# 1 Peter 4:19 - NASB 1995 vs 1977



## Mark Hettler (Jan 21, 2020)

I’m trying to figure out why the NASB changed 1 Peter 4:19 (“Let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls…”) from imperative (“let them entrust”) in the 1977 edition to indicative (“they shall entrust”) in the 1995 edition. It’s imperative in the Greek (to the best of my knowledge of Greek) and in most other translations, so I can’t think of a reason why they’d make that change. Anyone have any insights, or even educated guesses?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2020)

I actually think the later edition does not intend the words to be read indicatively, but still in the imperative mood.

"They shall...," I take the verb to be in the sense of "should/ought/must," not in the sense of futurity.

I don't know how often the translators in the newer edition shifted the cadence from the older cohortative form, "let them," but it is the case that in some contexts that form sounds to the modern ear as "permission," rather than the imperative. Translation trade-off.

Gk and Heb. have first and third person imperatives (unlike standard modern English). So, we have to choose how to render and accurately convey meaning; and there may not be any ideal presentation that cannot be confused by one reader or another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 21, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I actually think the later edition does not intend the words to be read indicatively, but still in the imperative mood.
> 
> "They shall...," I take the verb to be in the sense of "should/ought/must," not in the sense of futurity.
> 
> ...



This is exactly right. This is a rather clear example of 1) the real deficiency English had when it comes to the inflection of substantives and verbs, and 2) the struggle modern readers have the the combination of this deficiency and the change of language.

Historically, commands were found as such: "I will/let us, you shall, let he/she/it/them." Future tenses were the exact opposite: "I/we shall, you will, he/she/it/they will." This is super confusing, but it's how English developed.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Jan 21, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I actually think the later edition does not intend the words to be read indicatively, but still in the imperative mood.


I can understand the reasoning; I would have used "should" or even "must" rather than "shall" to convey imperative, but that's just me (and a number of commentators who paraphrase that way.)


----------

