100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Verb tense questions in the gospels... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 03/29/08 07:51 PM
|
|
Throughout the gospels there are quotes which have been attributed to Jesus, some of which were spoken in first person, many of which are spoken in third person. I wonder of the inconsistencies, and whether or not there can be any direct correlations and or conclusions made by comparison?
In Matthew 20:18-19 , where Jesus is reported to have predicted his own death, it reads as follows...NIV "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" I find it quite curious that he referred to himself as him instead of me. But later, in the same book, it is quoted as if Jesus spoke in first person... Matthew 26:45-46... Then he returned to the disciples and said to them " Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" Not only does the verb tense change into first person within Jesus' words, but even more curious is the fact that the author uses the terms "the disciples". This is actually quite common throughout the synoptic gospels. It seems like if the author truly did witness these things, then it would have been written in first person... throughout each writing... does it not? Also in Matthew 10:2 when it names the disciples, the author calls Matthew by name. If Matthew(Levi) would have written this book, would he not have referred to himself as "me"? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sealove42
on
Sat 03/29/08 08:08 PM
|
|
Maybe he was speaking of what is written of what must happen to the Son of God. He knew the old testament, and knew what needed to happen in order to fill the prophesy. I am not a thumper, just always aksing some of the same question and trying to understand what is meant.
All things of Christ was in God's Perfect Will, therefore, all was predestined to happen, therefore written in the old testament, when a Jewish person read or heard him talk they might refer to the scrolls or the lesson they had learned since early childhood, and they would have known what he was referring to by what he said. That is my I think so, but i can ask at church if you like. TAB It is a really good question, and one that leaves room for research. Hopefully in that research you might find the faith that is more important that the word and verbage.. Take Care, I like your questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when he refers to imself in the third person, he's alluding to prophecies given in the Hebrew scriptures, what modern Christians call the Old Testament.
It's important to understand that Jesus was, first and foremost (during his time on Earth at least) a Jewish Rabbi, in an age when every Hebrew child had memorized inside and out the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Torah, by ten or eleven years old. Things are said and alluded to throughout the New Testament that we, two thousand years later, don't even catch, but to a Hebrew living in that place and at that time, were packed with significance and meaning. A good example: when we refer to Jesus' teaching to "go the extra mile," we think its meaning is obvious--and to an extent it is--but what many people today don't know is that this was incredibly significant for its day: by Roman law, any visiting Roman could tell a Jew to carry his things as he traveled and the Jew would be obligated to oblige for one mile. "If you are told to walk a mile, walk two" takes on a whole new meaning when you've got luggage on your back and you'll be put in jail if you don't, huh? Anyway, all that to say that the literary environment and culture in which the Gospels--indeed, the entire Bible--was written, was very different from our own, and it's important to understand these things in context, instead of assuming that since a passage doesn't quite meet our modern way of writing and thinking, it must be flawed, or that there's some deep mystery there. Cheers, and God bless!  MarsNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
much better said ... nice job. I am great with lameman terms.
Well Done TAB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throughout the gospels there are quotes which have been attributed to Jesus, some of which were spoken in first person, many of which are spoken in third person. I wonder of the inconsistencies, and whether or not there can be any direct correlations and or conclusions made by comparison? In Matthew 20:18-19 , where Jesus is reported to have predicted his own death, it reads as follows...NIV "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" I find it quite curious that he referred to himself as him instead of me. But later, in the same book, it is quoted as if Jesus spoke in first person... Matthew 26:45-46... Then he returned to the disciples and said to them " Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" Not only does the verb tense change into first person within Jesus' words, but even more curious is the fact that the author uses the terms "the disciples". This is actually quite common throughout the synoptic gospels. It seems like if the author truly did witness these things, then it would have been written in first person... throughout each writing... does it not? Also in Matthew 10:2 when it names the disciples, the author calls Matthew by name. If Matthew(Levi) would have written this book, would he not have referred to himself as "me"? Anyone have any of Charles Swindoll's books? He is a well known Bible scholar and goes into the linguistics of it all. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars:
Hmmmmm... If the suggestion applied throughout the gospels every time Jesus was quoted while referring to Old Testament prophecy, then I would agree with that conclusion. However, the text contradicts that suggestion many times over... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many other times throughout the gospels when Jesus is speaking to both, his disciples and others(Pharisees and the public) in which he refers to Old Testament prophecy while speaking in terms of "I" and "me"... rather than "him"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MarsNeverSleeps
on
Sat 03/29/08 09:25 PM
|
|
True. But again, it's a matter of context and the message he was was conveying.
