Since I am the one who made the statement, I guess I should follow up with my own assessment. I have been directly involved with translations and translation usage evaluations in congregations since 1987 (and translating prior to that). I check many passages to see how that compares with the original language text (either Hebrew/Aramaic for OT or Greek for NT).
For one example that applies to three translations: John 20:23
NIV 1984: If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
NIV 2011: If you forgive anyones sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
ESV 2007: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.
All three translations give the impression that the authority resides with the disciple, and their forgiveness is at their whim. But is that what the Greek text claims? I will focus on the ESV but the same argument applies to the NIV.
In the Greek the word κεκράτηνται has the sense of hold fast, or retain (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word withhold in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness, However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural), not forgiveness.
ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς
if ever of whom you forgive the sins, they [the sins] are forgiven to/for them
ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται.
if ever of whom .... you retain, they have been (and are still) retained.
; the indirect object is to them (αὐτοῖς. In the Greek of the second part of the sentence, the direct object and the indirect object are not supplied. But normal Greek structure means that the direct object and indirect object previously mentioned would carry over. Thus, the second line would translate:if ever of whom you retain [something], they [something] are retained [to them]
Note that ESV changes this, so that it takes the verb of the first part of the sentence and makes it into a noun to be used as the direct object in the second phrase. I don't know of any other case in which such a practice is followed, especially by a translation that favors an essentially literal approach.
Some have asked whether the Greek word κρατῆτε can also mean to restrain or to hold back. Are they to retain the sin or the forgiveness of sin, and by including the second option it seems to lend support to the accuracy for both NIV and ESV. However, the direct object in the sentence is τὰς ἁμαρτίας (sins) plural. Note, that forgiveness is not in the noun form in the sentence; rather it is the verb parallel to κρατῆτε (retain). Thus, the parallel of the verbs is: forgive / retain.
Now the question is: what is forgiven and what is retained? In the first phrase, the direct object of forgive is τὰς ἁμαρτίας (sins) plural. So they are to forgive sins. In the second part of the sentence there is no direct object associated with retain, and so the normal Greek sequence is to repeat the direct object of the earlier verb: retain the sins. The question then arises whether retains is appropriate translation in this context.
If a person claims that the direct object of retain is "forgiveness", then the only way to get that is to ignore the first direct object, change the first verb into a noun and make it the (implied) direct object (none of which the Greek does).
It makes sense that when CPH published the 1986 Catechism using the NIV, the editors used NKJV when referencing John 20:23. BTW the same held true when CPH was using the ESV, except using NKJV when citing John 20:23.
============
There are other passages that can be cited. Of course, no translation is perfect, and others may disagree with me. I expect that.
I also examine readability, or better oral readability of translations. In that sense, NAS, ESV, and NKJV tend to be a little more difficult for oral comprehension.
But of those that fall within the formal equivalence category, I would rank them NAS, RSV (2007), NKJV, and then ESV. Of course, if someone doesnt know the original language texts, then I encourage at least two different translations (i.e. NAS and GW).
Its late and I am tired.
Upvote
0
