Somebody kicked a field goal from the fifty yard line. That’s a sixty yard field goal, except that someone moved the goalposts to the thirty. In the same manner, evangelicals say, “This is scriptural bibliology,” but it isn’t. The goalposts were moved. Evangelism has moved on bibliology, first on the doctrine of inspiration.
Ipsissima Verba and Ipsissima Vox
Precise Words
Ipsissima verba, Latin, means, “the precise words.” On the other hand, ipsissima vox is more Latin, meaning, “the very voice.” Ipsissima verba says that the words of Jesus in the gospels were recorded verbatim. Vox says that the gospels capture the concepts of what Jesus said.
Vox says that when the gospels say, “Jesus said,” these are not necessarily the words of Christ. He probably didn’t say them according to many evangelicals, just the essence or general content of what He said. The gospels say, “Jesus said,” 65 times. Many times, speaking of Jesus, in the gospels, “the Lord said.” Sometimes, literally the gospels say, “these words spake Jesus.”
Who dares say that Jesus did no speak the words that scripture says He spoke? The Holy Spirit would not inspire a “Jesus said” and not provide the very words of Jesus. Matthew 24:35 says:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
That statement by Jesus about His own Words is false if the gospels do not record His Words. Several years ago now, a blogpost here said:
God’s people must hear the Words of the Son (John 12:47), receive His Words (John 12:48; 17:8), keep His Words (John 14:23), have His Words abiding in them (John 15:7) and remember His Words as from the Father (John 14:10).
Concepts
Daniel Wallace in his “An Apologia for a Broad View of Ipsissima Vox,” paper presented to the 51st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, Mass., November 1999, wrote:
[T]he concepts go back to Jesus, but the words do not—at least, not exactly as recorded.
I wrote these lines on this blog in the not too distant past:
His colleague, Darrell Bock, wrote a chapter in Jesus Under Fire [ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995):73-99], defending the vox position, entitled, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex.” Bock’s chapter tries to defend the historical reliability of the Gospel writing of Jesus’ Words from the destructive criticism of the Jesus Seminar. He writes, “The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and the central thrust of his message,” but “we do not have ‘his very words’ in the strictest sense of the term”. . . .
Wallace and Bock approach Jesus’ Words in the Gospels from a naturalistic viewpoint. The apostles forgot the Words like historians often do and so presented the Words the best they could, considering their shortcomings.
Verbal Inspiration
Donald Green in an essay on this subject, published in The Master’s Seminary Journal (Spring 2001), wrote:
Jesus’ promise of the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed the Gospel writers in a different realm in which different standards of memory would be operative. They would be supernaturally enabled to recall Jesus’ words in a manner that freed them from the human limitations of secular historians.
The great high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 17, begins with the words: “These words spake Jesus.” Ipsissima verba, a high view of scripture, says that Jesus said these very words in His prayer to His Father. Later in the prayer itself, Jesus says in verse 8:
I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.
This is what Jesus says, that He has given to the New Testament writers through inspiration very words, not just concepts or ideas.
Redaction Criticism
Is redaction criticism acceptable or accommodated by evangelicals? Timothy Berg, a member of an evangelical group called the textual confidence collective, says, “Yes.” Redaction criticism says that several biblical authors were very often if not most often mere editors of source material. This clashes with the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Berg in an article, “Matthew 5:17-20 and the KJV,” published on his kjbhistory.com website, writes:
It would be irresponsible to deal with any text in Matthew without at least briefly mentioning the synoptic problem and its relation to the exegesis of the text. While there are some recent dissenting voices, the majority of evangelical scholarship today holds to Marcan priority. That is, that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. Further, because Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material that they share in common yet which is not present in Mark, it is likely that they had both had access to a source Mark was unaware of. This source is referred to as “Q.”
He writes then specifically about Matthew 5:18:
The passage at hand in verse 18 is clearly “Q” material, or material which Matthew and Luke draw from a common source unknown to Mark. It is worth noting how Matthew has uniquely shaped this material for his Jewish audience.
