The purpose of this article is to address one particular aspect of this subject by evaluating the concepts of Ipsissima Verba (IVA) and Ipsissima Vox (IVO), Latin expressions which respectively mean “the very words” and “the very voice.”

 

 The Issue to Be Dealt With

The center of this particular discussion deals  with the question of whether the Gospel writers recorded the very words of Jesus, or simply  “the gist” of the things Jesus said, an expression that has been used by professor Darrell Bock as one way of explaining such differences: “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.”[1]

In defense of Professor Bock, it should be acknowledged that contextually speaking, Bock’s statements about the use of IVO were aimed at defending the Gospels from the extreme liberal attacks of The Jesus Seminar in the late 80s and early 90s, a movement that ended up denying large portions of the Gospels.[2]  Bock’s effort was meant to defend against extreme liberal attacks, but this writer suggests that he had the wrong solution by appealing to IVO as a (preferred) way of explaining differences in the Gospels since this  approach may carry with it an inherent undermining of inerrancy. How should the Christian view these matters—matters which certainly are challenging? A good starting point is to first review the Bible’s own claims about itself.

 

 The Bible’s Own Claims

The best starting place is to recognize that the Bible is a unique book (i.e., the only collection of inspired writings), and that it should not be compared to (or classified with) other non-inspired historical writings. As noted by Green, one evangelical approach (held by Bock) is to explain that different wording in the Gospels may be because they were following the patterns of ancient secular historians who had little concern for the precise recording of history or words.[3] There is a major problem with this assumption, however. Green goes on to explain that even though Bock favors the Greco-Roman sources idea as a background for the Gospels, after careful study, “The comparison to secular historians for which the ipsissima vox proponents so valiantly argue is invalid, poorly conceived, and lacking evidence.”[4] A better way to deal with these questions is to start with the Bible’s own claims.

 

 The Bible’s Claim of Inspiration that Embraces the Whole Bible

Two well-known Bible passages make the explicit claim of inspiration by the Spirit. The first states that, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Ti 3:16), and the second that all prophetic utterances came as men “moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pe 1:21). Thus, as Wilkin puts it, “If these verses are true, and they are, then there is no room for inaccuracies of any type anywhere in the Bible.”[5]  This writer agrees.

As we consider this concept of verbal inspiration (i.e., that the very words were inspired), we again look to the Bible and see that God’s prophets spoke and wrote down the actual words of God as He spoke them (cf. e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Dt 18:18; 31:9; Jos 24:26). Thus, the Bible’s own claim is that of direct, verbal inspiration by the Holy Spirit, a doctrine that is brought out very clearly in the Book of Hebrews (Heb 3:7 [inspiration of the Writings]; Heb 9:8 [inspiration of the Torah]; Heb 10:15 [inspiration of the Prophets]). Here is the key point: The Bible is not a mere secular history book, and so it should not be treated as such.

 

 Spirit Inspiration for the Apostolic Gospel Writers

Jesus made clear promises to the apostles that the time would come when they would receive direct inspiration by the Spirit that would enable them to remember and write the things He had said while in their presence. In one passage Jesus said, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak, and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you” (Jn 16:13- 14). By themselves, human memories may  be fallible, but Jesus assured His apostles that the Spirit would enable them to  write an accurate account of His words: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach  you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (Jn 14:26).

 

 Implications of the Bible’s Claims

Jesus promised to bring His words to the apostles so that they might write them down accurately, and we must not minimize the significance of this promise. These biblical claims should lead Christians to readily embrace the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration, and with it the doctrine of inerrancy (in all the Bible). As we know, however, there have been many attacks against inspiration and inerrancy, and many of them have originated from the claims of Historical Criticism (HC).

 

 The Impact Of HC

Many Christians are unfamiliar with the discipline called HC. For our short discussion, it will be helpful to have at least a basic knowledge of this movement.

 

 Origins of HC

It is beyond the scope of this article to fully chronicle the origin and development of HC, but a few brief comments will help the reader understand these negative influences. HC (e.g., Source, Form, Redaction, Tradition Criticism) is a discipline that deals with the origins (and interpretation) of the Gospels. The wider background originates with the philosophical skepticism that rose up in the Enlightenment era (1600s onward), but the more immediate roots of HC came from the philosophical/theological  liberalism of Germany in the late eighteenth century (see Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998]). HC ideas and methods grew out of Germany, but eventually overtook Europe and England, and eventually became wide- spread in American Christianity.

 

 The Claims of Historical Criticism

At its core, HC typically holds a negative view about the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. Thus, when dealing with difficult textual questions (e.g., harmonization difficulties), the frequent default view is to see the disputed words as containing historical errors. This thinking is often driven by the false assumption of literary dependence, a view which asserts that two or three of the Gospel writers (Matthew, Luke, and perhaps John) used direct dependence on other literary sources (e.g., Mark, Q, M, L) to write their Gospels. This is where IVO often comes into the picture. One way of explaining away differences in wording is to simply say that the writers were using IVO, and for this reason we should not expect precision.

 

 The Proper Response 

How should the Christian understand these issues? Here are six suggestions to help us understand the issues better.

 

 One: Recognize How Some Words Were Spoken in Aramaic but Recorded in Greek 

Virtually all NT scholars recognize that many of the words of Christ (or others) might have been originally spoken in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) but recorded by the Gospel writers in Greek. This would represent one area where most scholars would recognize the possibility of IVO (some have explained this as being a “narrow view” of IVO). This is a reasonable view and does not entail the negative consequences of a “broad view” of IVO.  As Geisler explains it, “Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and the New Testament is written in Greek. So, even in the original, the New Testament authors were translating what Jesus said.”[6] In other words, we recognize that language translations utilized IVO.

