3:16
Today, we take the words of Christ for granted. They are easy to see, and much easier to memorize than a whole bible. "If you live by the words of Christ, You Should be OK!" However, RED LETTERS for the words attributed to Christ are only 100 years old. And using QUOTES is about as old. In fact, centuries ago, you would probably have had your ashes sprinkled in the Thames for the heresy of claiming Jesus spoke English if you tried to claim THESE ARE THE WORDS OF CHRIST.
Pretty much all modern translations agree on which parts of the bible are representations of Christ's words.
However, most scholars and theologians agree that we don't really even know for sure which language Christ spoke, much less what his exact words were. (He was born in Bethlehem (where hebrew was spoken) in a Post-Syrian empire (where a syriac language was spoken) roman Empire (latin), but spent his first years in Egypt (where he probably had relatives who spoke what became Coptic... and where interestingly enough the worlds largest Library existed.) (*)
Trying to mark the words of Jesus in the bible started (according to wikipedia) in the U.S. in or around 1900. The fact that it happened 1900 years after the death of Christ makes me suspicious. It shouldn't have taken 1900 years. Which brings me to my post topic. "Why? If the whole idea for marking Jesus words in red (or in any way) didn't happen until 1900, why is the KJV (or any prior translation) marked in red. Consider for example John 3:16. We take it for granted that Jesus uttered those words "For God so loved the world...", but Scholars now-days say maybe he didn't. Theologian huff and puff and point to the KJV as proof "but it's in red!", but that again happened in 1900, not in 1611 or before.
I'm participating in putting bibles into a bible study program, where there is a movement to 'WOC' every translation. (WOC is an acronym for a specific markup to indicate a "QUOTE" by Jesus... Words Of Christ.) As I'm verifying the works, Quotes appear in places online where they did not appear on the printed page. Apparently applying today's set of words that are attributed to Christ is OK. That's fine as long as the translator meant it that way. But what about translations where the translator attributes "WOC" to "The commentary of JOHN". In Ferrar Fenton's Modern English Bible for instance the verse John 3:16 is NOT a quote of Christ, but clearly a comment by John. I'm not saying that makes 3:16 commentary instead of a quote of Christ, only that some translators have come to that conclusion.
Ok, so we shouldn't WOC a translation where the translator is clear that some WOC shouldn't be WOC. (huh? but read it carefully..)
But, what about where it is unclear whether the translator INTENDED the verse to be WOC?
Stick with the same verse and look at the KJV 1611 for John 3:16 In this translation we see the words "Jesus Answered in vs 11", then Jesus speaking in first person through vs. 13, but on a change of Paragraph, the words speak "son of man, instead of "I". I can't read Hebrew, but just based on the KJV, it is not clear to me that the Translators of this version intended verses 3:14-21 to be 'words of Christ'.
OK, that said... Does it Matter? Nobody believes Jesus was speaking English In ~AD 30, or Greek (The "ORIGINAL" language of New Testament.) Whatever version or manuscript you read for the words of Christ, you are reading a paraphrase that has gone through the mind and ears of at least several people. At best ALL of gospel of John is a paraphrase in his words of what Jesus said. If I read the Gospels and notes correctly, The only place where John (or any other author of the Gospels) claim to actually quote Jesus in his own words are his last, while he was on the cross, when he said "My God, My God, Why Have you Forsaken me." That stands to reason. Think about some event from 20 years ago that you can still quote words from. Chances are there are only a few and they are closely associated with extreme emotions. For less emotional times, you may remember WHAT was discussed, but could you quote 100 different lectures from your High School Math Instructors? You remember what they said maybe, but not WHAT they said.
Ok, So what does it matter if we know all this. Well, If we try to claim our bible has direct words from God, then we lessen the importance of the rest of the Bible.
Jesus stated that he didn't come to do away with the law (old testament), He was perfectly able to write stuff down for posterity, but chose not to. Why? Because he came not to do away with the law, but to make it complete. To witness the last 100 years in the U.S. where we've put Jesus words on a special level.. above the rest of the testaments, you see the effect of 'red letters' may be that we start ignoring all the others. I don't believe that's what Jesus wanted.
(*) - I'm no expert and still studying all this, but based on what I know today I'd believe that Jesus spoke more than one language fluently and adressed whoever was speaking directly and with their own tongue (to Romans, Latin; to Pharasees, Hebrew; to the Lady at the well, Aramaic; etc.)
