Q: In Matthew 3:17, at Jesus baptism, the heavenly voice says This is my beloved son, but in the parallel-passages in Mark and Luke, the voice is reported to have said Thou art my beloved son. Which report is right?
A: None of them, if one defines the right report as a report of the syllables spoken by the voice. The words spoken were almost certainly expressed in Hebrew or Aramaic; the texts which preserve their meaning however are in Greek (and our English translations are based on those texts). Unless an individual was speaking Greek, its the /meaning/ of the words that were spoken, and not the words themselves, that the authors typically preserve (though in some cases -- for instance when Jesus is healing someone -- the authors *do* preserve Aramaic quotations, with interpretations). And sometimes, as in this case, words are capable of more than one meaning when considered from different perspectives.
For example, when a bride and groom exchange their wedding vows, an onlooker may report, They said that they will love each other for as long as they both shall live. Another onlooker may report, The bride told the groom, 'I will love you for as long as you live, and the groom told the bride, I will love you for as long as you live. The second report is a more precise account, but the first report is also correct, as long as one appreciates the degree of precision which the reporter was (and was not) aiming at.
Similarly, as the Father said to Jesus, Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased, the message to bystanders was that Jesus is Gods beloved Son, in whom God was well-pleased. The difference in the sense of the texts is a difference in perspective -- in Mark and Luke, what was communicated to Jesus is reported; in Matthew, what was communicated to the bystanders is reported. And in both cases, Psalm 2:7-12 is in the background.
If I may introduce a bit of jargon: this is a case of the difference between "ipsissima verba" (the exact words) and "ipsissima vox" (the exact voice; that is, the meaning of the exact words). Sometimes, its problematic for a reporter to relate exact words. For example: Kim was telling Jim about a wedding. She was describing the customized vows, and Jim interrupted and said, What did the bride say at the end? Kim answered, She said I love you. To which Jim said, Well thats odd. Why would she say that you love me?
To avoid that sort of thing (and to put the material in a language which the intended readership could readily understand), the Gospel-writers frequently set the focus-meter to Non-verbatim, focusing instead on the meaning, and intended application, of spoken words. But sometimes they use the exact words. Thats the sort of difference that we see here in the parallel-accounts about the voice at Jesus baptism.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: None of them, if one defines the right report as a report of the syllables spoken by the voice. The words spoken were almost certainly expressed in Hebrew or Aramaic; the texts which preserve their meaning however are in Greek (and our English translations are based on those texts). Unless an individual was speaking Greek, its the /meaning/ of the words that were spoken, and not the words themselves, that the authors typically preserve (though in some cases -- for instance when Jesus is healing someone -- the authors *do* preserve Aramaic quotations, with interpretations). And sometimes, as in this case, words are capable of more than one meaning when considered from different perspectives.
For example, when a bride and groom exchange their wedding vows, an onlooker may report, They said that they will love each other for as long as they both shall live. Another onlooker may report, The bride told the groom, 'I will love you for as long as you live, and the groom told the bride, I will love you for as long as you live. The second report is a more precise account, but the first report is also correct, as long as one appreciates the degree of precision which the reporter was (and was not) aiming at.
Similarly, as the Father said to Jesus, Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased, the message to bystanders was that Jesus is Gods beloved Son, in whom God was well-pleased. The difference in the sense of the texts is a difference in perspective -- in Mark and Luke, what was communicated to Jesus is reported; in Matthew, what was communicated to the bystanders is reported. And in both cases, Psalm 2:7-12 is in the background.
If I may introduce a bit of jargon: this is a case of the difference between "ipsissima verba" (the exact words) and "ipsissima vox" (the exact voice; that is, the meaning of the exact words). Sometimes, its problematic for a reporter to relate exact words. For example: Kim was telling Jim about a wedding. She was describing the customized vows, and Jim interrupted and said, What did the bride say at the end? Kim answered, She said I love you. To which Jim said, Well thats odd. Why would she say that you love me?
To avoid that sort of thing (and to put the material in a language which the intended readership could readily understand), the Gospel-writers frequently set the focus-meter to Non-verbatim, focusing instead on the meaning, and intended application, of spoken words. But sometimes they use the exact words. Thats the sort of difference that we see here in the parallel-accounts about the voice at Jesus baptism.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