Redaction criticism says that biblical authors reworked an already written text, taking it and putting it somewhat in their own words. This is not either a biblical or historical view of the doctrine of inspiration. It acquiesces to modernism or theological liberalism in a denial of verbal inspiration.
More to Come
Hello Brother,
I was thinking about this recently as I listened through the book of Luke. There are instances where we know the same conversation was happening, they both say “Jesus said,” yet the recorded words are different.
Sending His disciples at the triumphal entry is an example where the wording in Like is slightly different than in Mark for what must be the exact same time. How does that fit with your statement that it must be verbatim of what Christ said?
Thanks
Bro,
Thanks for commenting. My answer on the wording differences in parallel passages is what is called, “classic harmonization.” A high view of scripture harmonizes gospel passages, not seeing contradictions in them. We know Jesus said much more than what scripture records and so all the words recorded, He said. Since scripture is what tells us the words of Christ, we believe those are the words of Christ. That answer does not satisfy a naturalistic view of scripture. Thanks for asking.
I’m not trying to be dense, but would that answer imply that neither passage is exactly what he said in the exact way that he said it but rather both contain part of the very words He said?
Second question to that, wouldn’t they then still be considered a paraphrase rather than verbatim?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, rather, im trying to work through it in my mind. Thanks.
First, scripture doesn’t include all the words of Jesus, but when it says He said it, then He did say it. It’s not saying, “He said and only said.” We know He said more things than recorded. But what is recorded, He said.
Second, it is verbatim if they are words He said. A paraphrase uses different words.
I didn’t come up with the concept of verba and vox. This discussion has been going on, and vox is what was introduced, just like redaction criticism and other modern variation of bibliology.
Pastor Brandenburg, thank you for writing. For scholars affirming Marcan priority, you would think Occam’s Razor would easily rule out vanities like “Q”.
I recently outlined the Book of John and came to the same conclusion you did, cited in your former blog post above. Glory to God for the truth of Scripture and the working of His Spirit that brings understanding.
David Thompson, if two people heard me say, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog,” and one reported I said, “the brown fox jumped over the dog,” and the other, “the quick brown fox jumped over the dog,” they would both be reporting what I said truthfully, albeit only in part. It could be surmised that this is lying by omission, but that would come back to their intent and purpose for reporting my words. For Scripture, I think “lying by omission” can be reasonably ruled out, considering the true Author of the recorded words of the Bible is Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what was recorded in each Gospel is precisely what the Lord wanted to be remembered (Deut. 29:29), as there are many things Christ said and did that are not recorded (John 21:25). The inspiration process also worked with the faculties of the human authors, incorporating their unique styles and personalities into the record.
Thanks Benjamin. What you wrote is good.
For instance, Luke 19 and Mark 11 recording Christ’s conversation have these phrases.
“And as soon as ye be entered”
“In the which at your entering”
Obviously, those both mean the same thing, but the words are different. However, they don’t appear to be different in a way that they would all be used in the same sentence.
In John 21, Jesus teaches the same thing to Peter and uses different words in repeating the same thing. If He does it one place, then He can do it in another. That is, unless we don’t know that those are His Words, because we don’t believe scripture records His exact words. Jesus repeats Himself. I’m sure if you listen to your own recordings, you hear yourself repeat yourself, but add one or two layers or just say it in a different way to convey the same meaning. It is more real.
“In the which at your entering” and “as soon as ye be entered into it” don’t say precisely the same thing. The first one in the Greek is three Greek words and the second is four. Jesus could say, “Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering, as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied.” The second part adds a sense of urgency and also timing with “as soon as” (euthus).
As well, the alternative changes much of what scripture says about itself and then what you believe. There is a lot to say here, but I’ll leave it at that.