We should also recognize that even though Jesus did often speak in Aramaic (or perhaps also Hebrew), we also have good evidence to believe that Jesus also knew and spoke Greek as well. Thus, we should not automatically default to IVO to explain differences.[7]

 

 Two: Recognize the Dangers of HC

Although IVO may be the right way of explaining certain differences in the Gospels (a narrow view of IVO), we must caution against the danger of abandoning our historical view of inspiration and inerrancy, a danger that comes with a broad view of IVO and sometimes ascribes ahistorical creativity to the Gospel writers (a problem among many HC scholars). Yamauchi notes that many conservative scholars see the danger of ascribing creativity to the Gospel writers through an improper use of IVO: “These [conservative] scholars have acknowledged that the Evangelists modified the logia of Jesus but have denied that they or the early Christians created them.” [8] In other words, we must reject explanations that allow for words in the Gospels that were not actually spoken.

 

 Three: Recognize that Jesus Often Used Repetition in His Teaching

Good teachers often repeat their teachings (and often with variations) to make their points clear. This phenomenon surely stands behind many of the minor variations we find in the Gospels and is to be preferred over an IVO explanation.

As noted by Osborne, “When the words spoken by Jesus are similar but not identical between Luke and Matthew, the assumption should not be that one is more authentic than the other, but that the Lord reiterated the same idea in a similar but not identical manner . . . . Mark 10:23–24 is one example: And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’” And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!”[9]

 

 Four: Recognize the Importance of Historical Context and Gospel Arrangement 

Sometimes confusion about accuracy happens when readers confuse different historical events and wrongly try to harmonize them. For example, did Jesus curse the fig tree before or after cleansing the temple (Mt 21:12-19; Mk 11:12-14, 20-24)? Ellenburg explains: “A close examination of Mark’s account shows that Christ made two trips to the temple,” and that there is no need to resort to IVO.[10]

With regard to arrangement, it is widely recognized that the Gospel writers had their own theological reasons for what they recorded or omitted (selectivity), and even how they arranged their materials for their own theological purposes (arrangement). Arrangement of when something took place does not mean an error in reporting, nor should it lead us to automatically look to IVO. Broadus explains, “When we compare the Gospels of Mark and Luke, we find several of these miracles, and the attendant sayings, introduced there in such connections as to show that they did not occur in the precise order in which they are here mentioned…. They are grouped by Matthew without any particular regard to the chronological order, but in such a way as to promote the special design of his historical argument.”[11]  Thus, we should not automatically look to IVO to explain differences.

 

 Fifth: Recognize the Possibility of Paraphrasing with Indirect Discourse

Another situation arises when one of the Gospel writers has recorded direct discourse, but another Gospel writer may be reporting the words of Jesus as indirect discourse with a degree of para- phrase. As noted by Wilkin, all would recognize that “many of the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture are indirect discourse, not direct quotes.”[12] Ellenburg likewise believes this phenomenon clearly accounts for certain differences that some wrongly have ascribed to IVO.[13]

 

 Sixth: Recognize that the Gospel Writers Were Selective in What They Recorded

To repeat a point already noted above, all scholars recognize that the Gospel writers were selective in which sayings they chose to record. Thus, if one gospel writer recorded a saying, but the other one omitted it, one should not simply appeal to IVO as the explanation for such differences. Using IVO as a default answer can pose a threat to our confidence in both inspiration and inerrancy. Green expresses this concern: “Evangelicals professing a commitment to the inspiration of Scripture should thus tread with utmost care in this area.”[14]

 

 Summary

A right understanding about the origin and nature of the Gospels is a matter of great importance. As we have shown, we can recognize that there are times when a narrow view of IVO may be the proper way of understanding certain differences in the Gospels. However, we have also shown that one should not automatically default to such an explanation. Differences may be understood for many other reasons without the attending challenges to inspiration and inerrancy that come with a broad view of IVO.

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Darrell Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 73-99.

[2] Donald E. Green, “Evangelicals and IPSISSIMA VOX,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 [2001]: 50-51.

[3] Ibid., 51.

[4] Ibid., 59.

[5] Robert N. Wilkin, “Toward a Narrow View of Ipsissima Vox,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14, no. 26 [2001]: 5.

[6] N. L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 345; cited from the online source Norman Geisler, “Do We Have the Exact Words of Jesus in the Gospels?” http://normangeisler.com/do-we-have-the-exact-words-of-jesus-in-the-gospels/, Accessed 2/15/23.

[7] Robert L. Thomas, “The Language Jesus Spoke,” in A Harmony of the Gospels, ed. Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), 309-312.

[8] E. M. Yamauchi, “Logia,” ed. Geoffrey W Bromiley, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 153.

[9] Kelly Osborne, “The Impact of Historical Criticism on Gospel Interpretation: A Test Case,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 304.

[10] Dale Ellenburg, “Is Harmonization Honest?” in Holman Christian Standard Bible: Harmony of the Gospels (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 3.

[11] John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886; reprint, Commentary on Matthew, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990), 174.

[12] Wilkin, “Toward a Narrow View of Ipsissima Vox,” 3.

[13] Ellenburg, “Is Harmonization Honest?” 4.

[14] 14. Green, “Evangelicals and IPSISSIMA VOX,” 69.