Do We Have the Words of Jesus? Part 4

The Final Words

Here is the final installment of the paper, where I discuss how quoting and meaning interact and where I actually reach a conclusion. I think the conclusion is the weakest part of the paper, so I would be interested in any comments ya'll might have.

Quoting and Meaning

            The ipsissima verba position views the exact words of Jesus as required for inspiration since if the exact words are not recorded, then the exact meaning is not recorded. "A varied verbal form would result in a different meaning" (Green 16).  This basic foundation drives them to conclude that inerrancy demands ipsissima verba.

            However, this premise of the ipsissima verba position has an underlying and important presupposition which needs to be examined. Bock might have addressed this presupposition, but he did not explain himself very clearly, merely stating that the gospel writers condensed the speeches of Jesus (Bock 78), as Acts 2:40 indicates. Since Bock did not drive home the point, Thomas is able to readily agree with this assertion later, although he does almost incriminate himself: "That means that transitions from one part of the sermon to another, where omissions occurred, had to be constructed, but through inspiration of the Spirit, the writers surely did an accurate job of representing how Jesus moved from part to part. They just did it with fewer words" (Thomas "Impact" 368, italics added). Thomas also admits that "recognizing the necessity of condensation in some accounts of His conversations and discourses, an outside possibility exists that some are not His very words" (Thomas "Impact" 373).

The presupposition under examination here has to do with the nature of meaning and where it is found. The statement by Green given above combined with his ipsissima verba position strongly implies that words by themselves can communicate meaning. The implied resulting presupposition would be: If we have the ipsissima verba of Jesus, then we can know what he meant. If we do not have them, we do not know exactly what he meant, which would contradict inspiration. This presupposition is also seen in the following statement by Thomas.

Even the slightest redactional change of Jesus' words by a gospel writer would have altered the meaning of Jesus' utterances on a given historical occasion. It is important to a sound view of biblical inspiration that readers have the precise intended sense of Jesus' teaching, not an altered sense that a writer conveyed because of a particular theological theme he wanted to emphasize (Thomas "Impact" 372).

            But is this a correct presupposition? If we have the exact words, do we have the whole meaning? Or, is meaning gathered from other sources as well? This strong connection between word and meaning is challenged by discourse analysis, a relatively new branch of linguistics which states that communication involves not only words but also structural considerations, most of which operate at a level above the sentence. Two descriptions of discourse analysis are given by Levinsohn and Bergen. "Discourse analysis is an analysis of language features that draws its explanations, not from within the sentence or word (i.e., the factors involved are not syntactic or morphological), but are extrasententially (from the linguistic and wider context)" (Levinsohn viii). "Within the past three decades, however, an ever-increasing amount of attention has been given to the study of the larger units of human communication, from paragraphs to entire genres. It is now recognized that human communication as it is normally practiced actually occurs only above the sentence level" (Bergen 327).

            Some of these structurally important items include order of information, quantity of information, and type of information (Bergen 331). These three major items allow a speaker to use similar wording but produce results with very different meanings because of the structure the wording is enclosed in.

This means that the meaning of a discourse is not found solely in the exact words, but in the structure and order of the words as well. Hence, keeping some of the exact words does not guarantee the exact meaning. If the order of the words is changed or words are left out, as ipsissima verba advocates freely admit, then the meaning changes. Just having some of the exact words of Jesus (the ipsissima verba position) does not guarantee we have the exact meaning. For the ipsissima verba advocate to be consistent, it would have to be argued that the gospels record not just the exact words of Jesus, but also the exact structure of the words and their context.

A humorous example of this is a pair of signs at a swimming pool (Tannen). One sign reads "Use the toilet not the pool." The other sign reads "Pool for members only." Taken separately, the first sign means that all users of the pool should relieve themselves in the toilet and not in the pool. The second sign means that only members are permitted to swim in the pool. But what if the two signs are to be taken together? Then they would mean that all are permitted to swim in the pool, but only members can relieve themselves in the pool. Supposing that they are to be taken together, would the meaning be accurately communicated if only one sign was seen? No! Even though the sign was read with its exact words, the meaning would not be communicated because part of the original wording was cut off. In order to communicate the meaning, all the words would need to be read. This example shows that just having the exact words of Christ does not guarantee that we have the exact intended meaning.

