Comments for Sandy Other sermons   

C.S.I. is a television series that can really hook me. Crime Scene Investigation. It’s a modern whodunit show with sophisticated forensic science taking center stage. Not only can detectives and scientists figure out “who,” they can tell us “how” in fascinating detail. Sometimes overly dramatic, often exaggerated, C.S.I. portrayed technology, logic and luck can solve the most baffling of mysteries.

We take for granted and assume explanations can be researched and documented. We can cross reference bleached bloodied fingerprints, hair follicles and bullet casings. Hardly anything, on CSI anyway, escapes the Sherlock eye. What is true, the REAL story, can be proven. The facts ma’am. Yes or No. Not sure? That won’t do. We just dig a little deeper, connect more dots. Sooner or later the truth, the one truth will be lifted out from the petrie dish or off the obscure photo fragment. Case closed. The facts clear.

There is something about the bound written word that yields a sense of credibility. If it is in a non-fiction book, it must be true. A publisher wouldn’t publish something not true, would  they?! (just ask Oprah) I remember a Catholic sister friend of mine, long long ago, being surprised by the notes I wrote in the margins of some book on religious thought. Was it possible to disagree or question statements printed in a book? Of course it was. Cathy’s reaction was both a reflection of her strict Catholic training and her rapid coming of age as a Christian feminist.

Nowadays, given the diverse arenas for reading the printed word we may be less inclined to consider everything credible. In fact, our hermeneutic of suspicion may get in the way of our trusting much of anything in the way of published books and blogs. We have encountered far too many retractions, exposed contradictions and replayed videotapes pointing to different truths. In media and in faith, what is a reliable source?

One would like to think that in matters of Christian faith the Bible was a reliable authority. In our time, what gives something authority? Something has authority when we determine that it is true, it is the genuine article. We put it to the test and it passes. Case closed. The facts are clear. The Bible cannot pass this kind of test. The Bible does contain errors. It does contain contradictions. There are no surviving original manuscripts from which to determine once and for all what was written and perhaps, what was meant. Heresy? No. Just the facts.

This church has been actively engaged for quite awhile in reading books that examine and re-examine scripture. I am thinking particularly of the Jesus Seminar and the Contemporary Theology class. These groups reflect a quest to understand our heritage as a people of the book. The groups reflect our middle to upper class bias regarding knowledge and where knowledge is acquired – through research, debate and the printed word. These groups are symptomatic of persons yearning to grow their faith, to question, to affirm and to possibly change.

I suspect that it comes as no surprise to most of you that we do not know definitively whether Jesus really prayed the Lord’s Prayer. There are two Lord’s Prayers mentioned in Scripture. The writer of Matthew inserts it into the Sermon on the Mount. This is the longer, more familiar version we know. A similar, shorter prayer is found in the gospel text we heard this morning, Luke 11: 1-4. The Luke text is likely older than Matthew. Scribes often tried to harmonize passages in the Gospels. When the same story appeared more than once, copyists were known to delete and add words or phrases. Luke’s version was so much shorter than Matthew, it was expanded. What we recognize as Luke’s verse 1 was added along with some other Matthew language.

Since both are different, which one records the exact words of Jesus? The logical answer? There is no ONE true version. That’s a fact.

Most Christian theologians hold that Jesus would have never used this prayer himself. Christ was without sin. There was no need to pray for forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, some note that it says, “forgive us our debts”, not forgive me my debts. Maybe Jesus was identifying with the common plight of humanity, praying for his friends and enemies.

There are some who through their study of Jewish history and Jewish theology propose that the Lord’s Prayer wasn’t meant to be used as a prayer in and unto itself. In the Sermon on the Mount version, Jesus may have been giving instruction on how not to pray. There was (still?) a feeling that truly righteous people prayed long prayers, made loud pronouncements for the passerby to hear, and dressed in expensive clothing to get attention. These behaviors would gain God’s favor. The Lord’s Prayer, according to these theologians, was Jesus making a case for humility, respect and sincerity in our prayer.

Several scholars point to the Talmud as the source of the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus learned it as the ‘Kadish. “Our Parent which art in heaven, be gracious to us, O Lord, our God; hallowed be thy name, and let the remembrance of thee be glorified in heaven above and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign over us now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive unto all men whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and for evermore.” (translated by Rev. John Gregorie)

Another scholar refutes this saying the Kadish did not become prominent in the daily synagogue liturgy until the 5^th century, CE. It may have existed in the 1^st century but it is unlikely that Jesus would have been familiar with it.

The doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer is an add on. It reflects the growing liturgical use of the prayer in worship. St. Augustine saw the Our Father as a profound connection of Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins. The doxology is not noted in any early manuscript. In the mid 1500’s Henry VIII mandated an official English version of the prayer. Consistency was apparently important to Henry. Henry’s Lord’s Prayer did not include the doxology. In the 1600’s English Protestant and Catholic Bible translations had different renderings of the Matthew prayer although they prayed aloud the same words – the King Henry VIII version. It was in the era of Queen Elizabeth I and the resurgence of anti-Catholic feelings within the Church of England that the doxology was officially added to the Protestant prayer. …lest Catholics and Protestants pray the identical prayer!

The New Testament was written in Greek. The letters and stories which ultimately became the New Testament were set down between 20-80 years after the death of Christ. Up to this time, the legacy of Jesus and his community was perpetuated through oral history. Greek was the language of commerce in the West. The language of the East, Jesus’ language, was Aramaic. The Jews spoke Aramaic. The weekly synagogue Hebrew readings were always accompanied with an Aramaic translation. Jesus would have prayed his prayer in Aramaic.

Languages do not often translate word for word, image or concept for image or concept. There are collections of sayings referred to as the “Oracles of the Lord” by Eusebius, a 4^th century church historian. These sayings are in Aramaic and are believed to be notes from recollections of Jesus’ sermons. Some propose that it is from these sayings the Lord’s Prayer gets its original form. The sayings are written in rhythmic oratory style. It’s a good way to remember information. The Beatitudes in Matthew 3:5-10 are an example of this style. Greek cannot duplicate Aramaic poetry. We will never have the “original” Lord’s Prayer. We do have several moving translations, still being written!

The gospel writers and later scribes copying the material were not as concerned about the exact words of Jesus as much as they were interested in the intent. Intentional and unintentional editorial modifications happened throughout the writing and re-writing of the New Testament. That’s a fact.

Does this put one’s faith in jeopardy? Does the fact that the Bible is an inspired and sometimes corrupted human word destroy the foundation of faith? Yes, for some. If the Bible is not completely true, how are we to discern what is true? How can an imperfect scripture have authority? From what or where shall we go to for direction?

Christianity is a religion of the book. Like Judaism and Islam, our stories and beliefs are contained in a bound manuscript that has survived generations. Our faith, however, is far richer than what can be confined and conformed in a book. We believe in God, not the Bible. Yes, the Bible is important and foundational. It remains a medium for God’s word. Jesus is God’s Word in the flesh made known to us through Scripture. And, God is still speaking. Always has, always will. That’s faith.

Amen.

Return to CCC Home Page