DIFFERENT
GOSPELS, SAME WORDS
Sometimes,
in different Gospels, the narratives of the same event use the exact
same words. So it is for the case when Jesus, while going up to
Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and told them
what was going to happen at Jerusalem.
Here
is the wording shared by Mark 10:33 and Matthew 20:18:
“ιδου
αναβαινομεν εις ιεροσολυμα και ο υιος
του ανθρωπου παραδοθησεται τοις
αρχιερευσιν και γραμματευσιν και
κατακρινουσιν αυτον θανατω”
Here
is the wording shared by the English translations (KJV) of Mark 10:33
and Matthew 20:18:
“we
go up to Jerusalem: and the Son of man ________ unto the chief
priests, and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death.”
SAME
WORD, DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS
The
blank space marks the place for the translation of the underlined
word in the Greek quotation. The translation of that word in Mark
reads, “shall be delivered,” but the translation in Matthew
reads, “shall be betrayed.”
AN
ERROR? . . . YES AND NO!
Although
the inconsistent translations of the underlined word reveal mistaken
comprehension of the truth, they do not do so within the traditional
conception of the betrayal. That conception, to a large degree,
regards the act of delivering Jesus as the essential act of betraying
him. In other words, within the tradition, the words “deliver”
and “betray” are nearly synonymous.
USING
THIS DISCOVERY
Since
the tradition allows this arbitrariness of translation, readers of
the Gospels might replace every instance of the word “betray”
(and its inflective forms) with the word “deliver” (and its
inflective forms.) For example, they might replace “betray” with
“deliver,” “betrayed” with “delivered,” “betrayer”
with “deliverer,” etc. Of course, they might make those
replacements just because they are the better translations.
NEARLY
SYNONYMOUS AT BEST
Performance
of this exercise, even under the influence of the traditional
understanding of the betrayal, can
lead to the better reading. For example, at Matthew 26:16, just after
we read that Judas betrayed Jesus by offering aid to his adversaries
and by making a covenant to give that aid, we read, “And from that
time, he sought opportunity to betray him.” Clearly, that which he
sought was not opportunity to betray him, but opportunity to
“deliver” him – to fulfill his obligation under the covenant of
betrayal which he had just made. See also the post, “One Of You Shall Betray Me? . . . Ridiculous!”
DELIVERING
JESUS WAS NOT A SIN
Theologically, God was the primary
deliverer of Jesus. Therefore, no sin should be attributed to the act
of delivering Jesus in itself. This fact seems to create a problem
when the replacement exercise is performed at Matthew 27:4.
THE
SIN OF JUDAS
If
delivering Jesus was not a sin in itself, then the confession of sin
by Judas at Matthew 27:4 seems to demand the translation “betray,”
the translation which carries the pejorative connotation.
Nevertheless, the replacement should be made here, too. The
choice of who should deliver Jesus was determined by Scripture to be
the one who had lifted up his heel against him (Matthew 26:25; John
13:18), and it is for this underlying reason that Judas attributed
sin to his act of delivering Jesus. God did not make Judas lift up
his heel against Jesus (make the covenant to deliver him), and it is
to that act of lifting up his heel against Jesus that sin is
attributed. Again, this is the reason that Judas confessed sin in
delivering Jesus in spite of the fact that delivering him, in itself,
was not a sin.
THE INNOCENCE OF JUDAS
When Jesus spoke to Judas, “That
which you do, do quickly,” he was not commissioning him to sin.
Judas had already sinned, and Jesus had already confronted him about
it and forgiven him for it. Rather, Jesus was summoning him to take
up his cross and to follow him, knowing that that cross would be the
implement upon which he (Judas), after being baptized into his
(Jesus') death, would crucify his old man. In other words, the woe of
Judas, of which Jesus had forewarned him, led him to repentance unto
salvation. Thus he hanged himself on his cross after he restored that which he
took not away, and after he confessed to men the innocence of Jesus.
Because Judas confessed the innocence of Jesus unto men, and because
Jesus said that he would, Jesus confessed to his Father the innocence
of Judas. Let no man call unclean that which was unclean,
after God has cleansed it – the heel which was lifted up against
Jesus. To that end, remember the assertion of Jesus, that he did only
those things which he saw with his Father.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
The exercise of replacing the word
“betray” with the word “deliver” should help readers overcome
the bias created by the pejorative connotation of the word “betray.”
Then, when they read the words of Jesus, “Judas, do you deliver the
Son of man with a kiss?,” they may more likely understand that
Jesus was not speaking of treachery, too, but irony alone. The
difference is the difference between misunderstanding and understanding.
It is written that to those who have,
more shall be given; but to those who have not, that which they have
shall be taken away. To have misunderstanding is to have not. That
the Scripture might be fulfilled. . .
I offer these ideas only in my
own name.
No comments:
Post a Comment