A brothers bowels

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'm studying through 1 John with some men on Saturday mornings.
    Each man brings his own Bible so there's some variety.
    While we don't usually deal with versional differences, this came up today.

    Below I've arranged the versions the other men had in order of their word-to-word correspondence to the Greek text
    (footnotes have been included when pertinent).

    Notice two issues:
    1 - "brother" verses "brother or sister"
    2 - the words as written, "bowels of compassion" verses the words meaning (a translation of the idiom)

    But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
    1 John 3:17 AV 1873

    But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his 1heart 2against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
    1 Lit inward parts
    2 Lit from
    1 John 3:17 NASB95

    If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
    1 John 3:17 NIV

    I was using my large print NRSV:

    How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sisterp in need and yet refuses help?
    p Gk brother
    1 John 3:17 NRSV

    Questions:

    1. Where does the NRSV fit in this grouping?

    2. Should idioms be translated? or When should they be translated?

    3. Concerning this verse only: What version do you prefer - - - AND WHY do you prefer it? (don't list a reason and risk deletion by C4K).

    ***Feel free to include your favorite translation into the discussion.

    Rob
     
    #1 Deacon, Jun 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2008
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TNIV is my primary text these days. Here it is:

    "If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in you?"

    While keeping one foot in the ancient world, translators need to keep the other in the modern world.

    If keeping the old idiom makes sense, then keep it. But it doesn't make sense, then it must be tweaked to make sense to the modern reader.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1 John 3:17
    Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? (1534 Tyndale's)

    1 John 3:17
    And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? (1560 Geneva Bible)

    1 John 3:17
    But who so hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
    (1568 Bishops' Bible)

    1 John 3:17
    He that shall have the substance of the world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him? (1582 Rheims)
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I prefer the NKJV

    "But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

    It expresses the truth in clear, unmistakable, and accurate words.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Aren't sisters in need sometimes also?
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Of course. Are you suggesting adding "sisters" to every instance where "brothers" appears?

    It is obvious what is intended here.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
     
  10. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0

    Your response is a catch 22. A non-church going person is not a sister, so the passage did not apply to them anyway. The scripture was fine for both men and women up until it was changed. Funny, how that a portion of scripture that was accepted to include both sexes has to be changed so as to appease feminist.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Rip: Hmm, the three oldest that you cited speak in more understandable English to today's readers. The Rheims ( and by extension -- the KJV ) uses an inelegant and awkward expression which sounds even more dated.The KJV came out 77 years after the 2nd Tyndale Translation. But the latter sounds more modern in many ways.
     
  12. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I actually had trouble finding the verse when the gentleman in the Saturday study first mentioned it because the NRSV is so different.

    IMO, the NRSV is the most dynamic of all the versions due to its rearranging of the text.
    I’ve arranged and numbered the phrases in the KJV and in the NRSV.

    1) But whoso hath this world’s good,
    2) and seeth his brother hath need,
    3) and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him,
    4) how dwelleth the love of God in him?
    ---- AV 1873

    4) How does God’s love abide in anyone
    1) who has the world’s goods
    2) and sees a brother or sister in need
    3) and yet refuses help?
    ----NRSV

    But I like the NRSV the best of all, (to include the NLT and the TNIV).
    Right off the bat you know this is a question you need to confront.
    I really like the footnotes concerning the Greek regarding the translation fo the word, brother.

    Changing a verse by an addition such as 'or sister' doesn't bother me if I am alerted to the change by noting the underlying text.

    Rob
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    By the way, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible used "heart" at 1 John 3:17.

    1 John 3:17
    But he that hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his heart from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1535 Coverdale's)
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1611 KJV seems to have combined the rendering of Tyndale's, Geneva, and Bishops' ["compassion"] with the rendering of the 1582 Rheims ["bowels"] for its seeming double rendering ["bowels of compassion"].

    While not in italics in the 1611 edition, some later editions of the KJV puts the "of compassion" in italics.
     
  15. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Silly, isn't it!? I like your reasoning Cutter. :thumbs:
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I checked all the pre-1611 English Bibles I have, and the source of the KJV's "bowels" at this verse seems to be the 1582 Rheims as indicated earlier.

