Augustine and the Prophet Hannah > > Home

Do We Have the Words of Jesus? Part 3

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2006 by Charlie Trimm
Categories: Bible  
This section considers how inspiration, the quest for certainty, and the use of the OT in the NT affect the debate.

Inspiration and John 14:26

            The influence of John 14:26 is an important point for the ipsissima verba position. In this verse Jesus, speaking of the Holy Spirit, promises that “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” Green contends that this is  proof that the apostles would remember all the words which Jesus had said. Then it would follow that since they remembered the words, they would not need to make up words that were close (ipsissima vox) like Thucydides did (Green 68-70).

            Does this verse contribute to ipsissima verba? It certainly could be read this way, but it is not a required interpretation. Jesus does not say that the disciples will remember all the words which he said, just all which he said. This could mean just the themes and broad categories which Jesus told them. Interpreting this verse as referring to words could also result in an absurdity. Would the disciples really remember every word which Jesus spoke to them at any time over the three years they spent together? Every time he gave directions on the road? Every off-hand comment he said? Every conversation? An ipsissima vox view would easily resolve this by saying that the disciples would remember all the themes he had taught them, not necessarily all the words. This verse fits just as well (if not better) with an ipsissima vox view as with an ipsissima verba view.

 

Certainty

            An underlying presupposition for the ipsissima verba position and the narrow view of ipsissima vox is the need for certainty. This is not defended, just stated as a fact.  Wilkin simply assumes that having the words of Christ is a necessity, but never argues why it is necessary.

A broad view of ipsissima vox renders the interpreter an agnostic on the life and ministry of Jesus. The interpreter cannot be sure what Jesus actually said or did. The broad-view interpreter considers the NT to be historically unreliable... If scholars aren't sure what Jesus said and did, then how can laypeople be sure? The New Testament can't be relied upon to convey truth. It is presenting error under the guise of a different form of historiography (Wilkin 2).

If Wilkin is correct in that we need the exact words of Jesus, why is no one disturbed over indirect discourse in the Gospels? With these occurrences, we do not know exactly what Jesus said. So should we not be concerned over these? Wilkin would probably respond that this is a different case because the writers are signaling to us through indirect discourse that they are paraphrasing. But is this really the purpose of indirect discourse? If the Gospel writers were influenced at all by their milieu, then they would have had no problem paraphrasing the direct discourse as well as indirect discourse. So is there some other reason why the authors might use indirect discourse? One possibility is given by discourse analysis based on usage in other languages. "However, saying that indirect speech does not reproduce the original words does not explain why an author chooses to report certain speeches indirectly. One common motivation in languages for using an indirect form is to background the speech with respect to what follows" (Levinsohn 262). 

            Whether or not this suggestion is correct, it raises questions about the distinctives of indirect discourse. Wilkin also assumes that not having the exact words of Christ in direct discourse is an error. Is this true? Or is Wilkin importing our modern idea of error into the New Testament? A parallel example in inerrancy is that of numbers. Can inerrancy account for round numbers?  It depends on the context and the purpose of giving the numbers.

Giving approximations is a common practice in our own culture. Suppose that my actual income last year was $50, 137.69...And suppose you ask me what my gross income for last year was and I reply, 'Fifty Thousand dollars.' Have I told the truth or not? That depends on the situation and setting. If you are a friend and the question is asked in an informal social discussion of the cost of living, I have told the truth. But if you are an Internal Revenue agent conducting an audit, then I have not told the truth. For a statement to be adequate and hence true, greater specificity is required in the latter situation than in the former (Erickson 261-262).

            A similar situation exists in recording direct discourse. Would the audience of the time expect exact wording or paraphrasing? If they expected paraphrasing, then that would have meant that giving paraphrasing is not error. If the Gospel writers had been writing to us, paraphrasing would have been an error. But the Gospel writers were not writing to 21st century America. Did the Gospel writers intend us to always know the exact words of Jesus? That leads us to the next question.