He does a similar thing when he sometimes referred to himself as the "son of man," and at others the "son of God." Just because he's not "consistent" with one or the other doesn't mean there's necessarily a contradiction. On the contrary, he is revealing many aspects of the same world and the same God by making use of these sometimes subtle discrepancies. When he refers to himself as the son of man, it's a reference to Elijah, and to Adam: his fully human nature, having descended from Adam. Son of God, of course, refers to his fully divine nature, being not simply the son of God but God Himself in the flesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The suggestion should apply everywhere if it applies anywhere.
Does he refer to himself as the Son of God? Hmmmm... It seems like I recall the self-references attributed to Jesus as being the "Son of Man"... Not that I am doubting your statement, as much as I am questioning my own memory, which is usually reliable... although not always, I gaurantee... Homework time... I wonder if there is any correlation between these two seemingly different subtleties? I wonder if they correspond somehow? By your wording in which you say "'he's' not consistent", and "'he' is revealing", I would venture to guess that you believe that all which has been attributed to Jesus is authentic in nature. Is that an accurate conclusion? I fail to understand how anything more could be revealed by the repeated verb tense changes contained within those manuscripts, other than it strongly suggests different authors, at different times, attempting to correlate their own words to that which had previously been written. The same stories are sometimes nearly verbatim in the synoptics, while others speak of the same events, yet quote Jesus in different verb tenses... All of that is not so easily brushed aside as if it is insignificant. It very well may be insignificant, yet it also very well may be reason to wonder who's words were who's... Should the authenticity be rendered false, then what must follow? I understand the importance to one who believes the Bible as if it is 'God'... I do not... I cannot... I was given quite a different perspective than most from those words, which resonated as truth for myself... Within myself... Which is where they led me to... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might have to go to the originals to find out if this was so in the original languages, or just a result of the type of translation you're reading. Either that or compare several translations to see if it's the same in all or most and then go from there.
If the lingo's shifting, there could be a reason. There's a lot of stuff in scripture I just don't understand, but I'm sure there's a reason somewhere. Might could make an interesting sermon for someone. There's preachers out there that could turn some good points with this type of thing. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am no scholar... for sure...
But, how can "I" be translated from or into "he" , or "me" from or into "him"? Or how can the same word(s) be translated into either without some consistency as to why? Homework... definitely... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sat 03/29/08 10:52 PM
|
|
Throughout the gospels there are quotes which have been attributed to Jesus, some of which were spoken in first person, many of which are spoken in third person. I wonder of the inconsistencies, and whether or not there can be any direct correlations and or conclusions made by comparison? In Matthew 20:18-19 , where Jesus is reported to have predicted his own death, it reads as follows...NIV "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" I find it quite curious that he referred to himself as him instead of me. But later, in the same book, it is quoted as if Jesus spoke in first person... Matthew 26:45-46... Then he returned to the disciples and said to them " Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" Not only does the verb tense change into first person within Jesus' words, but even more curious is the fact that the author uses the terms "the disciples". This is actually quite common throughout the synoptic gospels. It seems like if the author truly did witness these things, then it would have been written in first person... throughout each writing... does it not? Also in Matthew 10:2 when it names the disciples, the author calls Matthew by name. If Matthew(Levi) would have written this book, would he not have referred to himself as "me"? Jesus, fully human, the Son of Man, died and rose as the first of many to follow, with the pre-eminence of all in His company, the Church. Collosians 1:15-18. Jesus, fully God, the Son of God cannot die.John 1:1-18, principally ending with verse 18. I take it to mean that God was speaking of the humanity of Jesus dying, not the divinity within him. The sticky part is that he lives without the blood that is required for life in the flesh. His body didn't see corruption but his spilled blood is still in the earth. Imagine that. Would that man should find the location and actually find some dna intact, eh? as the Son of Man, Jesus said this in Luke 22:48. "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? as the Son of God, Jesus said this in John10:36.Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? having been an answer for John9:35-38.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, I see what you're getting at, Creative. That I can't answer for sure, but I will say that it probably has to do with a few factors: first, many Christians assume that all the books of the Bible were written without bias. That's silly though. No one is devoid of bias. Even some of the letters in the New Testament begin with "I am writing to you so that..." There is intent in each book. So that could be one thing; difference in intent leading to slightly different recordings of the story.