    1 John 3:17

    He that hath the cattle of this world, and seeth that his brother hath need, and closeth his entrails from him, how dwelleth the charity of God in him (1395 Wycliffe's Bible)

    Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1534 Tyndale's)

    But he that hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his heart from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1535 Coverdale's Bible)

    Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1537 Matthew's Bible)

    He that hath the substance of this world, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his inward affection from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1538 Coverdale's N. T. in his Latin-English N. T.)

    But whoso hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth up his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1540 Great Bible)

    And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1557 Whittingham's N. T.)

    And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1560 Geneva Bible)

    But whoso hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1568 Bishops' Bible)

    He that shall have the substance of the world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut his bowels from him: how doth charity of God abide in him (1582 Rheims N. T.)

    But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1611 KJV)
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    You have some misconceptions. According to your way of thinking :[If an unregenerate woman reads "sees his brother in need" and thinks this only applies to men then that's no problem. She's not a believer anyway, so what?] Hmm, I thought most Christians would want a non-believer to read a Bible that presents the truth of God's Word clearly. I didn't know that some believers rejoice in confusing a non-believer. To have the said text read "sees a brother or sister in need"does not express the truth?! The word "brother" in some translations does not include female believers?! You know that those translations had an inclusive meaning.So, since regenerate readers of those translations of the past with "sees a brother in need" have realized that those words includes both male and female believers, why would you object to a version which spells that out directly?

    Appeasing feminists is not the goal of modern translations which have a rendering like "sees a brother or sister in need". That's faulty,and judgmental reasoning. Translators who use a rendering like the latter want to communicate God's Word in understandable language. Whether you recognize it or not English ( as all languages) is going through a shift. It's not a feminist plot ( although many detractors sound like adherents of conspiracy theories).All languages undergo changes, they don't stay static. If you don't agree then you are ignoring the obvious.No group has the power to alter the course of a language -- feminists or any other.The changes are God-ordained. The Lord is the author of the transformation of languages.

    As I have pointed out many times, the ESV which has "brother" in the text also has 151 footnotes which say "or brothers and sisters"along with some explanation.As far as I am concerned those objecting to the use of "a brother or sister" based on thinking a feminist plot is brewing, are of the same camp as those who thought that the MV's were of the Devil. They thought so because the words "thee","thy" "thine"and such were no longer present.Get over it buddy.Some of the most conservative Bible commentators and preachers also spell it out as meaning brothers and sisters. Liberalism this is not.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Or it, like the Reims, was rendered directly from the Vulgate, translating viscera, naturally enough, as bowels.


    It's likely Coverdale got that particular reading from Luther, who translated bowels as Herz, or heart.


    Hugh Latimer, a contemporary of Tyndale (and fellow martyr), translated the verse: "“He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother to have need, and shutteth up his entire affection from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    [link to deleted post snipped]

    First of all your source is almost 30 years old.It was written about nine years before the NRSV was released.A number of things that were speculated upon were totally off-the-mark. The NRSV does not have the phrase "Child of God" in reference to Christ. And to say that the NRSV was "taking on the nature of a paraphrase"is simply absurd. God was not neutered and... The point is that piece was sensationalistic writing designed to stir up the masses.It spoke of things that had not yet transpired and painted things in a very negative light.

    I'll admit that the NRSV was sponsered by liberals. There are aspects of that translation which are not so sound. But overall it's a fine translation. It bears a great deal of linkage with the KJV actually. The ESV, which many conservative Christians appreciate bears the greatest resemblance with the NRSV because both were based on the RSV.

    But in my post #17 I said modern versions in general. I wasn't specifying the NRSV is particular.

    I'd like you to face-off with some of the translators of TNIV and NLTse. You can charge them with tampering with God's Word, appeasing feminists, having an egalitarian agenda etc.See how far you'd get before a swift rebuke greets you and your ( to be charitable) ill-informed outlook.

    The NLTse has a great deal of "inclusive language", about as much as TNIV. I dare you to reproach the likes of Darrel Bock, D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Thomas Shreiner, Harold Hoehner, Robert Mounce and company. BTW, Dr. Mounce also contributed to the ESV and HCSB. Dr.Bock is also on TNIV's team.

    Take your time and reread post #17.
     
    #20 Rippon, Jun 10, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...