THE HANDING DOWN OF spoken words is a difficult problem, especially when spiritual values are to be conveyed. How easily gaps of memory occur in the course of transmission, and how much people are inclined to fill these gaps with ideas corresponding to their own way of thinking and their own views, so that the original meaning of what was said is often entirely lost.

Unfortunately the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are no exception here, still less so since they were not collected and written down until decades after His physical death. The authors based their writings on oral transmission or written notes, with which they also interwove their own views.

As regards the sayings of Jesus, we are dealing not with intellectually- bound earthly explanations but with spiritual explanations and teachings which comprise the entire knowledge of Creation and which were partly misunderstood right from the beginning, and were then also passed on as such. For Jesus Himself said that in some things He had not been understood by His hearers, indeed not even by His disciples. In the very transmission of what was not understood, an alteration of what Jesus really said is inevitable.

Everyone knows that even after a short time he cannot exactly reproduce something he has heard, and if there were several listeners each one would describe it differently. This was already the case in past millennia, and even spiritual inspiration could never quite eliminate it in the case of the disciples and the authors of the Gospels, despite their best volition.

That this problem of transmission also troubles theological circles, and not only at the present time, is shown in the explanations of D. Johannes Weiss, Professor of Divinity, in his essay, “The Three Older Gospels” (1907). In this he assumes that the Gospel of Mark was written approximately 40 years after Jesus’ life on earth. He then continues:

“But the period of 40 years is nevertheless long enough to justify the anxious doubt as to whether in fact a reliable recollection of the events, and above all of the sayings of the Lord, still existed. Or had lack of understanding and deliberate intention, fanciful misrepresentation and fiction already accomplished their work of distortion and destruction, before the Evangelists undertook to protect the treasure from further decay and mutilation? Closing one’s eyes to this doubt does not help, nor does the naive assertion that this was not the case, or the pious belief that God would not have permitted such damage to the teachings of Jesus, so necessary for us. Only thorough historical investigation and criticism will avail."

After giving examples from the Gospels to show how Jesus’ sayings were changed and modified, Professor Weiss, in another passage of the same essay, expresses the following view:

“Considering these instances of misunderstanding and reshaping, we may well be overcome with painful regret that Jesus’ words were not written down and passed on to us by His own hand, as is the case with Paul and so many other personalities who have led us to God. And we must earnestly ask: Were not many widely-diffused rays of His Light lost, because the mirror which was to hold them was too small and too dull? It can be safely assumed that some aspects of His Being have remained unknown to us because there was no observer who could have understood them. Many words would be lost because they did not call forth a response in the souls of these people. The selection preserved for us would be influenced by their narrow range of ideas, and certainly many a word was originally given a greater and deeper meaning than we read into it today.”

So in connection with certain passages of the New Testament, the question as to what were the actual words of Jesus is really justified, and we must beware of asserting with regard to such doubtful texts that Jesus spoke in that way! In many matters Jesus did not speak as is explained and taught on the basis of false traditions. Take an example from Luke 14, 26:

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus, Who is “Divine Love”, would never have made discipleship dependent upon “hating” one’s closest relations. In doing so He would have been inviting sin. And this immediately shows the absurdity of these transmitted words which Jesus is said to have uttered. He would have asked that personal ties that were too close should be avoided and that one’s ego should not be placed in the foreground, so that His disciples might dedicate themselves without burden or restraint to the lofty task.

Equally inaccurate is the transmission about the Son of Man, with which we shall deal here in detail. At the end of His earthly activity Jesus gave His disciples the promise concerning the coming of the Son of Man. By the Son of Man He meant not Himself but another Person. The disciples did not understand this, and believed that Jesus Himself was the Son of Man, an assumption which was certainly understandable and excusable at the time, because they were living in imminent expectation of the Final Judgment and the return of Jesus.

Nevertheless - hardly had Jesus uttered what to mankind is the most significant prophecy - than the foundation was already laid for a very fateful error, which was passed on and finally incorporated into the Gospels. Hence they contain a number of incorrect or at least obscure phrases about the concept of the Son of Man, which Jesus in His simple and clear manner of expression would never have used.

Clearly Jesus proclaims the coming of a second Envoy from God:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...“ (John 16, 7-8).

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself ...”

“He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16, 12-15).

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14, 20).

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words..., of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels”
(Mark 8, 38).

Just this last sentence is at once rendered unintelligible through the wrong assumption that Jesus and the Son of Man are one and the same Person.

All these words of Jesus refer to another Person, and not to the impersonal Power which Jesus had also promised His disciples:

“And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke 24, 49).

This promise referred to the outpouring of Power through the Holy Spirit, an event which has been repeated every year at a definite time ever since the inception of Creation, for its maintenance. In those days the disciples experienced the fulfillment of this event at Whitsuntide, after being inwardly prepared for it through the grievous experience occasioned by the sudden and violent death of their Lord.

The activities which in His promise Jesus associates with the other Person, such “to guide into all truth”, “to preach”, “to teach”, “to bring to remembrance as what Jesus has said”, can only be carried out by a person, and therefore they necessitate a personal fulfillment.

In the explanatory notes on the New Testament, published by Otto v. Gerlach, Professor of Divinity and Court Chaplain (Berlin 1863), it is stated: “These words ‘He shall not speak of himself’ make sense only in regard to a person, not to an impersonal power or manifestation of God.” In addition there is special reference to the importance of this great teaching of the Holy Scriptures regarding the Personality of the Holy Spirit, which was not nearly enough appreciated.

By the designations “Spirit of Truth”, “Comforter” and “Holy Ghost” Jesus meant the Son of Man, Who will come to continue His Mission.

Not the least of His Works, by virtue of His High Office - for He comes from God - will be to set right the errors in the transmissions and interpretations of Christ’s words.