What were Jesus's actual words ?

by aligot ripounsous 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Just a thought, which no doubt has been already expressed on here, if not in the same form.

  We know how much emphasis the WTS puts on teaching that the gospels are authentic historical reports. However, we can see at least one domain where this historicity must be considered cautiously. As we all have noticed, John's gospel style is quite particular and you can say right away if a sentence is drawn from John's gospel. This is also true of Jesus's words when reported by John. So, since Jesus was evidently speaking in only one style and would not use a specific way of talking in events reported by John, we can draw the conclusion, unless of course we consider John's gospel as spurious because it is too different from the three other gospels, that we actually don't know precisely what were Jesus's actual words. If we extend that reasoning to the whole Bible, we will view the latter as a message that God delivered to men where all that we can, and have to, do is get the general drift thereof, with literal exegesis being largely useless.
• 

  Narkissos

  Bonsoir a.r.

  I guess any reader with some literary sense comes to a similar realisation sooner or later. The WT practice of overinterpreting Greek etymologies and nuances in what they actually believe to be Jesus' own words (which logically should have been spoken in Aramaic) is especially ludicrous in this perspective.

  Otoh, once you come to realise how little you can gather through the Gospel texts about the supposed "history behind the texts," the focus shifts back to the texts themselves, as the only solid "object" of study and research.

  From a more religious angle: what if you realise that the Johannine Jesus is a literary construction, and yet that is the one you are especially fond of? Will you love him less because he is "not historical"?
• 

  Leolaia

  Here's one interesting little detail....

  John 3 presents a conversation between Jesus and a Pharisee named Nicodemus and it humorously features a misunderstanding on Nicodemus' part (3:4), which pictures a person crawling back inside one's womb to be born a second time. In his response, Jesus corrects the misunderstanding by clarifying that he was talking about being born in the Spirit, and thus he was "speaking of heavenly things" and that it is the Son of Man "who came from heaven" and who can reveal these things (v. 5-13). This whole conversation turns on the Greek word anóthen, which could either mean "from above" (i.e. being born from above, i.e. heaven, cf. James 1:17, 3:15) or "again" (cf. Galatians 4:9), and it is the latter sense that occasioned Nicodemus' misunderstanding. This misunderstanding would not have occurred in Aramaic (nor in Hebrew), the language that Jesus is otherwise represented as speaking and the language that would have most likely been the medium of a rabbinical discussion about religious issues. But it is the kind of pun that a person writing in Greek could make and have it understandable to his readers.
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Hei, Nark,

  My remark was truthwise, not literary. On this ground, I find that John's style is fairly poor but I understand that it appeals to mystic people. We can discuss that later today since we both know well that it's late in Europe. See you then !
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Leolaia,

  contrary to what I stated up there (that's the pb with trying to put an idea in a nutshell), you bring evidence that text exegesis can be very useful. Thanks.

  Narkissos,

  I wouldn't go so far as saying that we can't accept events reported in the gospels as historical just because we are not sure about what precisely Jesus's words were. The fact is that, concerning Jesus very existence, if we can't rely on the gospels, what we've left to know him is next to nothing. So I'll stop short of taking the gospels as non historical, at least for my own use. To take an example, I'm ready to believe in Jesus resurrection, even though there could be reasons to doubt it (discrepancies and contradictions in the text for the minor reasons, not to mention the sheer enormity of the event) for the one who wants to doubt.

  As for the option of loving Jesus while being convinced he didn't exist, you will certainly agree that it would be difficult to take a legendary figure as a model.

  In the end, to a large extent each one believes what he (she) wants to and finds satisfactory to his(her) own needs, without having to be necessarily overwhelmed by evidence. Some people are satisfied with that solution, I for one, and that's what matters as long it makes - reasonably - sense.
• 

  Narkissos

  you will certainly agree that it would be difficult to take a legendary figure as a model.

  As a matter of fact I don't, and I would rather hold that fictional characters like the heroes of myths, legends, tales, novels and movies have been way more influential on real lives than the hypothetical historical persons from which they may have been inspired (Don Quijote comes to mind, don't ask me why...). But I certainly agree that this is also a matter of personal sensibilité.
• 

  DeusMauzzim

  Otoh, once you come to realise how little you can gather through the Gospel texts about the supposed "history behind the texts," the focus shifts back to the texts themselves, as the only solid "object" of study and research.

  Agreed. The 19th-century quest for the 'historical Jesus' has not been quite effective, and then again history is also narrative fiction. All we have are the texts (canonical and apocryphal). I think we would be disappointed if we could take a look at the 'historical' Jesus (probably another apocalyptic sect leader).

  History is responsible for the transsubstantiation of Jesus of Nazareth into Jesus Christ.

  But like aligot, I have also struggled with this question. If being a Christian means following Christ as a role-model (rather than adhering to a set of dogmas), yet the concept of Christ depends on interpretation, then what am I to follow? I am moved by the 'gnostic' Jesus (who does not exist as such!), but also by the canonical Jesus (idem!). Can one follow the Jesus of the Gospel of Judas and the Jesus of the Gospel of John?

  Like Narkissos, I do not have a problem with the western truth-fiction dichotomy per se (Plato's problem, not mine!), but what should we put in place when we dismantle this dualism? A buffet belief system? And then again, what should we make of Christ's claim to exclusivity?

  If I say that (only) Jesus is Lord, what do I affirm? Why does He only appear to me as a hooded stranger? Is that the mystery?

  Deus Mauzzim
• 

  Leolaia

  On the nature of the "quest for the historical Jesus", I am reminded of this remark by Tom B. Jones:

  "There are three Alexanders: the legendary Alexander, the historical Alexander, and the real Alexander. The first was born in men's minds soon after the death of the last, and he still lives in the East as Iskander. He has been many things, a saint and a devil, a defender of civilization and a barbarian, a perfect knight and a worthless debauchee. The historical Alexander is dead, but he is frequently revived in the pages of histories and biographies that fashion him in the image of each particular age admires; in one age he may be 'greater than Napoleon,' and in another he may be the man who first dreamed of 'one world'. The real Alexander died in Babylon about the thirteenth of June, 323 B.C.E. We know a little of what he did, but we shall never know what he thought or what he was like. The real Alexander is gone forever" (Jones, Ancient Civilization, 1966, p. 283).
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Jesus (probably another apocalyptic sect leader).

  I don't quite agree, DM, because that's not exactly the way Jesus contemporaries did view him, inasmuch as we can trust the gospel record (and if we don't, what other sources shall we discuss ?). He didn't have just a handful of disciples but crowds were following him, the whole nation heard about his teaching and it seems that people were clearly seing him as a plausible messiah. I can't figure out how pharisees could have, at the same time, feared him, as they actually did, as a potential danger to their society order and scorned and ignored him, as they no doubt would have done had he just been another apocaliptic trouble maker. That doesn't match, there was definitely something special about his character. Call it a narrative fiction if you like but in that case, who were these narrators who have been clever enough to impress half of humankind's civilization, well beyond Don Quijote's span of influence, qu'en penses-tu, Nark ?
• 

  the dreamer dreaming

  if the roman empire had not adopted the suicide cult of hippies known as christians, would the impact on history have been great?