I also believe this fact was intuitive to everyone who heard the Gospel up to the 1800's in England where for the first time in the Christian world, 1 language prevailed over the land, so that it was possible to be born and die and be 'educated' in one language. It's only to us mono-linguals that language is such a big issue.
Pretty much all modern translations agree on which parts of the bible are representations of Christ's words.
However, most scholars and theologians agree that we don't really even know for sure which language Christ spoke, much less what his exact words were. (He was born in Bethlehem (where hebrew was spoken) in a Post-Syrian empire (where a syriac language was spoken) roman Empire (latin), but spent his first years in Egypt (where he probably had relatives who spoke what became Coptic... and where interestingly enough the worlds largest Library existed.) (*)
Trying to mark the words of Jesus in the bible started (according to wikipedia) in the U.S. in or around 1900. The fact that it happened 1900 years after the death of Christ makes me suspicious. It shouldn't have taken 1900 years. Which brings me to my post topic. "Why? If the whole idea for marking Jesus words in red (or in any way) didn't happen until 1900, why is the KJV (or any prior translation) marked in red. Consider for example John 3:16. We take it for granted that Jesus uttered those words "For God so loved the world...", but Scholars now-days say maybe he didn't. Theologian huff and puff and point to the KJV as proof "but it's in red!", but that again happened in 1900, not in 1611 or before.
I'm participating in putting bibles into a bible study program, where there is a movement to 'WOC' every translation. (WOC is an acronym for a specific markup to indicate a "QUOTE" by Jesus... Words Of Christ.) As I'm verifying the works, Quotes appear in places online where they did not appear on the printed page. Apparently applying today's set of words that are attributed to Christ is OK. That's fine as long as the translator meant it that way. But what about translations where the translator attributes "WOC" to "The commentary of JOHN". In Ferrar Fenton's Modern English Bible for instance the verse John 3:16 is NOT a quote of Christ, but clearly a comment by John. I'm not saying that makes 3:16 commentary instead of a quote of Christ, only that some translators have come to that conclusion.
Ok, so we shouldn't WOC a translation where the translator is clear that some WOC shouldn't be WOC. (huh? but read it carefully..)
But, what about where it is unclear whether the translator INTENDED the verse to be WOC?
Stick with the same verse and look at the KJV 1611 for John 3:16 In this translation we see the words "Jesus Answered in vs 11", then Jesus speaking in first person through vs. 13, but on a change of Paragraph, the words speak "son of man, instead of "I". I can't read Hebrew, but just based on the KJV, it is not clear to me that the Translators of this version intended verses 3:14-21 to be 'words of Christ'.
OK, that said... Does it Matter? Nobody believes Jesus was speaking English In ~AD 30, or Greek (The "ORIGINAL" language of New Testament.) Whatever version or manuscript you read for the words of Christ, you are reading a paraphrase that has gone through the mind and ears of at least several people. At best ALL of gospel of John is a paraphrase in his words of what Jesus said. If I read the Gospels and notes correctly, The only place where John (or any other author of the Gospels) claim to actually quote Jesus in his own words are his last, while he was on the cross, when he said "My God, My God, Why Have you Forsaken me." That stands to reason. Think about some event from 20 years ago that you can still quote words from. Chances are there are only a few and they are closely associated with extreme emotions. For less emotional times, you may remember WHAT was discussed, but could you quote 100 different lectures from your High School Math Instructors? You remember what they said maybe, but not WHAT they said.
Ok, So what does it matter if we know all this. Well, If we try to claim our bible has direct words from God, then we lessen the importance of the rest of the Bible.
Jesus stated that he didn't come to do away with the law (old testament), He was perfectly able to write stuff down for posterity, but chose not to. Why? Because he came not to do away with the law, but to make it complete. To witness the last 100 years in the U.S. where we've put Jesus words on a special level.. above the rest of the testaments, you see the effect of 'red letters' may be that we start ignoring all the others. I don't believe that's what Jesus wanted.
(*) - I'm no expert and still studying all this, but based on what I know today I'd believe that Jesus spoke more than one language fluently and adressed whoever was speaking directly and with their own tongue (to Romans, Latin; to Pharasees, Hebrew; to the Lady at the well, Aramaic; etc.)
I also believe this fact was intuitive to everyone who heard the Gospel up to the 1800's in England where for the first time in the Christian world, 1 language prevailed over the land, so that it was possible to be born and die and be 'educated' in one language. It's only to us mono-linguals that language is such a big issue.