39 Articles in modern English

[Liberasit]

This was asked a couple of days ago but the answer got a bit buried. So I will repost for those people who would appreciate this resource.

Here is a link to a modern rendering.

Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see the articles grouped by theme. Each article has the original text followed by modern wording. A caveat is given that the modern wording cannot be used for doctrine, but given that it is presented alongside the original, the reader can easily make their own assessment.

In addition, there are essays connected to most articles presented from an evangelical stance.

 

[Targaryen]

This was asked a couple of days ago but the answer got a bit buried. So I will repost for those people who would appreciate this resource.

Here is a link to a modern rendering.

Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see the articles grouped by theme. Each article has the original text followed by modern wording. A caveat is given that the modern wording cannot be used for doctrine, but given that it is presented alongside the original, the reader can easily make their own assessment.

In addition, there are essays connected to most articles presented from an evangelical stance.

Yeah from the conservative evangelical wing. One that opposed Rowan Williams' election to the See of Canterbury, and opposed ordination of women to the priesthood and the bishopric in England as well as it's views on homosexuality. England's answer to Forward in Faith

No thanks, I'll stick to an actual balanced presentation.

 

[Liberasit]

Yeah from the conservative evangelical wing. One that opposed Rowan Williams' election to the See of Canterbury, and opposed ordination of women to the priesthood and the bishopric in England as well as it's views on homosexuality. England's answer to Forward in Faith

No thanks, I'll stick to an actual balanced presentation.

How bewildering.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

The book it's based off is a 19th century exposition on the 39 Articles; hardly a modern innovation. There isn't much recent writing on the 39 Articles, but I did mention two other resources that provide different perspectives on their interpretation. JI Packer's The 39 Articles: Their Place and Use Today which provides, at least in the section I'm referring to, an extremely balanced approach to the Articles. Two other resources are Bicknell and Boultbee's books. Both are from a more Catholic position. A commentary on the thirty-nine articles : forming an introduction to the theology of the Church of England by Boultbee and A theological introduction to the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England by Bicknell. Both are available on Amazon, Indigo, etc.

 

[Liberasit]

The book it's based off is a 19th century exposition on the 39 Articles; hardly a modern innovation. There isn't much recent writing on the 39 Articles, but I did mention two other resources that provide different perspectives on their interpretation. JI Packer's The 39 Articles: Their Place and Use Today which provides, at least in the section I'm referring to, an extremely balanced approach to the Articles. Two other resources are Bicknell and Boultbee's books. Both are from a more Catholic position. A commentary on the thirty-nine articles : forming an introduction to the theology of the Church of England by Boultbee and A theological introduction to the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England by Bicknell. Both are available on Amazon, Indigo, etc.

Hmm... I thought the basis was the 1980 ASB - defo not Victorian. Not that that's important. The modern rendering is presented alongside the original, so any discrepancies would be quickly spotted.

Caveat emptor. Misery guts need not apply.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Great post, thanks Liberasit

 

[JustAnglican]

I'm not sure whether I'm hijacking this topic. None of the literature here at ACSA ever mentions the 39 Articles. Not the Prayer Book nor the Catechism. They are never mentioned in confirmation classes either. The first time I heard of them was at this forum.

What exactly is their place in the church?

 

[Targaryen]

I'm not sure whether I'm hijacking this topic. None of the literature here at ACSA ever mentions the 39 Articles. Not the Prayer Book nor the Catechism. They are never mentioned in confirmation classes either. The first time I heard of them was at this forum.

What exactly is their place in the church?

Check your 1954 southern Africa edition of the BCP near the back or near the back of your APB.

The Articles were a series of points that Cranmer and other Anglican reformers tended used to prove Anglicanism faith and doctrinal emphasis. they are considered, specially by Low church Anglicans to be a confession of the faith, High church Anglicans view them as a statement of how we are reformed but do not put the same weight on the Articles.

 

[ebia]

England's answer to Forward in Faith

Eh? Did you mean "evangelicals' answer to FiF"?

 

[Targaryen]

Eh? Did you mean "evangelicals' answer to FiF"?

More fitting actually there, yes. My apologies.

