps, we would come up with a theological idea that would guide us in our translations. So the language, I believe, is very important. And many times, I have seen that the culture, itself, also determines many translations. So we have, in this case, often a conflict between both the context itself and then that what is given to us by scripture and theology. And here all caution is applied that one does not deny theology through one's own translation of the creeds. You then also ask a further question as to whether it is possible to replace one of the creeds with a confessional hymn. Here I have to remind you, once again, that the creeds themselves are understood as confessional hymns. I know, for example, as a youth in the church that we often sang the Apostles� Creed. And if you look in Lutheran Worship, you'll see therein a couple hymns that sing the Apostles� Creed. And so the Te Deum itself also reflects the idea that our creeds are confessional hymns. I also note, for example, in Judges 5, in the Old Testament when Deborah sings a song, a hymn, a confession to God's glorious works on the tribe of Israel. Does one have to replace, though, the confessional creeds with a hymn? I think not. I would advise caution here as well because it's very important that we retain the catholicity of these creeds. That you want to confess them together with all Christians of this world, and that we then use confessional hymns, those that express the theology of these creeds, as an additional commentary to those creeds that we use in the church. So they need not be in conflict with each other, but rather, complement each other. Those creeds like the Te Deum and the three ecumenical creeds and those hymns that we have that serve as an additional reminder of their theology.