Hi,
In another version discussion board, 1 Cor 11:24 was brought up.
KJV: "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."
NASB: "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
This is a textual variation, some Greek manuscripts containing "broken" and some not.
Note that that passage is quoting Christ from the Gospels. In the KJV, the quote comes from:
Matt 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."
Mark 14:22 "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."
Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."
None of the Gospels have Christ saying his body is broken. Christ broke the *bread*: was this symbolic of breaking his body, and is this where the "broken" quote in 1 Cor 11:24 comes from? How do we reconcile this reading in the KJV with John 19:33-36 ("For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken", a fulfillment of the description of the passover lamb, Exodus 12:46).
Which reading of 1 Cor 11:24 do you believe is correct, and why? For those that believe "broken" should be in 1 Cor 11:24, can you explain why, taking into account the passover aspect?
[ December 14, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
Christ's body, broken for you
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Dec 14, 2002.
Page 1 of 6
-
Brian T,
Is this a trick question?
Yours Truly,
Heidi -
No.
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
Verse 23 clearly tells us that Paul received this revelation from the Lord Himself. He was not quoting anyone else.
1Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you , That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (KJV)
Since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour much later than Matthew who was writing from the perspective of one who was actually there, we have to assume that these are the exact words that the Lord would have us use when we observe the Lord's Supper.
[ December 14, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ] -
"broken" has more than one meaning.
His body was broken. He was exhausted. Jesus died quickly because He was exhausted from the ordeal (sleepless night, beatings, whippings, crown of thorns, etc...) that led up to his crucifixion.
Psalms 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
HankD -
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
I was trying to point out the error of your assertion when you attributed this verse to being a quote from the gospels.
I will have to check into the textual variant aspect of it.
[ December 14, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ] -
When Jesus says that "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" in 1 Corinthians 11:24. It does not contradict the gospels. It expands on what they said. This is the same principle where Jesus says that "cock crow" in verses Matthew 26:32, Luke 22:32, and John 13:36, while in verse Mark 14:27 he says, "cock crow twice."
What Paul gives is more detail that the others did not include. Remember that God through the Holy Spirit directly moved these men to write the scriptures. There are other places the give evidence of God giving information to the writer that he would not have other wise. -
If the KJV didn't have "broken" in 1 Cor 11:24, and the NASB did, would not the NASB be accused of going against John 19:33-36 needlessly, detracting from the passover connection of Christ's crucifixion?
Do those who believe the "broken" reading is correct, believe the NASB's "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." to be in error? Why? (and "because that's what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write" or "because that's what the KJV says" is a circular argument. ;) )
[ December 15, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ] -
[ December 15, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: JYD ] -
-
Brian T;
What do you look for when reading God's word clearity or fault?.If you found clearity would you know what to do with it.Or if fault how would you know it was fault?.
Romanbear
Peace -
I have no problem accepting God's word as is.It's not hard try it;your argument is built on sinking sand. -
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
This is why we oppose the use of marginal and foot notes to discuss textual variants. All that is accomplished is the planting of doubt in the mind of the reader as to the accuracy of the translation. This thread is a case in point.
How comforting it is to sit down and read the Word of God without having doubts or questions regarding it's authority. -
-
The Breaking of the bread is a picture of the extreme abuse our Lord suffered for our sins. It is, therefore, my assertion that the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 11:24 would be to include the word "broken." The Lord's Supper is a memorial of his death and the brutality of it.
Please note: I do not defend the KJV because I was told it is best. I grew up with the NIV. I did extensive study on the subject. Later I will begin a thread that has some of my findings so that they may be discussed. I am presently reviewing the 20 or so books that I have on the subject (from both sides of the argument) to insure that I represent things in an accurate manner.
[ December 15, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: 2peter1_10 ] -
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
Translators to the Reader
The marginal notes did not discuss textual variants. The translators were very clear what the marginal notes were for. If the translators had any question about the text, they put the word and/or phrase in italics.
[ December 15, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ] -
According to Scrivener, of 767 notes in the NT, 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions, 582 give alternative renderings, 112 give a more literal rendering of the Greek than the translators judged suitable for the text, and 37 give readings of different MSS. Did you note that last one??? In 37 places, the KJV translators felt constrained (by the Holy Spirit??) to admit that other manuscripts differed and may indeed be the right ones. What is clear from their own words is that modern KJV proponents have much more confidence in the translators than they had in themselves. It is a confidence that they would have decried.
This article will be helpful: web page From this page, go to DBSJ -- Volume 1, Number 2: Fall, 1996 and read the article entitled "The Preface to the KJV and the KJV Only Position." I can't load the article at present, but this link will get you to the right page.
Page 1 of 6