For quite
some time I believed that the red letter words are the words of the Lord Jesus
Christ. But when I came to understand that these words may not be the exact
words of Jesus, I was disappointed.
Two
questions are in order: (1) Is it certain that the red letter words are not the
words of Jesus? (2) If so, how does it
impact our faith in the Lord Jesus?
First, how do we know for certain that the red
letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus?
New
Testament scholar, Daniel B. Wallace claims that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus, “Scholars
are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to
get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A
comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the
evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical
sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the
latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential
thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are
highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews
the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort
to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is
a false comfort.” 1
Dr. William
Lane Craig believes that every serious
student of the Gospels should avoid the use of the red letter editions of the
Gospels. He writes:2
The Gospels were written in Greek,
but Jesus taught in Aramaic. So even a red letter edition of the Greek New
Testament would not give us the actual words of Jesus.
Granted, Jesus probably spoke Greek,
at least enough to get by in his trade as a carpenter, since Greek was the
common language of the Roman Empire, as a result of the pre-Roman conquests by
Alexander the Great. Even though the Romans spoke Latin, in their dealings with
Palestinians, they probably conversed in Greek—hence, the arresting centurion’s
question to Paul: “Do you know Greek?” (Acts 21.37).
But in teaching his fellow Jews Jesus
would naturally have spoken Aramaic. So what we have in the Gospels are Greek
translations of what Jesus claimed and taught. Only rarely do we get glimpses
of the original Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, as for example, Jesus’ words
from the cross given in Mark: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?’” (Mark 15.34).
Moreover, we need to keep in mind
that in a culture that lacked even the device of quotation marks, the
distinction between direct and indirect discourse can be blurred. Read the
account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel 3.10-21,
ignoring the quotation marks introduced by the English translators, and ask
yourself where John’s direct quotation of Jesus ends and John’s commentary
begins. Or read Galatians 2.11-21 about Paul’s public dispute with Peter and
ask yourself where Paul stops recording what he said at the time and begins his
present reflections upon what happened. It’s not clear. So in a culture where
the distinction between direct and indirect discourse is not always clear,
giving a paraphrase or the gist of what a person said rather than his very
words is perfectly acceptable.
The Gospel writers employed common
techniques of their day in giving the teachings of Jesus, such as paraphrase,
summary, omission, clarification, contextualization, and so on.
So it’s very misleading to print
Jesus’ words in red, as though we have the original words of Jesus recorded
there.
What we want to show is that the
Gospel writers gave an accurate representation of what Jesus of Nazareth said
and taught. This is where New Testament historical-critical scholarship can be
helpful. Scholars will sometimes say that in a particular teaching attributed
to Jesus, we hear the very voice of Jesus (ipsissima
vox); that is to say, something that renders very closely (in Greek) what
Jesus said. His teaching on the Kingdom of God would be a good example.
Everyone recognizes that the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom or
reign lay at the heart of the teaching of Jesus. On other occasions, scholars
think that we have the very words (ipsissima
verba) of Jesus, that is, a Greek expression that translates almost
verbatim what Jesus said. His use of the expression “the Son of Man” as a term
of self-reference would be a good example. Instances of this sort would have
the best claim to be printed in red; but then we artificially mar the Gospels
by such a device...
The use of red letter editions of the
Gospels ought to be shunned by serious students of the Gospels, since the device
is fundamentally misleading as to the nature of the Gospel accounts.
It is now
clear that the red letter words need not necessarily be the very words of the
Lord Jesus.
Second, how does this impact my faith?
Although I
was disappointed that the red letter words may not be the very words of our
Lord Jesus, I am thankful to the New Testament scholars for their integrity and honesty in reporting the
truth.
We may not possess
the original writings of the Biblical authors (the autographs). But we possess
an embarrassment of riches of the New
Testament manuscripts. The field of Textual Criticism offers us a way to
retrieve the writings of the autographs from the available manuscripts.
Thereby, we understand that the Bible we have is the same as that of the
autographs (99.5% pure and without any doctrinal distortion). Thus we are
confident of the reliability of the New Testament.
The fact
that the Bible is reliable and that it records the very thoughts or the very
voice of Jesus offers me the greatest confidence and comfort. The icing on the
cake would have been the authenticity of the red letter words. But it does not
matter!
Endnotes:
1https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/
2https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/red-letter-gospels
Websites last accessed on 13th November 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment