One day I thought to myself, after having a Christian tell me something rather bold, that I would go through and account for every verse that is considered a direct quote of Jesus in the New Testament.
I was able to do this is a matter of about 30 minutes with the help of the highlighting in the KJV of the Bible I have (The quotes of Jesus are highlighted in a red color).
The list of the verses is found at the end of this post and is quite lengthy.
Summary of Results:
Matthew quotes Jesus in 643 out of 1071 total verses which amounts to approximately 60.04% of the content in Matthew.
Mark quotes Jesus in 284 out of 678 total verses which amounts to approximately 41.89% of the content of Mark.
Luke quotes Jesus in 587 out of 1151 total verses which amounts to approximately 51.00% of the content of Luke.
John quotes Jesus 430 out of 879 total verses which amounts to approximately 48.92% of the content of John.
Acts quotes Jesus 27 out of 1006 total verses which amounts to approximately 2.68% of the content of Acts.
Romans never quotes Jesus.
Corinthians I quotes Jesus twice out of 437 verses which amounts to approximately 0.46% of the content of Corinthians I.
Corinthians II quotes Jesus once out of 256 verses which amounts to approximately 0.39% of the content of Corinthians II.
Galatians never quotes Jesus.
Ephesians never quotes Jesus.
Philippians never quotes Jesus.
Colossians never quotes Jesus.
Thessalonians I never quotes Jesus.
Thessalonians II never quotes Jesus.
Timothy I never quotes Jesus.
Timothy II never quotes Jesus.
Titus never quotes Jesus.
Philemon never quotes Jesus.
Hebrews never quotes Jesus.
James never quotes Jesus.
Peter I never quotes Jesus.
Peter II never quotes Jesus.
John I never quotes Jesus.
John II never quotes Jesus.
John III never quotes Jesus.
Jude never quotes Jesus.
Revelations quotes Jesus 62 out of 404 total verses which amounts to approximately 15.35% of the content of Revelations.
I am hoping the concern here is fairly evident. The authors who interacted with Jesus on Earth, and who are most likely to carry on what he taught, are composing most of their text directly from Jesus' quotations. How better to spread the good news (Gospel) that Jesus preached then to plainly quote the source.
Whereas the authors who came later, including Saul (Paul) who claimed to hear the voice of Jesus, are not found quoting Jesus very frequently, if at all. Not to mention these later texts contain a majority of the questionable items in terms of how Christianity today differeniates itself from its origins (Judaism).
This is the reason, by the way, that many muslims will only consider the first four Gospels as being even remotely worthy of inspection and to a larger extent might be willing to regard them as the Injeel (Gospel) of Jesus in some form.
Thoughts?
Here is the list I have come up with:
All of the Bible is the words of Jesus: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" - 2 Tim 3:16 (unless the moderators are reading this, in which case I am in no way implying that the Bible is any more inspired or divine that any other religion's sacred texts).
I don't see the highly evident concern that you see. The synoptic gospels are indeed the historical accounts of Jesus life while John contains the historical but also quite a bit of the spiritual. The rest of the NT is about applications of teachings, Christian life, eschatalogical topics, etc. It might help if you explain what the concern actually is.
My concern is as follows. The direct words of Jesus appear to hold elevated importance to the people who lived with Jesus as opposed to those who came after his lifetime. The people coming after seemed far more pleased to provide their own words, though deemed inspired, rather than quote the source. Quoting the source is superior to even the best of inspired speeches.
Now the logical answer would be that the people who came after would not quote from a person who never personally talked to them. Sounds fair enough until we consider that Saul (Paul) claimed to have had personal conversations with Jesus. Though oddly enough these personal conversations were either brief or not well documented through the volumes of texts that are attributed to Saul (Paul).
What this suggests to me is we have a situation where the superior references of Jesus' teachings (The 4 Gospels) have been extrapolated by enthusiastic followers who based all their texts on the original Gospels. These extrapolations, though they attempt to conform the standards set forth in the four Gospels, appear to deviate from the core ideas found within the four Gospels. Of course a barrage of explanations have been made to reconcile these problems, but the core issue here is all explanations that have been proposed all contain one fundamental flaw. They deviate from the context of the passages and rather resort to complete fabrications and assumptions that have no place in the Scripture. This truth becomes evident when even the person providing the solution provides a list of possible explanations without having any evidence why any one solution is any more likely than the obvious solution that the older texts are derivatives of the original four Gospels, in terms of core content. Other such derivatives also exist that have been deemed unacceptable because the route of the extrapolation went against what the church deemed as acceptable.
