Do We Have the Words of Jesus? Part 1

Or Just a Paraphrase?

Do we really have the exact words of Jesus? Or, is what is recorded for us in the Gospels not the exact words but simply the idea or meaning of what Jesus said? These questions have raised a great deal of controversy over the years. In technical terms, this is the ipsissima verba (from Latin, meaning "same words") and ipsissima vox (meaning "same voice") debate. While virtually all liberal critics line up at the doorstep of ipsissima vox, evangelical scholars are divided. Some defend ipsissima verba (Green; Thomas "Impact" and "Historical;" Montgomery), while most have chosen to go with ipsissima vox (Blomberg 117-127; Bock; Feinberg 300-301; Osborne; Stein 221). Recently ipsissima vox has divided into two, with a broad view (ipsissima vox with extensive paraphrasing and change of emphasis) represented by Wallace and a narrow view ("ipsissima verba with translation and a very small amount of paraphrase) presented by Wilkin in reaction to Wallace.

            Before this issue can be discussed, some presuppositions must examined. The paper will examine the major presuppositions that are brought to the text of the Gospels when the words of Jesus are compared.

Examples of Quotes

One of the best ways to learn about how the authors quote is to actually watch people quote. We can do this when someone in a narrative quotes someone else, and along with the quote we have the original statement. In the OT, we have an example with the anointing of Jehu by Elisha (2 Kings 9:1-10). In verse 3 God commands him to tell Jehu “Thus says the LORD, I have anointed you king over Israel.” But in verse 6, Elisha actually says “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, I have anointed you king over the people of the LORD, even over Israel.” Now it is possible that this is bad quoting, and Elisha erred. But it seems more likely that he simply expanded what God wanted him to say.

An example of this in the Gospels is found in the remembrance of Peter of the words of Jesus. After the rooster crowed, Peter “remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times” (Luke 22:61). But the actual statement of Jesus is found in verse 34: “And he said, ‘I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied me three times that you know me.’” While the basic meaning of both statements is the same, the exact wording is different. 

Another example is in John 9, in the story of the healing of the blind man. Jesus tells the man to “Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam” (John 9:7). But when the man quotes Jesus later, he says that Jesus told him “Go to Siloam and wash” (9:11). Once again, the general idea is the same, but the word order has changed and words have been dropped. A last example is found in John 4. When Jesus asks about her husband, she responds ουκ εχω ανδρα (I have no husband).  In English there is no translation difference, but the word order is different in Greek. The exact same words are used, but in a different order. If Jesus can quote someone else by changing the order of their words around, that should be a lesson for what is acceptable in quoting. Whether or not changing the word order changed meaning will be addressed later in the paper.

Generic Wording and Inerrancy

            The proponents of ipsissima verba claim that inspiration and inerrancy require exact wording, and that changes of any sort would misrepresent the statement. But is this something that inspiration requires? At least two examples from outside the Gospels have not been brought up yet in the discussion which could shed light on what exactly inspiration demands.

            The first of these examples is from Acts 5:1-11, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. After Ananias lies to Peter about how much money he sold his property for and dies, his wife Sapphira comes to Peter, not knowing what has happened. Peter asks her a question when she arrives: ειπε μοι, ει τοσουτου το χωριον απεδοσθε; (Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?). ναι, τοσουτου (Yes, that was the price).Peter is quoted as not saying the exact price, but as just saying a generic word "such and such" or "for so much." She responds with the same word in Greek, affirming that is the price she paid. It is possible that Peter is pointing out the bag of gold which Ananias had left (Bruce 165; Kistemaker 187), but it is more likely that Luke has just a word "with reference to a specific but unspecified number" (Barrett 270). Luke did not intend the reader to understand that Peter was referring to a bag of gold that was still present but he was presenting the story in a generic fashion (Conzelmann 38).

            A clearer example of a generic conversation is that attributed to Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:2-6. In this passage Absalom is laying the groundwork for his rebellion by stealing the hearts of the people. He would meet them at the city gate and engage them in conversation, showing concern for each one individually by asking them a specific question: “From what city are you?” The person would then say: “From one of the tribes of Israel.” While no commentator that I could find has commented on this aspect of the passage, it is clear that this is a generic conversation and that when Absalom actually talked with these people, the people would tell him exactly what city they were from. But to generalize it, the author of 2 Samuel puts words on their lips that they never said exactly.

            Another example is the statement of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:4: “Naaman went in and told his master, saying, ‘Thus and thus spoke the girl who is from the land of Israel,’” where “thus and thus”

14:13 and Luke 22:10 describe the man they were to find as the man who has a pitcher of water, while Matthew 26:18 records Jesus as saying simply "a certain man" without defining just who that man was. Another more controversial example of a Gospel passage which would fit in the generic category is Matthew 4:17 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This might very well be simply a generic summary of what Jesus was preaching and not the exact phrasing.

            So how does this presupposition affect ipsissima verba? For evangelicals who believe the whole Bible is inspired, it relates by showing us just what inspiration entails. It does not require exact wording, but can summarize words to make a generic statement and still accurately report the conversation without an error, which is exactly an ipsissima vox position. Since I have never seen this point published before, there has been no response to it by those from an ipsissima verba position.

Login to add comments