Which Bible translations are most common with the LCMS?

[Michaelrh1325]

I'm going to a LCMS service this Sunday, for the first time. I was looking for an Anglican Church - not Episcopal - in my area, but sadly there aren't any. Someone has sent me in the LCMS as the next best option for me and what I'm looking for. So I'm curious, what bible(s) should/could I expect? I'm hoping for the ESV or NRSV.

 

[alexnbethmom]

LCMS uses the ESV....

 

[joyfulthanks]

LCMS uses the ESV....

Yep, but many of the pew Bibles out there are still NIV.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm going to a LCMS service this Sunday, for the first time. I was looking for an Anglican Church - not Episcopal - in my area, but sadly there aren't any. Someone has sent me in the LCMS as the next best option for me and what I'm looking for. So I'm curious, what bible(s) should/could I expect? I'm hoping for the ESV or NRSV.

We use the ESV, but there are still some Congregations which use the NKJV, not common, but some.

If the Congregation you are attending uses the Divine Service Three Liturgy, the Ordinaries of that Liturgy are taken from the KJV (the readings are not); it's a beautiful Liturgy, and is still my favourite of the 5 which are included in Lutheran Service Book.

Please come back and let us know what you think, and feel free to ask questions!

God bless!

 

[Michaelrh1325]

I got the LSB (ESV). Very nice!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My congregation uses the ESV for the lectionary.

In Bible studies, it seems many use the NIV but he ESV seems a close second. Most have a study Bible put out by the publishing house of the LCMS. The older one used the NIV (and many at my church still have and use that one) whereas recently, a new edition came out and it has the ESV. My pastor always uses the Hebrew and Greek - and does a running translation (which is often pretty loose) as he reads it.

I use the ESV simply because I have The Lutheran Study Bible, the newer LCMS edition.





.

 

[bach90]

The LCMS does not endorse a particular Bible translation. Concordia Publishing House (CPH), the publishing arm of the LCMS uses the ESV for all new materials.

I'm partial to the (N)KJV, but I'll occasionally use the ESV.

 

[Hummie]

When I was young and through the years raising my children, it seemed that my churches supported the NIV. Now, within the last 5 years or so, there seems to be a movement to use the ESV. I'm trying to adapt to it. They both seem good.

 

[alexnbethmom]

to be honest, i enjoy both - i do like the NIV, it's a little easier to understand, but i really REALLY like the study notes in the LSB (ESV)....

 

[Rion]

The LSB version is awesome!

 

[filosofer]

Preface: I am a pastor in AALC, not LCMS (although I had been in LCMS for many decades).

I have never been a fan of either the NIV (1984) or the ESV, for different reasons. This congregation has used the NIV for 25 years. Because the copyright use of the 1984 edition ends by Jan. 1, 2013, I am looking now at alternatives, including NIV 2011, GW, and possibly something else, but not ESV. Some have the ESV study bible for study purposes, which is okay, as well as the LCMS NIV Study Bible (1986), but not the ESV for public worship.

Sigh... In our spread out mountain communities, the unchurched rate is 90-95%, meaning at least 50% have never been in a church, and more have never opened a Bible, and few have an adequate reading ability (and even many members fall into this category). This is not a criticism of them, but an acknowledgement that we meet them where they are. Right now, it appears that NIV 2011 would be the least disruptive for the congregation, and still be effective for the new people.

In my initial study of NIV 2011, I think it is better than the 1984 edition. A few areas I think it took a step backward (not using “saints” as translation for αγιοι, inconsistently translated even in same chapter). Positively, they improved Acts 3:21, but left John 20:23 and 20:27, 1 Peter 3:21 unchanged, which needed to be changed (of course, ESV is wrong on John 20:23, too).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The LCMS does not endorse a particular Bible translation. Concordia Publishing House (CPH), the publishing arm of the LCMS uses the ESV for all new materials.

I'm partial to the (N)KJV, but I'll occasionally use the ESV.

I really like the NKJV; I think it may be the best, most accurate (compromise of Word for Word/Thought for Thought) translation that we have; but filo makes a very good point below.

Preface: I am a pastor in AALC, not LCMS (although I had been in LCMS for many decades).

I have never been a fan of either the NIV (1984) or the ESV, for different reasons. This congregation has used the NIV for 25 years. Because the copyright use of the 1984 edition ends by Jan. 1, 2013, I am looking now at alternatives, including NIV 2011, GW, and possibly something else, but not ESV. Some have the ESV study bible for study purposes, which is okay, as well as the LCMS NIV Study Bible (1986), but not the ESV for public worship.