That is my concern in a nutshell.
__________________ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. -Buddha
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not trying to be confrontational here, So it is with respect that I ask Why would a Christian's prophet, disciple, or apostles words be any less valid than Your Great Prophet's words?
It is my understanding that the whole of Islamic teaching comes from your Great Prophet, who receive His revelation from an angel.
In the case of Islam How is one prophet's teachings valid, and yet others are not even to be considered?
Isn't it inconceivable that Jesus Could Reach out to Paul on the road to Damascus Making Paul ripe for conversion? Allowing him access to the Same Holy Spirit that indwelt the apostles (The men who followed Jesus) who have books written outside of the four gospels, but in the cannon of scripture.. (Peter, James, John)
It depends who we are talking about. The words of Jesus, if they are found in the Gospels, are just as important as any other prophet's words. That is why I spend the time and effort studying the passages where Jesus is being quoted.
I am taking them into consideration through my study. But on the same coin I am not about to go pick up a copy of the DaVinci Code or Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and read it on the same level as the Qur'an or Torah or 4 Gospels.
For a text to be considered it must meet some fundamental requirements. Those requirements, in their most basic form, are:
1. The text must make a claim of being sourced by divinity.
2. Contain verifiable truth.
3. Contain a reliable road map for the future.
Many texts claim a divine source. Not all of them have verifiable truth. And yet fewer have a reliable road map for the future. If you wonder why I place more significance on the 4 Gospels, these three requirements are the source of my views.
Not at all. But I would expect such a man to quote his Lord more frequently. The word of his Lord exceeds his own, though inspired, word.
__________________ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. -Buddha
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
My concern is as follows. The direct words of Jesus appear to hold elevated importance to the people who lived with Jesus as opposed to those who came after his lifetime.
This seems, amongst other things, to ignore the facts that:
a. the gospels were written after Paul's epistles
b. at least one, almost certainly two, and possibly all four gospels were written by people who had never met Jesus
c luke and acts show up very differently in your stats but are written by the same person
d. you seem to be ignoring the more obvious explanation of the differences in statistics
e. even the gospels are not focused on the words but the whole life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and that his words mostly explain aspects of that.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
I dont know if you realise this but Jesus most of the time quotes the Old Testament. These quotes often start "It is written", the other writers of the New Testament also often quote the Old Testament because they understood what he was saying and the significance of it but are often writing to non-Jews who dont know what the Old Testament said. The other thing to bear in mind is that much of the New Testament were letters to fledgling churches.They knew what Jesus had done and didnt need it recapping, but didnt know how God wanted them to live having being pagans and worshipping other gods beforehand.
Which only adds to my concern as to whether these letters should be included next to Scriptures filled with the quotes of Jesus.
This statement is confusing. Am I to accept that the words of Jesus were insufficient to convey how God wants his followers to live their lives?
__________________ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. -Buddha
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Which only adds to my concern as to whether these letters should be included next to Scriptures filled with the quotes of Jesus.
This statement is confusing. Am I to accept that the words of Jesus were insufficient to convey how God wants his followers to live their lives?
Niether the words of Jesus nor scripture as a whole are primarily about "how God wants his followers to live their lives?"
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
Sorry, but that doesn't work. Luke never met Jesus, yet your figures put him second highest for his gospel - and quite low for acts.
The real explanation should be obvious and far less concerning - that the biographies of Jesus quote him far more than the "biographies" of the early church (acts and the epistles). Of course they do.
Your whole approach betrays a misunderstanding of how the Christian view of scripture works. This is not simply a message from God, but an ongoing story. Jesus is the climax of that story, so the gospels do have centre place, but that story began in Abraham - so the Old Testament matters even where it doesn't directly quote God - and continues in the church - so it's story, particularly its early story captured in Acts and the Epistles - matters. Because we live as a continuation of that story.
You don't have to meet someone to copy quotations they've made.
Since the dates of texts are somewhat uncertain we will have to suffice with a relative time line:
37 B.C.–4 B.C. - The reign of Herod I, a Roman client king of Israel
27 B.C.-14 A.D. - The reign of Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire c. 6 B.C. - The birth of Jesus
26-36 A.D. - Pontius Pilate the Prefect of the Roman Empire's Judaea Province c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus c. 35 - The conversion of Paul 40s or 50s - James c. 45-49 - Paul's first missionary journey Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians c. 50-53 - Paul's second missionary journey 50s - Paul writes Titus 50s or 60s - Mark written 50s or 60s - Matthew written 51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians c. 53-57 - Paul's third missionary journey Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians 56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians c. 57 - Paul writes Romans c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome Early 60s - Luke written c. 62 - Paul is free c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued. Mid 60s - 1 Peter written c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison c. 67-68 - 2 Peter c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred. c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
As can be seen we have quite a pickle on our hands. We have a situation were many volumes were being written simultaneously and then several texts trail behind a significant amount of time later.
