-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did the Gospels give to us the exact words of Jesus, or are they a "paraphrased" recording of them?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Well, as I understand it, the New Testament was written mainly in Greek, with a few words of Aramaic. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so most of his words at least were in translation, not the exact words he said.
So we are getting the gist, the summary, of what he spoke then, correct?
...the inspired gist.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily a summary, but a translation. However, if what John wrote about what Jesus did is true, I am sure the same applies to what He said:
“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” (Joh 21:25 NKJV)
So while not the exact wording of Jesus, would be enough to know what he was attempting to teach to us then?
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes, I believe so.
Ignoring the speed bump that translations add, let's assume we are talking about the original manuscripts from the writers themselves.
If the Word of God is given by the working of the Holy Spirit, I don't see any reason for the words spoken to be paraphrased. (My reasoning. It doesn't hold any weight in the outcome, just a thought.)
How many times have you ever heard a particular preacher preach the same message again? I personally can recall one message that was titled with my name but referring to the head of the tribe of Benjamin. I later found a bulletin with the sermon title in it dated before we moved into the area. Three times in under twenty years the same sermon title was given (that I am aware of). I doubt that each time, the same words were used in delivery. Any teacher will tell you that repetition is the key to learning. Some teachers will keep telling you that. I would assume that Jesus taught a stiff-necked people who were dull of hearing, the same things several times. Jesus traveled and certainly was teaching much of the same wherever He went. Some of these similar teaching events could be explained by reasoning that they were different discourses.
There is also an option that, for recordings of the same events, things that were said were restated within the same address. One writer writing a sentence and another writing a restatement of the same thought.
Without a doubt, we have the mind of Christ given to us, paraphrased or not. If we didn't at least have a paraphrase, what would we have?
Enter the idea of translations and we have a whole different thread going.
I don't have any opinions here necessarily. These are merely possibilities to consider for "the words" point of view.
Since the sound guy was asleep for all of the recordings in question, we can't listen to the originals.
If the Word of God is given by the working of the Holy Spirit, I don't see any reason for the words spoken to be paraphrased. (My reasoning. It doesn't hold any weight in the outcome, just a thought.)
How many times have you ever heard a particular preacher preach the same message again? I personally can recall one message that was titled with my name but referring to the head of the tribe of Benjamin. I later found a bulletin with the sermon title in it dated before we moved into the area. Three times in under twenty years the same sermon title was given (that I am aware of). I doubt that each time, the same words were used in delivery. Any teacher will tell you that repetition is the key to learning. Some teachers will keep telling you that. I would assume that Jesus taught a stiff-necked people who were dull of hearing, the same things several times. Jesus traveled and certainly was teaching much of the same wherever He went. Some of these similar teaching events could be explained by reasoning that they were different discourses.
There is also an option that, for recordings of the same events, things that were said were restated within the same address. One writer writing a sentence and another writing a restatement of the same thought.
Without a doubt, we have the mind of Christ given to us, paraphrased or not. If we didn't at least have a paraphrase, what would we have?
Enter the idea of translations and we have a whole different thread going.
I don't have any opinions here necessarily. These are merely possibilities to consider for "the words" point of view.
Since the sound guy was asleep for all of the recordings in question, we can't listen to the originals.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The Jewish people were keepers of oral tradition. Few could read or write. The Apostles would have been motivated to remember the exact words of Jesus.
Matthew and John were learned. No t sure about Mark, but he certainly could write. Luke (a physician and the only gentile writer in scripture), researched diligently (according to his own testimony), which must include interviewing eye witnesses. His gospel is the longest and most detailed.
So, given the Jewish history of memorizing the oral traditions, the excellent education of Matthew and John and Luke (and perhaps Mark) and given Luke’s extensive research, I believe we have the very Words of Jesus, not a paraphrase.
Peace to you
Matthew and John were learned. No t sure about Mark, but he certainly could write. Luke (a physician and the only gentile writer in scripture), researched diligently (according to his own testimony), which must include interviewing eye witnesses. His gospel is the longest and most detailed.
So, given the Jewish history of memorizing the oral traditions, the excellent education of Matthew and John and Luke (and perhaps Mark) and given Luke’s extensive research, I believe we have the very Words of Jesus, not a paraphrase.
Peace to you
Greetings JesusFan. Thank you for your OP. I hope you are doing well.
I would say, exact in some cases and summarizing in others. For a summarizing example, the signs on the cross are recorded as saying in Matthew...
and in Mark...
and in Luke...
and in John...
As you notice, all these are different. One could reasonably assume that the sign might have said, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews". But the point is, each of the gospels would seem to be summarizing the general message of the sign.
In regard to doctrinal issues, I take them as exact and verbatim (along with the message as context). I was speaking to someone one time and they wanted to tell me that there was no way that the persons that wrote the gospels remembered all that stuff exactly. My response was, first, with the inspiring Spirit, all things are capable of being remembered. Second, I told him. You seem to have no problem believing that there is a God, He sent his Son. This Son died and rose from the grave three days later. Ascended into heaven and sets on the right hand of God the Father. But you can't believe a person can remember events many years later?
Peace to your brother
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Multiple languages could be involved in the difference also.