Thank you both for your responses. I was not disagreeing with what you’re saying. It’s just something I hadn’t given great consideration to before now. I certainly don’t want to remove or diminish the divine origin of the Bible. I plan to spend some more time studying this issue and thank you for bringing it to my attention and presenting a faith-filled understanding of such matters. I’m seeing more and more people of my generation who are doing exactly what you’re saying with the Bible, moving the goalposts. I don’t want to be a part of that.
I’m fine with your questions.
Dear Bro Thompson,
Here is an essay that deals with some of the implications. I appreciate Bro Brandenburg’s article here.
https://faithsaves.net/synoptic-gospels/
Bro. Kent and Bro. Thomas,
How does the question of what language the Lord Jesus was using come into play for this topic?
For English speaking Christians, we use the KJV. And we say that we have the words of Christ, but actually Christ did not speak English.
Is it at least possible, that Christ was using Hebrew at least for some of the sayings (I’m not saying Jesus did not know Greek. I’m very sure He did. But also several instances seem to refer to the Lord using Hebrew, such as the Talitha Kum, the Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani, etc.), and then the Holy Spirit infallibly inspired the Gospels in Greek in such a way as to accurately convey the words of Christ in the Greek. And that the Holy Spirit might use two or three ways of saying something to fully capture the original Hebrew, hence some variations in the Gospels, all inspired, all infallibly reflecting what the Lord Jesus said. Is this such a bad position?
After all, when Jesus for instance read the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue (Luk. 4:17ff), we all agree He was reading a Hebrew text, but Luke (Holy Spirit) gave a Greek version. I think this could inform us about other instances. It would seem strange to me for Jesus to be reading Hebrew, and after closing the scroll, to then preach in Greek to the assembled Jews in a Jewish synagogue.
Brother, no, this is not a bad position.
It has a parallel in the NT usage of Deuteronomy 6:5. That is a God-inspired Hebrew text, translated into Greek in more than one way in the NT. Jesus Himself translated it one way in Matthew 22:37 and another way in Mark 12:30. The scribe used at least one different word in Mark 12:33 and his answer is described by the Spirit using the word “discreetly”. A lawyer changed the order in Luke 10:27 and Jesus said he had “answered right.”
The Holy Spirit chose to use those different translations, all of which are accurate and true to the Hebrew, to emphasize different aspects of the original inspired Hebrew text. (Side note: That should provide a model for us that an original-language text can have shades of meaning that are not reflected in the very best translation, and so it is valuable for us to study the original languages.)
But in the situation under discussion here, it certainly could be the case that Jesus spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic at times, and we have a God-inspired translation into Greek of HIs original words.
I believe Kent’s explanation of the Luke/Mark difference noted above makes a lot of sense. I don’t think we have to assume that there is a translation thing going on in any of these cases. Hebraic expression uses so much repetition, and Kent’s suggested explanation would fit exactly with the way we see Biblical writers using the Hebrew language, and with Hebrew-speaking writers using the Greek language in the New Testament. So it’s easy for me to believe that Jesus could have said exactly what Kent has suggested, and that the Holy Spirit divinely guided Mark and Luke in which of His words they recorded.
So I don’t see a need to assert that it must have been as you have suggested. But I see no Biblical/theological reason to assume it wasn’t, either. Either Kent’s approach or the one you have suggested both accomplish the same thing. They demonstrate clearly that wording differences in parallel accounts are NOT inconsistent with a belief in verbal inspiration, that the Holy Spirit has given us a 100% true account, to the very words.
To my thinking, we don’t need any explanation of apparent differences, because ultimately I just accept what God said, and it has proven true so many times that it’s faith (but not blind faith) to accept it. But even the skeptic, if he’s honest at all, should accept that any reasonable explanation eliminates the charge of a proven contradiction. And in this case, Kent has provided one reasonable explanation and you’ve provided another. We don’t really need to try to figure out which one is the right explanation, we can just accept what God said.
Bro. Gleason,
Thank you for your explanation and perspective.
Hi Tenrin,
I have heard and read lots of different opinions with their arguments for the language used or spoken in Israel during the time of Christ. God’s Word, the New Testament, was written in koine Greek. Koine means “common.” That is the common language of that day in a Hellenized region. Josephus the Jew also wrote in Greek.