James and Galatians appear to be among the earliest group of texts.
Titus, Mark, Matthew, and Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians among the second wave.
Luke, Acts, Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude among the third.
John the fourth.
And finally Revelation the fifth.
There is plenty of opportunity for authors to copy one another, but the question becomes what evidence do we have? Well as you have mentioned Luke never meet Jesus yet quotes him on numerous occasions in his Gospel. How is that? Mark and Matthew preceded Luke, which would suggest Luke obtained his quotations from these works.
However the point remains as to why Luke so generously quotes Jesus in his Gospel but fails to do so in another text attributed to him. It would appear the Gospel was 'borrowed' from other sources, such that Luke had no choice but to stay faithful to the quotes, least he risk saying something untrue about someone he never meet and an event he never witnessed. Acts on the other hand was Luke's baby, with which he could determine the content independent of any other sources.
__________________ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. -Buddha
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You don't have to meet someone to copy quotations they've made.
No, but you seem to be claiming that the authors closest to Jesus were the ones most likely to be quoting him - yet Paul is certainly closer to Jesus than Luke, probably closer than whoever wrote Matthew, and possibly closer than whoever wrote John and Mark.
Since the dates of texts are somewhat uncertain we will have to suffice with a relative time line:
That's not a timeline many scholars are going to accept.
Paul died in the mid '60s so whatever books he wrote were written before then - probably all by 60 or 61 depending on whether Philippians etc were written in prison in Rome or earlier in prison in Ephesus. Mark is probably 65, Luke 70-75 and Acts shortly after, Matthew around 75, John 80-90. I.e. everything Paul wrote was written before any of the gospels. And whatever timeline one takes one has Luke and Acts (one of which quotes Jesus a lot and one of which quotes Jesus on a very little) written by the same person. You likely also have a similar situation with John's Gospel and at least some of the letters carrying John's name.
There is plenty of opportunity for authors to copy one another, but the question becomes what evidence do we have? Well as you have mentioned Luke never meet Jesus yet quotes him on numerous occasions in his Gospel. How is that? Mark and Matthew preceded Luke, which would suggest Luke obtained his quotations from these works.
Of course Luke draws from sources - Mark most likely and probably another shared source that Matthew also uses - but a read of Luke's gospel against the others shows he is very much his own man in writing it. Large bits don't occur in Matthew or Mark and it's theology is very distinctive. But this still misses the point - if one is writting a gospel of course one quotes Jesus a lot. If one is writting the story of the church one doesn't. Looking for an ulterior motive is silly.
However the point remains as to why Luke so generously quotes Jesus in his Gospel but fails to do so in another text attributed to him. It would appear the Gospel was 'borrowed' from other sources, such that Luke had no choice but to stay faithful to the quotes, least he risk saying something untrue about someone he never meet and an event he never witnessed
Now you are speculating because the data doesn't fit your theory. Put in a good dose of speculation and one can make any bit of data fit any theory, but you haven't demonstrated much. If your theory is that authors closest to Jesus wrote mostly about him that correlation simply isn't born out by the evidence, whether one takes 'closest' to mean 'physically met him' or 'in time'.
The reality is that the church collectively produced the gospels as we have them after but in accord with Paul's epistles, and produced Acts at the same time. The same church produced all of these and the development is back-to front for your theory to fit. The only part that could be seen to produce a noticably different track is the Johanine tradition, but that doesn't fit what you are trying to show.
If I compare a biography of Winston Churchill with a history of the reconstruction of Britain after the 2nd World War I'll find a lot more quotes from Winston in the former than the later, but there is nothing sinister going on.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
Last edited by ebia; 10th September 2009 at 06:24 AM.
St. Paul never claimed to interact with Jesus face-to-face on a daily basis, but apparently Jesus only appeared to him during a vision.
According to some scholars, James and Peter were affiliated with, or at least ancestral to, the insular sect called the Ebionites (James was apparently their leader). This group was not so concerned with evangelizing or proselytizing the Gentiles, so this could explain the absence of quotes on their part.
Linear Mode
