Author Topic: Bouman's letter to CORE  (Read 5791 times)

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • View Profile
Re: Bouman's letter to CORE
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2009, 08:33:13 PM »
I mean that a true and faithful Christian, especially one who is a called and ordained pastor, has faith that God's Word in Scripture is true. Anyone who claims to have been called by God and to have had his calling examined and properly discerned by the church he serves who does not have faith that God's Word is contained in Scripture ...
You've completely changed your argument. I, and I suppose perhaps a million other clergy certainly believe that "God's Word in Scripture is true," but that doesn't mean that the gospel writers always recorded exactly what Jesus said. I'd guess that most ministers have "quoted" Jesus' words in scriptures and didn't recite them verbatim from the English translation of the Greek translation; but they certainly believed that what they were proclaiming was God's Word and true and powerful.
Brian, when considering the words printed in red in my Bible would you take as your starting assumption (to be proven or disproven, accepted or rejected upon further study and evidence) that they are translations done as faithfully as the translator(s) is(are) capable from a Greek text that has been assembled from the extensive manuscript evidence available using the best principles of textual criticism that were originally written down in Greek by an author working under God's inspiration and either recording what Jesus Himself said or carefully translating it from what He said in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Or is it your working assumption that the several steps from Jesus makes the relationship between what I read in read in my Bible and what Jesus may or may not have said dubious at best and likely to have been changed to fit whatever purpose the writer or translator may have had  or even making up the saying of Jesus out of whole cloth to suit his purposes?  Do you assume that what the Gospels record as having been said by Jesus is so far removed from Jesus by oral transmittion, various translations and manuscript transmission that at best we have what people thought Jesus said, would have said, could have said, or should have said if He spoke to that topic that we have no real contact with the Jesus who lived in Palestine in the early 1st Century AD?

Dan
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 08:34:59 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Bouman's letter to CORE
« Reply #46 on: October 28, 2009, 12:20:09 AM »

You've completely changed your argument.


Welcome to The Twighlight Zone.

kyrie eleison, spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42424
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Bouman's letter to CORE
« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2009, 01:14:43 AM »
I mean that a true and faithful Christian, especially one who is a called and ordained pastor, has faith that God's Word in Scripture is true. Anyone who claims to have been called by God and to have had his calling examined and properly discerned by the church he serves who does not have faith that God's Word is contained in Scripture ...
You've completely changed your argument. I, and I suppose perhaps a million other clergy certainly believe that "God's Word in Scripture is true," but that doesn't mean that the gospel writers always recorded exactly what Jesus said. I'd guess that most ministers have "quoted" Jesus' words in scriptures and didn't recite them verbatim from the English translation of the Greek translation; but they certainly believed that what they were proclaiming was God's Word and true and powerful.
Brian, when considering the words printed in red in my Bible would you take as your starting assumption (to be proven or disproven, accepted or rejected upon further study and evidence) that they are translations done as faithfully as the translator(s) is(are) capable from a Greek text that has been assembled from the extensive manuscript evidence available using the best principles of textual criticism that were originally written down in Greek by an author working under God's inspiration and either recording what Jesus Himself said or carefully translating it from what He said in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Or is it your working assumption that the several steps from Jesus makes the relationship between what I read in read in my Bible and what Jesus may or may not have said dubious at best and likely to have been changed to fit whatever purpose the writer or translator may have had  or even making up the saying of Jesus out of whole cloth to suit his purposes?  Do you assume that what the Gospels record as having been said by Jesus is so far removed from Jesus by oral transmittion, various translations and manuscript transmission that at best we have what people thought Jesus said, would have said, could have said, or should have said if He spoke to that topic that we have no real contact with the Jesus who lived in Palestine in the early 1st Century AD?
My assumption is that these are the words God has given us/me and God speaks to us/me through these words. In some cases they are direct translations of what Jesus said. In some cases they are paraphrases of what Jesus said to better fit the point the writer was making. In a similar way when I "quote" Jesus from memory it may be exactly what's written in my Bible or it may be my own paraphrase that emphasizes a particular point -- or a product of my faulty memory.
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James Gustafson

  • Guest
Re: Bouman's letter to CORE
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2009, 06:03:29 PM »
Like most everyone else here, I too learned that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to the poor peasants of the Palestine of his day. It now seems so funny to me that we make such blanket assumptions and move forward with it and think of such conclusions as unquestionable, and form our exegesis of the scripture with such assumptions in mind, when in fact, we don't know any such thing.  The commonly held belief is that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and this Aramaic was later translated into Greek.   However, IF that is the case, there are no, none, not a single iota of hard evidence, no extant copies or fragments of pre-Greek Aramaic NT texts of any kind, none have ever been found. The only actual evidence we have, outside of assumption, is that the oldest copies of the NT texts like the NT gospels and the epistles etc., were/are in Greek.  Syrian Aramaic versions from the east seem to be later copies and for all the world seeming to be translations of the Greek and into Aramaic, not Aramaic copies of older Aramaic versions.  Additionally, the very assumption that the poor masses of first century Palestine spoke only Aramaic is flawed as well.  Much like immigrant families speak different languages in their homes than they do in the streets in the US today, first-century Palestinians were tri-lingual, and even perhaps quad-lingual.  Aramaic (new Hebrew), ancient Hebrew from the OT (the language spoken in Israel today), Greek (introduced several hundred years before) and some likely spoke Latin (introduced to the region during the time of Julius Caesar conquests) approximately 50 to 60 years before the birth of our Lord.   

This is not to say that I don't think Jesus spoke Aramaic, I believe he most likely did speak Aramaic to the public, the sermon on the mount, for example, was probably spoken in Aramaic.  But someone like Matthew (if he was a tax collector, or if Matthew was an eyewitness, or if not then someone else) could have recorded the speech almost verbatim in what is now known as a form of scribal shorthand of the day, so that they could take dictations in real time, at least thatís the argument which has been made in Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels by Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede.

Iím left wondering why we (all of us, not one side or another) are so sure of what we think we know?  Keeping an open mind and allowing new evidences to sway our opinions and arguments seems far more practical.  Perhaps Jesusí audience spoke Greek, perhaps they spoke Aramaic, but most likely, they spoke and understood both and were literate in Greek.  If they were collectively literate in Aramaic, we should have copies of Mark, for example, in Aramaic, and if Mark was first, why does it have the least amount of representation in the artifact collections?  Things like this are things one should ask oneself when they use textual and historical criticisms for developing their theologies and scriptural exegesis.   
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 06:05:14 PM by James Gustafson »

luthersterotypicus

  • Guest
Re: Bouman's letter to CORE
« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2009, 07:06:35 AM »
I read lately by a teaching theologian and at the end had a question:  Did Jesus actually say or do any of the things recorded in the Gospels?  tb

I am not surprised by this. I think his mother should be surprised why her son went to all that trouble to get a degree to say those things. Three beers and a scotch will lead to the same position, make some new friends, and all for a lot less. Why become a pilot if you are afraid of flying?

I feel for his "passengers".