The Lord's body

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    129
    Here's just something I observed this week concerning 1 Corinthians 11:29 and the Lord's body.

    ο γαρ εσθιων και πινων αναξιως κριμα εαυτω εσθιει και πινει μη διακρινων το σωμα του κυριου 1 Corinthians 11:29 TR1550 – Stephen's

    [translation of underlined section - "body of the Lord" or "Lord's body"]

    …as translated in the NKJV:

    "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."



    ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα. 1 Corinthians 11:29 NA27

    [translation of underlined word – "body"]

    …as translated in the NASB95:

    For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.


    There's not a problem with interpretation here, most (if not all) agree that it is the Lord's body described in this verse.


    >>>>What I found interesting is the different ways the NIV handled it (both of which tend to follow a critical text [NA27]). <<<<

    For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29 (NIV84)

    For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:29 (NIV2011)

    QUESTION: Why do you think translators made the change? – I've got my opinion I'll share later.

    Rob
     
    #1 Deacon, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Since the NIV (both editions) follow a 'critical text' reading rather than the fuller 'majority' or 'TR' text (σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου) the English words "of the Lord" or "of Christ" are each clarifying additions made by the translators without the actual underlying support of their Greek source. Therefore, they have some latitude in which to chose those clarifying words.

    They may have felt that "body of the Lord" could be misunderstood as a reference to the triune God (sometimes Lord=Godhead). God is spirit and has no "body"; but (Jesus) Christ does have a body. So, they may have favored the editorial insertion "body of Christ" as being less theologically confusing.

    [It also makes it appear less likely that they are accepting the Byzantine reading here.]
     
    #2 franklinmonroe, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  3. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NASB is not I translation I know, and I hold no brief for it, but in view of the way it translates the verses leading up to the one in question, who else's body could be meant, even without the qualifying "the Lord's"? Here is Corinthians 11:236-29 from that translation (emphases mine):
    26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    129
    I couldn't have said it better.
    The minor change better reflects the translational methods noted in the preface.

    Rob
     
  5. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I might take a poke at the issue, I see the newest translation as "the body of Christ" as a reference to the entire church, which is often called "the body of Christ" in against Christ's physical body itself.

    The use of "soma" does make the translation effort a tad more difficult, as if true "fleshly body" was indicated the original writer may have decided to use "sarx" instead of "soma." So, we are left to decide, based in context, as to whether Paul is speaking of the church -- the body of Christ -- or of Christ's fleshly body (as interpreted by Roman Catholic Church).

    With that in mind, there may be a good inclination to prefer a reference to the church as the body of Christ than to the actual "sarx" or "fleshly body" of Christ Himself.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Just reading the two NIV versions, I see these changes:

    1) recognizing to discerning
    2) body of the Lord to body of Christ
    3) changing eats and drinks to eat and drink to plural toalign gender alteration
    4) himself to themselves.

    So changes 3 and 4 were to clarify the inclusive nature of the observation, Paul was not excluding females.

    Change 2 goes along with changing pronouns into their antecedents for clarity, here Lord could refer to the Father, or Son, or perhaps the master of the house where the meal was served. Since the translators believe Christ is the Lord in view, they altered the text.

    1) This change actually improves the translation. I think Paul's idea was we should not commune with other believers, i.e. the body of Christ, if we are not in fellowship with Christ, rather we should separate ourselves from the body of Christ. So discerning is better than recognizing, but "not separating themselves from the body of Christ" seems to be the actual idea.

    So a good translation would be "Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, not separating themselves from the body of Christ, eats and drinks judgment on themselves."
     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    A few days I answered a question about the Holy Spirit so I did a word search where spirit is used and then saw where the references were to the Holy Spirit.

    The following are just a few cases in the beginning of Matthew.
    [FONT=&quot]the spirit of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]by the spirit[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]the spirit[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]the spirit of your father[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]my spirit[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]the spirit of me (my spirit)
    [/FONT]
    the Holy Spirit

    There are many different constructions that to refer to the same thing.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    A few days I answered a question about the Holy Spirit so I did a word search where spirit is used and then saw where the references were to the Holy Spirit.

    The following are just a few cases in the beginning of Matthew.
    the spirit of God
    by the spirit
    the spirit
    the spirit of your father
    my spirit
    the spirit of me (my spirit)

    the Holy Spirit

    There are many different constructions that to refer to the same thing.
     
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many constructs FOR THAT TERM, but using it to illustrate the topic at hand is equivocation. It does not necessarily play that the phrase in question is used in this manner in the text.
     
  10. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    But wouldn't a person taking the ordinance of partaking of the communion be ina sense making light, mocking the sacrifice of jesus for his sins though?

    So wouldn't that fit the context of it refferong to jesus Himself?

    PS NOT catholic, so NOT supporting it due to that!
     
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The issue is not whether body of the Lord refers to the assembly of believers eating and drinking in rememberence of our Lord's broken body and the new covenant in His spilled blood. It does!!!

    Those that come to communion and disrupt it by ungodly behavior should not come, and if they do, they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.
     

Share This Page

Loading...