“CPH cites this reason for being unable to release the Small Catechism into the public domain.”
Short of a significant change in “business” strategy, the mission of any new LCMS translation would be to produce a revenue stream rather than to gift the Church, let alone the public.
At this point, I don’t share your optimism. Their treatment of our symbolic books over the year doesn’t suggest to me that they have the capabilities to take on a more weighty project like a translation of Scripture. And no, I’m not just talking about the latest endeavor with the Large Catechism, but also to their treatment of the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. The Small Catechism has been weighed down with bloat and less helpful translations. The Book of Concord readers edition was in many ways a narrowing of the information provided to the Church. Even the Lutheran study Bible is not something that I would say indicates they are up to the task of doing a new translation of Scripture. To be clear, I like and use the Lutheran study Bible, Book of Concord readers edition, etc. alongside other resources. But I don’t think they demonstrate the capabilities to do what you suggest. I hope I am wrong though.
I understand and sympathize with your concerns. The Synod has not covered itself in glory with the catechism dramas. In too many ways, those efforts come across as perpetual annuity and royalty schemes. There are plenty of institutionally related problems and lots of blame and praise to go around.
Nevertheless, some fresh and refreshing winds are blowing in many quarters, which must encourage us to cast off the justified cynicism born of experience and frustration.
1. CPH is very good at book design, layout, typesetting, binding, and marketing to its captive audience. It has a large reservoir of talent and institutional knowledge to support a project like this (unlike NPH, which wrecked the Evangelical Heritage Version). Let's keep CPH on task with its strengths.
2. CTCR must be kept away from a translation project. Its time has passed.
3. A well-conceived and crafted Synod Resolution can provide a project plan and budget that prevents special interest capture and adds budget discipline and theological accountability.
4. Any translation project needs to be a collaboration between the seminaries, who will be responsible for recruiting the best of the best from our Synod (no other micro Synods or special boys, thank you). Egger and Bruss are men we can trust to take this forward if they are given an unambiguous mandate and sufficient budget.
5. It will be hard—all the more reason to do it. The Synod and CPH have the balance sheets to make this happen, and now is the time to spend down that treasure because the future is fast approaching, and it looks very different to 2025.
“CPH cites this reason for being unable to release the Small Catechism into the public domain.”
Short of a significant change in “business” strategy, the mission of any new LCMS translation would be to produce a revenue stream rather than to gift the Church, let alone the public.
My sense is that we are on the cusp of a major change regarding these things.
That’s encouraging!
“The LCMS has the academic firepower to produce its own English Bible translation.”
I’ve long thought the same. And that WELS/NPH has done it (EHV) despite their size disadvantage just goes to further prove the point.
At this point, I don’t share your optimism. Their treatment of our symbolic books over the year doesn’t suggest to me that they have the capabilities to take on a more weighty project like a translation of Scripture. And no, I’m not just talking about the latest endeavor with the Large Catechism, but also to their treatment of the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. The Small Catechism has been weighed down with bloat and less helpful translations. The Book of Concord readers edition was in many ways a narrowing of the information provided to the Church. Even the Lutheran study Bible is not something that I would say indicates they are up to the task of doing a new translation of Scripture. To be clear, I like and use the Lutheran study Bible, Book of Concord readers edition, etc. alongside other resources. But I don’t think they demonstrate the capabilities to do what you suggest. I hope I am wrong though.
I understand and sympathize with your concerns. The Synod has not covered itself in glory with the catechism dramas. In too many ways, those efforts come across as perpetual annuity and royalty schemes. There are plenty of institutionally related problems and lots of blame and praise to go around.
Nevertheless, some fresh and refreshing winds are blowing in many quarters, which must encourage us to cast off the justified cynicism born of experience and frustration.
1. CPH is very good at book design, layout, typesetting, binding, and marketing to its captive audience. It has a large reservoir of talent and institutional knowledge to support a project like this (unlike NPH, which wrecked the Evangelical Heritage Version). Let's keep CPH on task with its strengths.
2. CTCR must be kept away from a translation project. Its time has passed.
3. A well-conceived and crafted Synod Resolution can provide a project plan and budget that prevents special interest capture and adds budget discipline and theological accountability.
4. Any translation project needs to be a collaboration between the seminaries, who will be responsible for recruiting the best of the best from our Synod (no other micro Synods or special boys, thank you). Egger and Bruss are men we can trust to take this forward if they are given an unambiguous mandate and sufficient budget.
5. It will be hard—all the more reason to do it. The Synod and CPH have the balance sheets to make this happen, and now is the time to spend down that treasure because the future is fast approaching, and it looks very different to 2025.