One example of this is the statement Jesus said at the feast given by Matthew. Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17 record that Jesus said "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" while Luke 5:32 also has "to repentance" at the end of the phrase (Wallace 10-11). Even if we assume that Jesus spoke the whole phrase, for a gospel to leave part of the phrase off at least changes the emphasis of what Jesus said. The absolute calling in Matthew and Mark would certainly have implied repentance, but that is not the major emphasis. If we assume for the sake of argument that the Lukan version is original, even though Matthew and Mark have (some of) the exact words of Jesus, they still do not preserve the exact meaning Jesus intended. So even to have part of the exact wording, as Mathew and Mark do here, is no guarantee of keeping the exact meaning of what he said. Green responds to Wallace only in that he says that it is not commonly conceded that Luke adds the phrase, but he does not address the issue that even if Luke was original, the shortening of the phrase by Matthew and Mark changes the meaning (or at least the emphasis).

There are many more examples of this happening in the Gospels, where even if the Gospel accounts are combined to make a whole the shortened (or lengthened) account changes the emphasis of the original statement of Jesus. In the story of the healing of the slave of the centurion in Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus states that he had not found such faith in all of Israel. Luke then proceeds right to the end of the story, giving the impression that this lack of faith is disappointing, but not tragic. Matthew, on the other hand, just after this saying, adds further words of Jesus that show that many from Israel will be cast into outer darkness, a much more serious take on the situation than Luke gives.

At one point in his ministry as recorded in Matthew 15:39-16:4 and Mark 8:10-12 some Pharisees and Sadducees come to test Christ by requesting a sign from him. In Mark he asks why this generation seeks for a sign, deeply sighing, very similar to his usual attitude toward slow learners like the disciples. But in Matthew he adds a few choice adjectives: "evil and adulterous." They are no longer just slow learners, but people who are hardened against God. The addition of these two adjectives makes a large difference in how the passage is read.

A major change in meaning is the prediction by Jesus of his upcoming passion in Matthew 17:22-23, Mark 9:30-32, and Luke 9:43-45. Each of the gospels records that Jesus would be delivered into the hands of men. Matthew and Mark go on to show that he would die, but then he would rise on the third day. There is hope! But Luke just leaves it without mention of the resurrection. This omission (or addition) is a drastic change in meaning. It is agreed that each of the three gospels had already mentioned the resurrection, but that is not the question here. We are dealing with the meaning of these words in this context. The Lucan account presents a much different picture than the Matthean or Markan version.

Another outlook difference is seen in the response by Jesus to those who are arresting him. In Matthew 26:56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus says that this is happening in fulfillment of the Scriptures, but in Luke 22:53 Jesus mentions nothing of the Scriptures and instead says that the hour and the power of darkness belong to them. These are dramatically different viewpoints when viewed separately. The Gospel writers have used the words of Jesus to make their theological point and in the process have presented their readers with very different views of what Jesus was saying.

An example which shows the writers modifying (changing? shortening? lengthening?) the words of Jesus to make a theological point is in the preparation for the Triumphal Entry in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:29-44, and John 12:12-19. In Mark and Luke Jesus gives a command for the disciples to get a colt (John doesn't record the conversation). But in Matthew Jesus commands the disciples to get a colt and a donkey, which conforms to the Zechariah passage he is about to quote. Whatever it is Jesus originally said, Matthew chooses to record words of Jesus that fit with his theological point, while the other Gospel writers who don't make the same theological point do not use those words and so give a different emphasis to the words of Jesus.

A Proposal For a Limit

How can we put together all of these presuppositions and handle data such as we have just seen? How can a Gospel writer use a statement of Jesus for a different purpose than Jesus intended? If he could do that, what is to stop the Gospel writer from putting totally new ideas in the mouth of Jesus? Or to put it another way, what separates an evangelical broad view of ipsissima vox from a liberal view of ipsissima vox? Where is the limit?