Sigh... In our spread out mountain communities, the unchurched rate is 90-95%, meaning at least 50% have never been in a church, and more have never opened a Bible, and few have an adequate reading ability (and even many members fall into this category). This is not a criticism of them, but an acknowledgement that we meet them where they are. Right now, it appears that NIV 2011 would be the least disruptive for the congregation, and still be effective for the new people.

In my initial study of NIV 2011, I think it is better than the 1984 edition. A few areas I think it took a step backward (not using “saints” as translation for αγιοι, inconsistently translated even in same chapter). Positively, they improved Acts 3:21, but left John 20:23 and 20:27, 1 Peter 3:21 unchanged, which needed to be changed (of course, ESV is wrong on John 20:23, too).

Filo, may I ask how the ESV is in error on John 20:23?

 

[DaRev]

There really isn't anything wrong with the ESV John 20:23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." The retaining of sins also means the withholding of forgiveness. It's not a literal word-for-word translation, but it says the very same thing.

 

[filosofer]

For a translation that commits itself to “accurate” translation or in its own terms “essentially literal translation” John 20:23 flies in the face of that.

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 anyone’s 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.”

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is “the sins” (τὰς ἁμαρτίας the indirect object is ”to them” (αὐτοῖ&#962. 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 using the ESV, except using NKJV when citing John 20:23.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

For a translation that commits itself to “accurate” translation or in its own terms “essentially literal translation” John 20:23 flies in the face of that.

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 anyone’s 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.”

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is “the sins” (τὰς ἁμαρτίας the indirect object is ”to them” (αὐτοῖ&#962. 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 using the ESV, except using NKJV when citing John 20:23.

There really isn't anything wrong with the ESV John 20:23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." The retaining of sins also means the withholding of forgiveness. It's not a literal word-for-word translation, but it says the very same thing.

Thanks Filo for the great explanation, point taken. Interesting point about the Catechism BTW.

It may be because I read this verse in both translations through "Lutheran eyes", but I agree with Rev's take as well.

 

[filosofer]

Thanks Filo for the great explanation, point taken. Interesting point about the Catechism BTW.

It may be because I read this verse in both translations through "Lutheran eyes", but I agree with Rev's take as well.

You have to be careful when you claim “Lutheran eyes.” Notice how Luther translated this text into German:

Welchen ihr die Sünden erlasset, denen sind sie erlassen; und welchen ihr sie behaltet, denen sind sie behalten.​

Luther caught the sense of the Greek not changing the verb erlasset (forgive) into noun for the second part, but rather implied the direct object from the first part of the sentence (die Sünden “sins&#8221. He didn’t twist it like NIV, ESV, GW, and many others have done. Check NAS and NKJV for a correct rendering of the text.

Also read in the Confessions:

Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XX, para 79.

Power and Primacy of the Pope, Refutation of Roman Arguments, para 24.


And there must be good reason that two different groups of LCMS scholars over a 20+ year period concluded the same when setting up the catechism essentially stating: “We can use neither NIV (1984-8) nor ESV (2005-7) for John 20:23 in the catechism.”




PS: Just a note since this was the Gospel reading for the 2nd Sunday of Easter (last Sunday). We have NIV 1984 in the pews and bulletin. But when I came to John 20:23 I rendered in accordance with Greek grammar and hence as NKJV has it.

 

[DaRev]

I know that the ESV is not a literal translation of the Greek text. But what is the text saying? If a sin is retained, it is not forgiven.

 

[SplendidTree]

We use ESV in the LCMS church I attend although I sometimes read KJV or NRSV at home.


How has it been going for you at the church?

 

[Dennis Butler]

The use of many translations is beneficial for determining the sense of the test. Found this in the preface of the 1611 kjv a quote from one of the early church fathers if memory serves me correctly and the fact I can't remember his name does in deed call into question my ever fading memory... I've always loved the KJV but in many instances one might find in the old testament one Hebrew word might be translated in 20 English words and one English word might be translated from 20 Hebrew words and it does require some work to sort it all out...I read at least 4 different translations acquiring a new translation from time to time spread out over 45 years. I haven't necessarily settled on any one but I seem more drawn to the NKJV simply because the variants between manuscript families are foot noted and I love this feature about this translation... I also read the NASB both the 1977 and 1995 revisions preferring the 1977 over the 1995. I also have the ESV. In any case, I intend to keep studying all of the aforementioned Translation and I thank God for the men that he has given us down through the centuries who have the skill and patience to give us these wonderful Hebrew and Greek manuscripts leading to the richness of these wonderful translations that continue to bless us everyday. Thank you Lord Jesus...