Also, the Gospels were scribed years after the events took place. There's certainly going to be a little bit of discrepancy from that, though I don't think any of it from that source is going to be significant. <quote>By your wording in which you say "'he's' not consistent", and "'he' is revealing", I would venture to guess that you believe that all which has been attributed to Jesus is authentic in nature. Is that an accurate conclusion? </quote> Yes, I do believe that everything attributed to Him is authentic. Even though the books of the Bible were written by fallible man, and often recorded many years after the events they describe, and compiled by fallible man into the 66 books we know and love today, all this was done by people who had consciously (with a very few notable exceptions) submitted themselves to the will of God. I don't believe the Bible *is* god..that's taking John 1:1 a little far I think...but I do believe, for the reason I just described, that it is the perfect, infallible, and yes, living, breathing message from the Creator to His creation. Umm..is that everything? *glances at Creative's post* Hope so. It's bed time... -__-zzzzz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when he refers to imself in the third person, he's alluding to prophecies given in the Hebrew scriptures, what modern Christians call the Old Testament. It's important to understand that Jesus was, first and foremost (during his time on Earth at least) a Jewish Rabbi, in an age when every Hebrew child had memorized inside and out the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Torah, by ten or eleven years old. Things are said and alluded to throughout the New Testament that we, two thousand years later, don't even catch, but to a Hebrew living in that place and at that time, were packed with significance and meaning. A good example: when we refer to Jesus' teaching to "go the extra mile," we think its meaning is obvious--and to an extent it is--but what many people today don't know is that this was incredibly significant for its day: by Roman law, any visiting Roman could tell a Jew to carry his things as he traveled and the Jew would be obligated to oblige for one mile. "If you are told to walk a mile, walk two" takes on a whole new meaning when you've got luggage on your back and you'll be put in jail if you don't, huh? Anyway, all that to say that the literary environment and culture in which the Gospels--indeed, the entire Bible--was written, was very different from our own, and it's important to understand these things in context, instead of assuming that since a passage doesn't quite meet our modern way of writing and thinking, it must be flawed, or that there's some deep mystery there. Cheers, and God bless! MarsNS CtrativeSoul...in answer to your question, MarsNeverSleeps explained it very well Well said, MarsNS 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True. But again, it's a matter of context and the message he was was conveying. He does a similar thing when he sometimes referred to himself as the "son of man," and at others the "son of God." Just because he's not "consistent" with one or the other doesn't mean there's necessarily a contradiction. On the contrary, he is revealing many aspects of the same world and the same God by making use of these sometimes subtle discrepancies. When he refers to himself as the son of man, it's a reference to Elijah, and to Adam: his fully human nature, having descended from Adam. Son of God, of course, refers to his fully divine nature, being not simply the son of God but God Himself in the flesh. Well said, MarsNS. Excellent!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative.
You remember Yahshua had said at the Temple. My Fathers house is a house of prayer. Matt 21:12-13 ThenYahshua went into the temple of Elohim and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.'" NKJV Now this was on the 10th day of the 1st month when all the Israelites brought thier Passover lamb into thier houses as a pet untill they killed it at Passover... Ex 12:1-6 Now Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: 'On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. 4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. NKJV Now Yahshua entered Jerusalem on this day as the Lamb of Yahweh without spot or blimish. The 1st thing he does? Enters his fathers house. Now the disciples had said before they did not understand when he said I must leave and where I go you can not follow. Peter even thought at that time he could endure death with Yahshua when he was about to be betrayed. When he refered to himself as Him. IMO. He already knew they would not understand and they would be upset when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey. Thier are more recorded acts and sayings in these 4 days from Yahshua than the whole rest of his ministry. Kinda like if you knew u were to die in a few days you would want to pass on all you knew to them before you were gone. Now back to your verse s that do not seem right. Matt 20:17-20 Now Yahshua, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, 18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again." NKJV When he said HIM he was telling them this as they remembered what he had said. That he truely was the son of man. The we was just saying we are going to Jerusalem. The Him was for them to remember and understand after Yahshua's Death. Thier are many places recorded later on them understanding after Yahshua's death what he was really saying. Blessings of Shalom...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Milesoftheusa
on
Sun 03/30/08 05:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Milesoftheusa
on
Sun 03/30/08 05:35 AM
|
|
Here in Mathew he had already given the symbols of his body and Blood spilt for them the NT. He had no reason to say him as he had plainly told them thier what was getting ready to happen. Preparing them in his last hours.
Then he returned to the disciples and said to them " Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" He had been off praying. This night the people were to stay up all night as they did when the death Angel Passed Over. When he gave them the emblems he had sealed his fate. The blood now was protecting them. Satan had even tried to get Peter to enterfere and Yahshua knew it . What did he say? During that night you will notice people were warming by fires, The High Priests were up. People said he is one of his disciples. The soldiers came to get Yahshua because of Judas and the Passover tradition of letting a prisoner loose. Why would the soldiers find it so important to go get Yahshua in the early morning? Everything was being done just like the 1st Passover. Yahshua even prayed do not let these Disciples be taken. Who would try to take them? This was alittle extra information. But u know me I talk to much Blessings...Miles |
|
|
|
|
