The Conflicting Words of GOD?

[Guest]

At the baptism of jesus, (a singular event), God speaks in the third person in Matthews Gospel, and the second person in Mark's.

and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

How do "inspired" writers come up with two different phrasings?

jd

[Guest]

According to Eusebeus, Mark was the interpreter for Peter and his goal was to record the main points of the story given him, without compromising on the truth of what happened. In other words, something like this may have gotten lost in the translation when Peter told him the story. You actually find things like this frequenly in the gospels. One could argue that what's "inspired" is the meaning of the text, not the exact wording. Take, for example, the following phrases:

1) God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

2) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

3) God created everything that exists.

These three phrases differ more than most discrepancies we find in the gospels, yet the meaning is hard to miss. If God inspired three writers to communicate the idea that he made everything, all of these would equally get the point across.

This is a different point from the question you asked but it's good to remember. Jesus, more than likely, spoke Aramaic but the gospels were written down in Greek. This means the writers had to think of a way to translate what Jesus said into the common language. Luke might phrase something a little differently than Matthew, but the meaning isn't lost. I hold the view that what's "inspired" is the meaning of the text.

Of course, someone may offer a more reasonable answer that I've simply overlooked. That's the great thing about a forum like this.

[Guest]

Hello JC.

YOu said that one could argue the "inspiration" means the meaning..........but one could argue its more than the meaning as well. (which i think is the main view of scripture)
Inspiration meaning God Breathed............
So how does that assertion help?

Your example of God creating the earth isnt analagous to the verses that i gave.
In the verses i gave, God is reported as speaking to different people in the two gospels, but the event is singular.
Either God said "you", or HE said "this"............
This sure seems to undermine the idea that the texts are from GOD, and they are without error. no??
If i was skeptical, it seems you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too.


The aramaic has a separate word for "you" and "this", so i dont think the last point helps. They would of known what word was used, and they properly interpreted it that way.

jd

[Guest]

there were no quotation marks in the original, which may provide some guidance. if the voice said "you are my beloved son..." which is likely, since it was meant as an encouragement to Jesus as he started his ministry, then witnesses might have simply been summarizing what was said vs. quoting verbatim.

here's an example:

The President told the troops, "You are doing a great job."

this might later be reported as: The President told the troops "they were doing a great job." not an exact quote, and actually an improper quote, but as previously stated there were no quotation marks in the original scriptures.

Jim-- i am a tad curious-- does this really bother you (as in shaking your faith) or are you just bringing this up for fun (which is perfectly fine!).

TK

[Guest]

TK's answer was perhaps better than mine, since I was addressing the concept of "inspiration" and he spoke to your question directly. However, since you asked... I'm not concerned with what a skeptic might think of my views. I'm only concerned with what is true. What a person thinks of me, personally, is irrelevent. Perhaps you need to grow thicker skin.

You are correct in saying that I hold a less popular view of the inspiration of scripture but I came to my conclusions based on comparing all the available data. I believe the books that make up our bible are God's revelation to mankind. Are there copyist errors or differences in the wording of some passages between manuscripts... yes. Some. Does it matter? Well, I've been studying this quite intensely for 10 years and Steve G has been doing so for 40 years.... neither of us have been shaken by anything we've seen in our research. Are you just now learning about bible discrepancies? If so, I can understand being a bit rattled but I'd also exhort you to keep going. Remeber the proverb... the first to plead his case seems right, until another comes along to dispute him. Through cross-examining these discrepancies, I've found a number of alternative explainations. Of those alternatives, one is probably correct but the fact that there ARE alternative explainations should ease your mind a bit.

God bless you, brother.

[Guest]

of course it is always possible that God said BOTH-- i.e. Jesus heard one thing and the bystanders heard another. this may be the best explanation. supernatural, yes, but I think God falls into this category.

TK

[Guest]

Literary Freedom and the Hellenistic Biographer/Historian

Those who do not believe the New Testament gospels provide much reliable historical information about Jesus often point to variations in the wording of sayings as they appear in different gospels, or to differences in the order of events between gospels. For example, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice from heaven speaks, but the words differ slightly in Matthew and Mark (Luke agrees with Mark).

Matthew 3:17 - And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

Mark 1:11 - And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

This sort of difference delights detractors of the gospels and perplexes the faithful. It would be pretty hard to argue that the voice from heaven said the same sentence twice in slightly different ways (though I expect this argument has been made somewhere). No, it seems more likely that Matthew and Mark use slightly different words for the same vocal event. If Matthew was using Mark, he made a few changes. (Or it happened the other way around.) Does this prove that one of the gospels is wrong? Does this mean that either Matthew or Mark was a sloppy historian?

