A brother on this Forum has repeatedly accused me of enabling a "lie of the Devil" by claiming that the Gospel authors sometimes quoted Jesus in a "paraphrase" or in an "abbreviated" way. This explains, for me, some of the discrepancies in the different versions, and does not sacrifice divine inspiration. Such paraphrases properly express what Jesus said in an accurate depiction of the substance of what he said, rather than a perfect recitation of what he said in full, and in perfect arrangement.
I am being regularly trashed as one who "makes stuff up" and "changes the meaning of words." So I'm asking for some feedback on this, and perhaps a reconciliation with this brother, so that we can continue in meaningful discussions, without the accusation. He is a good debater, and has a lot of facts. But this time I think he's a bit out in left field. But I leave it up to you and your good will to settle this?
Here are a few quotes a snipped off the of Web to prove my point...
http://christianworldviewpress.com/d...isquote-jesus/
As we have seen, many critics point to the variation in recording Jesus’ words and deeds. What many of them do not realize is that the Greco-Roman biographer/historian had greater literary freedom to paraphrase and even slightly alter the words of a person for stylistic reasons. The writers of the Gospels were simply doing what biographers and historians did in their day. No one would have accused them of doing anything bad. “The early Christians [along with non-Christians] didn’t see these variations as a problem because that’s what they were accustomed to in their biographical and historical writings.”
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/b...ons-explained/
So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.
https://www.christiancourier.com/art...from-jesus-the
First, it has long been recognized that in referring to another’s audible use of language, or his written words, it is not necessary to quote verbatim in order to accurately represent his thoughts. This principle has been recognized from the very earliest times of human communication, in connection with both the spoken word and the written message.
...The citations from the Old Testament, as employed by the writers of the New Testament, constitute another example of variety in language presentation without the sacrifice of truth. A conservative estimate suggests there are some 295 references from the Old Testament in the New Testament. If one adds allusions as well, the estimates escalate from slightly over 600 to somewhat over 4,000 (depending upon the scholar)! About 10% of the New Testament, in some form, is taken from the Old Testament (Roger, 137-138).
But the quotations vary considerably in form; some are from the Hebrew Old Testament, while others (the majority) are from the Greek translation (the Septuagint). Some are fairly complete; others are abbreviated. Some represent a whole text; others only a phrase or so. In some passages a single writer is quoted, in other texts multiple citations from different sources are blended together. In some of the quotations the verbiage is fairly precise; in others the wording has been paraphrased or deliberately changed. These facts are indisputable...
Minor alterations do not sacrifice substance. A paraphrase or the emendation of an original author or speaker does not impair the sense of the primary source if the citation is accurately conveyed. In fact, as one relatively modern journalistic authority expressed it, “A careful paraphrase that does complete justice to the source is preferable to a long quotation” (Campbell, 15).
Bookmarks