Innerency

Hippo · #1 (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 04:43 PM

I was reading an article on biblical studies that highlights differing accounts of the same (or perhaps similiar) occasions in the different Gospels.

The example quoted was the parable of the mustard seed, the three comparable texts read as follows:

Quote:

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
Mt 13:31-33

Quote:

And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”
Mk 4:30-32

Quote:

He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”
Lk 13:18-19

Each account is subtly different but the exact words of Jesus are different.

Is it both acceptable and orthodox to believe that the writers could have been paraphrasing what Jesus said and are not strictly correct in a word for word sense?

If not what is the explanation?

Rangerus · #2 (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 05:28 PM

I've always thought Jesus gave the same sermon many times. Sometimes saying different words but not changing the meaning. Therefore, perhaps these are true quotes from different sermons.

Here is a quote from Baker's NT Commentary which offers a different explanation.

Quote:

In our treatment of The Synoptic Problem (NTC on Matthew, pp. 6-54) it was pointed out that one of the reasons why Matthew, Mark, and Luke resemble each other so closely may have been literary relationship, both Matthew and Luke having probably used Mark's Gospel; all three having utilized Matthew's earlier notes; Luke perhaps also Matthew's Gospel (p. 53). It was also shown that one of the reasons why the three are so different may have been that in the use of sources, whether oral or written, each evangelist exercised his Spirit-guided judgment, in accordance with his own character, education and general background, and with a view to the realization of his own distinct plan and purpose (p. 54). An illustration both of the variety and the unity is found in this parable of The Mustard Seed.

larryjf · #3 (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 07:34 PM

I would suggest that the idea of "word for word" quotations is a very modern invention.
That being said, the Holy Spirit guided each writer in writing the very words of God, and it doesn't necessarily follow that He guided them to quote their sources verbatim.

Hippo · #4 (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 07:38 PM

I have just looked up the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy"

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Which states:

Quote:

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

This and the comments given by the insightful responses given above give me some comfort that it is not necessary to claim that the texts give a verbatim record of the statements made.

larryjf · #5 (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 07:41 PM

That's a very important section of the Chicago Statement
Since it's so easy for us to look at the Bible anachronistically it's very important to remember that it's a text that did not originate in our time.

Richard Tallach · #6 (**permalink**) 05-19-2009, 08:10 PM

It's worth reading/having a harmony of the Gospels to see clearly the agreement between them, and yet that they are not necessarily dependent on each other. I found little head-scratching on my part regarding how the Gospels dovetail, and much profit, in reading this harmony, which is not written by Reformed scholars and uses the NIV. It is nevertheless written by conservative evangelicals and has excellent essays on the principles of harmonisation and the errors of liberal study of the Gospels, among other essays. There are of course lots of other harmonies to choose from.

Amazon