Not if we see them in terms of their own time and culture. Yes, we expect historians and biographers to quote their sources with precision. My friend Ronald C. White Jr., for example, wrote a highly acclaimed study of Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural, Lincoln's Greatest Speech. If Ron had misquoted Lincoln's words, or paraphrased then and put them in quotation marks, Ron would have been blasted by critics. In fact, his book would never have been published.

Yet in the ancient world, before there were transcripts, tape recordings, and podcasts, biographers and historians exercised greater freedom in paraphrasing or slightly altering spoken words for stylistic reasons. Quotation marks didn't exist in Greek of the first-century A.D. A good historian, if he knew that a character had made a speech at a certain time, would get available information about that speech and then write the speech with his own words. Nowadays, a historian who did this would be considered sloppy at best, or even dishonest. (Remember the case of Jayson Blair, not a historian, but a reporter for the New York Times. He disgraced the Times and himself by, among other things, making up quotes that his sources could have side, but didn't in fact say.)

So, assuming for a moment that Matthew used Mark as a source, if we evaluate Matthew according to today's standards, then we'd say he's not very reliable. Yet this sort of anachronistic approach is unhelpful, not to mention unfair to Matthew. For reasons of style or story, Matthew was doing what historians or biographers in his day were expected to do. Nobody would have accused him of falsehood. The proof of this is obvious and, I think, incontrovertible. Both Matthew and Mark were accepted as authoritative in the early church, even though there are many variations in wording such as we find in the baptism of Jesus, or the ordering of events, etc. The early Christians didn't see this as a problem because that's what they were accustomed to in their biographical and historical writings.

Biblical scholars sometimes make a helpful distinction between the ipsissima vox (his own voice) and the ipsissima verba (his own words) of Jesus. In most cases, the gospel writers sought to preserve the ipsissima vox of Jesus, not the ipsissima verba. Of course since Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language, and since the gospels were written in Greek, they almost never preserve Jesus's actual words. An exception would be Jesus's provocative use of Abba (Aramaic for "father") in addressing God, and other places where the gospels record the Aramaic words of Jesus.

source
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/re ... liable.htm

[Guest]

JD wrote:

How do "inspired" writers come up with two different phrasings?

What a coincidence! On my way to work I was thinking the same topic.

It is true that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit but what was inspired was the IDEA only. The Holy Spirit gave them the idea and it's up to the writer to write the idea in his own style. That is why you will see different author writing the same idea in different styles.

[Guest]

Hello, soaringeagle,

Thank you for your posting.

Yet in the ancient world, before there were transcripts, tape recordings, and podcasts, biographers and historians exercised greater freedom in paraphrasing or slightly altering spoken words for stylistic reasons. Quotation marks didn't exist in Greek of the first-century A.D. A good historian, if he knew that a character had made a speech at a certain time, would get available information about that speech and then write the speech with his own words. ...

For reasons of style or story, Matthew was doing what historians or biographers in his day were expected to do. Nobody would have accused him of falsehood. The proof of this is obvious and, I think, incontrovertible. Both Matthew and Mark were accepted as authoritative in the early church, even though there are many variations in wording such as we find in the baptism of Jesus, or the ordering of events, etc. The early Christians didn't see this as a problem because that's what they were accustomed to in their biographical and historical writings. ...

Biblical scholars sometimes make a helpful distinction between the ipsissima vox (his own voice) and the ipsissima verba (his own words) of Jesus. In most cases, the gospel writers sought to preserve the ipsissima vox of Jesus, not the ipsissima verba.

This may allow us to engage the gospel writers more charitably, but it does not fully bolster confidence in their historical reliability. Historically speaking, the ipissima verba are preferable to even a well-intentioned paraphrase, which adds a layer of interpretation.

I suppose it is appropriate that we term the gospels "The gospel according to Matthew" and "The gospel according to Mark," rather than "The gospel according to Jesus."

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Paul,

Thank you for your posting.

It is true that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit but what was inspired was the IDEA only. The Holy Spirit gave them the idea and it's up to the writer to write the idea in his own style. That is why you will see different author writing the same idea in different styles.

So though they are the words of men, they are called the Word of God?

Shlamaa,
Emmet