 

[PaladinValer]

All translation from one language to another is, in fact, interpretation. It is nigh impossible to make a perfect translation. And folks, early modern English is not our language.

Furthermore, any translation offered from a source with an agenda ought be avoided for precisely that reason.

So instead, if people want to read the Articles of Religion, then let them learn early modern English or read a translation of them done by the most neutral as possible auspices as possible. Preferably both.

And yes, the Articles still have merit. Even in TEC, the "Historic Documents" does not mean, as some uneducated folk may think, "past theology" but things that are historically vital to our identity. The key result of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is not "past theology", nor is the Chigaco-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which are also found there, so anyone who regards "historical" as "past/not current" is wrong.

 

[MKJ]

All translation from one language to another is, in fact, interpretation. It is nigh impossible to make a perfect translation. And folks, early modern English is not our language.

Furthermore, any translation offered from a source with an agenda ought be avoided for precisely that reason.

So instead, if people want to read the Articles of Religion, then let them learn early modern English or read a translation of them done by the most neutral as possible auspices as possible. Preferably both.

And yes, the Articles still have merit. Even in TEC, the "Historic Documents" does not mean, as some uneducated folk may think, "past theology" but things that are historically vital to our identity. The key result of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is not "past theology", nor is the Chigaco-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which are also found there, so anyone who regards "historical" as "past/not current" is wrong.

Yes, precisely - nothing is past, but it is weighted within the context of the whole, and also according to what kind of thing it was.

An ecumenical council then will likely be more weighty than a specifically Anglican document and may even determine how we interpret the later document. On the other hand, while a Roman Catholic theology will have some impact too given our view of the Church, it will tend to be less than that of an Anglican theologian, all else being equal.

The 39 Articles then are a thing created at a particular point in time and will always stand as such, but what they can't do is wipe out the rest of the history or theology of the Church.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Hmm... I thought the basis was the 1980 ASB - defo not Victorian. Not that that's important. The modern rendering is presented alongside the original, so any discrepancies would be quickly spotted.

Caveat emptor. Misery guts need not apply.

The article you cited draws heavily on a book by WH Griffith, which is what I was referencing. Boultbee to me is a companion book, as they both undertake the same task of exploring the language of the 39 Articles, explaining the meaning of the words in contemporary language and then unpacking the theology behind the Articles. I own Boultbee and I've read parts of Griffith at my local seminary's library. They're both good books. While their writings and translations certainly don't carry with them authority, they can be helpful tools (along with JI Packer, whose modern translations are from the late 60s rather than the 1870s!) for understanding the words the authors were writing.

 

[Liberasit]

All translation from one language to another is, in fact, interpretation. It is nigh impossible to make a perfect translation. And folks, early modern English is not our language.

Furthermore, any translation offered from a source with an agenda ought be avoided for precisely that reason.

So instead, if people want to read the Articles of Religion, then let them learn early modern English or read a translation of them done by the most neutral as possible auspices as possible. Preferably both.

And yes, the Articles still have merit. Even in TEC, the "Historic Documents" does not mean, as some uneducated folk may think, "past theology" but things that are historically vital to our identity. The key result of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is not "past theology", nor is the Chigaco-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which are also found there, so anyone who regards "historical" as "past/not current" is wrong.

Doubly shooting the messenger = rock bottom.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Doubly shooting the messenger = rock bottom.

I don't think that's what he was trying to do....

 

[Liberasit]

I don't think that's what he was trying to do....

I'm in no doubt....

 

[Targaryen]

Doubly shooting the messenger = rock bottom.

You get a bleeding heart over some of the strangest things.

 

[Liberasit]

You get a bleeding heart over some of the strangest things.

What a strange comment. Absolutely bewildering.

 

[Cjwinnit]

And folks, early modern English is not our language.

Speak for yourself. I grew up reading the stuff in a high school that predates the USA

 

[PaladinValer]

Speak for yourself. I grew up reading the stuff in a high school that predates the USA

Oh they teach a little of it here.

My point is that it isn't the language that is spoken or written 99.99% of the time. Furthermore, while there is a Bible unit in most public middle and high schools here, it isn't typically the KJV.