I agree Jesus knew Hebrew and the scroll in Luke 4 was Hebrew, but I believe Jesus targummed, the same view John Owen took on that passage, and I believe he translated the Hebrew text into Greek on the fly. He was not reading from a translation, a very common view among evangelicals today. I have explained reasons for that several times here in different places.
What do I think of your view? It’s more conservative than a strictly vox viewpoint. Some have used the term broad view of vox and narrow view of vox. The narrower view says that some recordings of Jesus words use an indirect discourse construction and then the translated words issue that you address. We run into more trouble with a vox or modified vox viewpoint as it relates to the implications and their relationship with New Testament bibliology.
This is probably my answer to Bro. Gleason as well.
Bro. Kent,
I understand your position and explanation. Thank you for the post. Much food for thought.
I actually came to ask the same question as Tenrin. By the way, hello again Tenrin.
I’m wondering if, for instance, with the Oliver discourse it’s impossible that Matthew and Mark were both translating, by the Holy Spirit, into Greek, and their translations though perfectly reflecting Christ’s words as in “the brown fox” analogy are not exactly the same. I’m having a hard time as I compare verses that were certainly spoken at the same time seeing how Jesus would’ve said things slightly differently while not sounding illogical.
Hello Bro. Thompson,
It is such musings also that drive me to this consideration.
This is not a answer to everything people brought up, but I believe “Talitha cumi” and the like are instances that verify that Aramaic was in use, probably as the “home language” used by most Jews in their households, but I believe there is good evidence that Greek was the language of public discourse–including, most significantly, that Matthew, Mark, Peter, Paul, etc., whether writing to Jews (Matthew, 1 & 2 Peter, Hebrews) or Gentiles, wrote in Greek. Christ said “Talitha cumi” in Aramaic but then said the rest of what He said in Greek.
This is also confirmed by significant extrabiblical evidence. For example, even the vehemently anti-Gentile Jewish rebels at Masada wrote in Greek as often as they wrote in Aramaic, as we can see from the fragments they left behind. Greek was well-known in 1st century Judea and I believe we have every reason to think that Christ preached His sermons in Greek in the exact words (ipsissima verba) in which we have them, and traditional harmonization accounts for alleged contradictions. Christ promised His words would not pass away, and we have those exact Greek words, not simply translations of lost Aramaic words in Greek.
Thanks.
Bro. Thomas,
Good info about the widespread use of Greek even among the Jews.
Another topic though, which I have heard but not researched closely, is it Aramaic or Hebrew that is spoken at that time in Judea?
I’ve studied both, Hebrew much deeper than Aramaic, and although similar, I know they are still different enough from one another.
If you can speak a bit about this, I appreciate it very much.
At this point I would say that I think they spoke a form of Aramaic at home, while Hebrew was the language of the synagogue/religion, although I have not looked into this to the same extent as the question of whether Christ preached in Greek or in Aramaic.
Thanks!
Thank you Bro. Thomas.
Dear Pastor Kent, Good evening I hope you and your families are doing well today and your recovering well from your surgery, sorry for bothering you again but I am having a hard time with lots of your links not working for the following page https://kentbrandenburg.com/2019/01/16/what-is-truth-index-by-specific-topic_74/
the text that pops up for multiple links is
Sorry, this page doesn’t exist.
Please check the URL or go back a page.
404 Error. Page Not Found.
that’s for this very first one
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2015/12/baptist-confessions-and-preservation-of.html
it’s like this sadly for most of the links ?
please let me know if there’s any other way to access the articles thanks for your awesome service to The LORD GOD Almighty Jesus May GOD bless you and your families with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen ❤️ praying for you and your families Jesus loves you and so do I ❤️
Chris,
Thanks for letting me know on the index. I don’t know what happened with these links that they all suddenly are not working. That’s not good. I changed the first one, the one you tried to see and now it works, but the rest of them do not.