PCUSA Theological Committee Approves HC Translation Changes

The Layman has the story. Thanks to Dominic Aquila for the heads up. Bruce McCormack and David Willis comment here. (HT: Stephen Ley).

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. What do you think of the actual translation work RSC? Is it as bad as it looks?

  2. The best modern translation is probably the RCUS 1978 translation. The only exception is that they left the bible verses in the KJV and there’s an idiosyncrasy in their rendering of Q. 86, where they have “by their faith” rather than “of their faith.” The latter is the traditional English transl. of the German “bei.” They took it more literally but that’s probably not the best way to read it. Otherwise it’s excellent. The old (pre-1976) translation was fine too. Schaff is fine. I really don’t see why, other than replacing archaic language, we needed a new translation in ’62 (which is the one being revised by the PCUSA).

Comments are closed.