 

 

OT in NT

Another important theoretical issue is the use of the OT in the NT. "Numerous New Testament citations of the Old are not word for word, even after taking into account translation from Hebrew into Greek... If the Bible can summarize a citation of itself in this way, then to see the same technique in its handling the words of Jesus should come as no surprise" (Bock 78). Wallace strongly agrees with this statement (Wallace 6).

Thomas takes issue with this comparison. He states that it is not valid because of varying purposes. The purpose of the OT quotes are simply to bring to memory something that the hearers would have already been aware of, while the Gospels meant to record for the sake of history. This difference means that the apostles would have been writing Scripture differently than they were quoting Scripture (Thomas "Impact" 368). .

But is this the purpose of the Gospel writers? Was the purpose of the Gospel writers to preserve the sayings of Christ for history or to make a theological point? While we can not make a strict dichotomy between these two poles, some attention to the question is needed. John bluntly tells his readers that he is writing for a theological reason (John ), and it appears that the others also write for a theological purpose. So would they also have been trying to preserve the words of Jesus for the people they were writing to? Or, were they trying to make a theological point based on shared or at least accessible knowledge?

Some OT authors state the sources they use (1 Kings ), and sometimes refer the reader to those sources to check the work of the OT author (Joshua , 2 Samuel ). This shows that the authors of the OT based at least part of their work on shared or accessible knowledge. They did not give the information simply for the sake of giving information, but they used that information for a theological point.

Did the Gospel writers use a similar process? Were the words of Jesus shared or accessible knowledge for the original readers of the Gospels? This question is impossible to answer with certainty (although Luke 1:1-4 gives a hint), but it would seem likely that if the relatively close date the Gospels were written after the ministry of Christ, the presence of oral tradition and the handing down of apostolic teaching are taken into account, the data of the Gospels would have been available elsewhere for the inquisitive reader to check. It makes good sense if the Gospel writers were taking available data and using it to make a theological point. If this is true, then the point of Thomas is nullified, and how the Gospel writers use the OT is similar to how the writers record the words of Jesus: paraphrasing.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:35 PM

Josh wrote: I'll tell you what I said, what I really, really said...

Charlie,

Thanks for the postings.  I have a couple of questions/observations to offer.

First, for those who believe that the gospel writers operated under the dictates of ipsissima verba, does it pose any problems that the writers might not have included every comment or statement made at any given occasion in Jesus' ministry?  In other words, if I am giving the literal words, the choice to excise or include certain statements plays a major role in casting the meaning/theme/purpose of any given situation  And if the assumption that the motivation of those adopting ipsissima verba comes from a conviction that allowing the authors to fudge with dialogue kind of ruins inspiration/inerrancy is true, then this seems to be a problem.  Jesus most likely made a number of additional unrecorded comments at the wedding at Cana, for instance, but they were not included by the editorial dictates of John.  Is a proponent of ipsissima verba forced to split hairs of editorial privilege at this point.

Second, you mentioned the use of different words for bed at the synoptic accounts of the healing of the lame man.  How do ipsissima verba advocates account for synoptic variation?  Does synoptic variation pose a terminal difficulty?

Thirdly, it seems that ipsissima verba is a position fraught with challenges that are much more easily resolved by ipsissima vox.  Do you think that verba is at all a reasonably tenable position? 

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:57 PM

Charlie wrote: 

I agree with your thoughts about deciding what to choose. That is the point of my last section about quotation and meaning: just because we get the exact words right does not mean that we carry over the exact meaning as well. The two do not always go together.

For your second thought, variation is accounted for in the verba position by simply saying that Jesus said both things. While this is reasonable in some cases, and we do have some explicit examples of repitition, it strains credibility to say that everything was repeated, like in the example of the bed. The exact same phrase three times, changing only the word for bed?

Third, I do not think that verba is a reasonable position. I certainly will not call it stupid (like some other theological positions which shall remain nameless), but I think it takes a lot of faith to follow it, faith in presuppositions that are not true. I do not recommend verba. On the other hand, I can't prove my side either. I just think it is more reasonable.

Login to add comments