An ipsissima verba answer would be that the limit is the exact words of Jesus. But this has been shown to be very difficult to hold consistently. A possible answer that might be given by someone who held to a narrow view of ipsissima vox is that the Gospel writers might have changed the wording of Jesus, but used the words in the same way Jesus did and with the same meaning. But these answers do not seem to hold up either under the examples given above. Another possible answer is that Jesus meant the original statements to contain both meanings or emphases which the Gospel writers later utilize. The problem with this view is that it goes against a single meaning of Scripture and it approaches a deconstructionist hermeneutic: the statement means whatever you see in it.  Another problem with this view is that the emphases that the writers bring out of the statements of Jesus are sometimes contradictory. How could Jesus have held two contradictory emphases?

My proposed solution is that the limit is what Jesus taught overall in His ministry. So this would mean that Luke could change "call sinners" to "call sinners to repentance," since that theme is included in the overall teaching of Jesus, but he could not have changed the wording to "call sinners to do drugs in the park" because that is not in the overall teaching of Jesus. The Gospel writers would have known Jesus (or at least his teachings) very well and could have presented them in their own wording to emphasize the themes they wanted to without going against what Jesus taught in His ministry. This limit could also be nuanced to "the overall teaching of Christ in that period of his ministry" for the sake of Biblical theologians and dispensationalist who like to divide. This limit does not imply that since ipsissima verba is being rejected inspiration is being rejected, but that a wrong definition for inspiration (ipsissima verba) is being rejected. We must treat the Bible as it is, not how we want it to be.

Conclusion

            So where do we end up? The preceding evidence has shown that an ipsissima verba position is untenable. But then what form of ipsissima vox is correct? While a narrow view avoids some of the problems of ipsissima verba, such as minor paraphrasing and translation, its presuppositions cannot account for all the data, especially the cases where different Gospels give a different meaning or emphasis to a statement of Jesus. Overall, a broad view of ipsissima vox is the only correct position. But is the concern of those from the ipsissima verba position that an ipsissima vox view automatically makes one a liberal a correct view? A proposed limit to a broad view of ipsissima vox is that the meaning be in line with the overall teaching of Christ. Is this the correct limit? With all the data this paper has paper has examined, it seems to be a good choice. But there is plenty of room for more work and refinement.

Works cited

Aune David E. The New Testament in it Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.

Barrett, C. K. Acts. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.

Bergen, Robert. "Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism." JETS 30:3 (1987): 327-336.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 1987.

Bock, Darrell. "The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive or Memorex?" Jesus Under Fire. Eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Bruce, F. F. Acts. Leicester: Apollos, 1990.

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Trans.  James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Feinberg, Paul. "The Meaning of Inerrancy." Inerrancy. Ed. N. L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Green, Donald E. "Inspiration and Evangelical Views of Ipsissima Vox." ThM Thesis. The Master's Seminary. 2001.

Josephus. Josephus: Complete Works. Trans. William Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960.

Kistemaker, Simon. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. Dallas: SIL, 2000.

Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1982.

Montgomery, John Warwick. "Evangelicals and Biblical Criticism: The Continuing Saga.". www.trinitysem.edu/journal/jwm_ad_osborne.html 1978.

Osborne, Grant. "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical." JETS 42:2 (1999): 193-210.

Porter, Stanley E. "Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?" Tyndale Bulletin 44:2 (1993): 199-235.

Stebbing, Henry. "Introductory Essay." Josephus: Complete Works. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Tannen, Deborah. "Discourse Analysis." www.lsadc.org/fields/index.php?aaa=discourse.html 2004.

Thomas, Robert L. "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical: Another View." JETS. 43:1 (2000): 97-111.

---. "Impact of Historical Criticism on Theology and Apologetics." The Jesus Crisis. Ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell. Kregel: Grand Rapids, 1998.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Richard Crawley. //classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html 2004.

Wallace, Daniel B. "An Apologia for a Broad View of Ipsissima Vox." Paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society: Danvers, Massachusetts, 18 November 1999.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Toward a Narrow View of Ipsissima Vox.". www.faithalone.org/journal/2001i/wilkin.html 2001.

Login to add comments