TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) 49-68

EVANGELICALS AND IPSISSIMA VOX

Donald E. Green
Faculty Associate in New Testament

The ipsissima vox position views the Gospels as containing the concep ts
that Jesus expressed, but not His very words. This essay focuses on the use of
ancient history and parallel scriptural passages to support the ipsissima vox view.
Advocates of the view regularly cite Thucydides as furnishing a pattern for how NT
writers quoted their sources, but this precedent breaks down for a number of
reasons. In addition, it does not take into account the difference between Greco-
Roman writers and Jewish historiography. The reliance of ipsissima vox on parallel
passages in the Synoptic G ospe ls also falters. On one hand, proponents of the
position use accounts of events that prove nothing regarding accounts of spoken
words. On the other hand, they m ake n o allow ance for ex plana tions in accounts of
spoken words tha t adeq uately acco unt for differences by assuming an ipsissima
verba view of the quotations . A further failing of the ipsissima vox position is its
failure to account for the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the Gospels.
Recent evangelical proponents of this system have yielded too m uch grou nd in their
discussions of the accuracy of these books.

*****

Introduction

To what extent do the four canonical Gospels record the very words of
Jesus? That question sparked the work of the infamous Jesus Seminar, and has been
the subject of increasing attention in evangelical circles in the past few years.
Various writers, including Grant Osborne,1 Daniel Wallace,2 Robert Thomas,3

1
Grant Osborne, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelical,” JETS 42 (June 1999):193-210; cf.
“Historical Criticism: A Brief Resp onse to Robert Thomas’s ‘Other View,’” JETS 43 (March 2000):113-
117.
2
Daniel Wallace, “An Ap olog ia for a Broad V iew of Ipsissima Vox ,” paper presented to the 51 st
Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, Mass., November 1999.
3
Ro bert L. Thomas, “Impact of Historical Criticism on Theology an d A pologetics,” in The Jesus
Cr isis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David F arnell (Grand Ra pids: Kregel, 1998 ) 367-74; cf. Thom as,
“Historical Criticism and the Evangelical: Another View,” JETS 43 (March 2000):97-111. Thomas

49
50 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Darrell Bock, 4 and R obert W ilkin 5 have all addressed this issue to som e extent in
their recent w ritings.
In technical terms, this discussion cen ters on whether the Gospe ls contain
the ipsissima vox of Jesus (“His very voice,” i.e., His teaching summarized) or the
ipsissima verba of Jesus (“H is very wo rds”). 6 The proponents of ipsissima vox
main tain that the gospel writers never intended to give a verbatim account of Jesus’
words, but rather took the liberty to edit H is wo rds to fit their own purpose s in
writing. Under the ipsissima vox view, “the concepts go back to Jesus, but the words
do not— at least, no t exactly as recorded.” 7
Given the fast-growing prominence of this issue, an examination of the
ipsissima vox position in greater detail is timely. To simplify the focus of the present
discussion, this essay will evaluate primarily certain views that Darrell Bock
expressed in his chapter, “The W ords of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or
Memo rex?,” particularly his opinions on the role of ancient history and parallel
Scripture passages in the discussion.8 After an evaluation of those two areas, a brief
examination of the relationship between the doctrine of inspiration and current
ipsissima vox position s will follow.

An Overview of the Ipsissima Vox Position

Bock’s article seeks to defend the historical reliability of the Gospels’ record
of Jesus’ words from the destructive criticism of the Jesus Seminar. He argues that
the Gospels contain an accurate summary of Jesus’ teaching, but no t necessarily H is
precise words. He writes, “The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and the
central thrust of his me ssage,” but “w e do n ot hav e ‘his very w ords’ in the strictest

supports a presum ption in favor of ipsissima verba in the Gosp els.

4
Da rrell Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex,” in Jesus Un der Fire,
ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995):73-99; idem, Review of The
Jesus Cr isis, by R obe rt L. T hom as an d F . Da vid Fa rne ll, Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (April-June 2000):232-
36.
5
Ro bert Wilkin, Review of “Historical Criticism and the Ev an ge lica l” b y G ran t O sbo rne , Journal
of the Gr ace Eva nge lical S ocie ty 13 (Spring 2000):83-85; idem, “Toward a Narrow View of I ps is si ma
Vox,” paper presented to the 52nd Ann ual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nashville,
Tenn: November, 2000.
6
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 77.
7
Wallace, “An Ap olog ia” 1.
8
Bock, “The W ords of Jesus” 73-99. There are, of course, differences on certain issues between the
i ps is si ma vox proponents. However, the present approach is justified by the recognition given to Bock
by others who agree with his views. Wallace states that Bock’s essay represents “the best of evangelical
sch olars hip when it comes to describing ipsissima vox” (Wallace, “An Ap olog ia” 6 n. 2 0). For an
evaluation of W allace’s contribution to the discussion, see the present writer’s Th.M. thesis “Inspiration
and Current Positions on I ps is si ma Vox,” forth com ing a t Th e M aster’s Sem inary , Sun Va lley, C alif., in
the spring of 2001.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 51

sense of the term.” 9

Bock advances three primary reasons for his acceptance of the ipsissima vox
position: (1) Jesus probably gave most of his teaching in Aramaic, meaning that most
of His teaching in the Greek New Testament is already a translation.10 (2) The
Gospel writers obviously abbreviated Jesus’ teachings, because His longest speeches
in the G ospe ls take only a few minutes to read, even thoug h Jesu s Him self kep t His
audiences for hours at a time. (3) The NT citations of the OT are not word for word.
If the Bible can summarize a citation of itself in this way, then to see the same
technique in its handling of Jesus’ words should come as no surprise.11 Bock ’s
positions on these three issues have been addressed elsewhere,12 and to reexamine
those arguments is beyond the scope of this essa y. The more modest goal of the
present discussion is to consider his use of ancient history and parallel scriptural
passages in support of h is position. A final section will also consider the impact of
the doctrine of inspiration on an analysis of ipsissima vox.

Ipsissima Vox and Anc ient History

Ipsissima vox proponents usu ally support their position by asserting that it
is consistent w ith the ge neral standards of recording speeches in ancient secular
history. Suppo rters argue that classic historians did not use modern quotation marks
to set off precise quotations, and as a result, the accepted practice was to be “faithful
to the meaning of the original utterance,” while the exact phrasing was left to the
discretion of the writer. Writers who so framed their quotations would not be
accused of distortion or inaccurate reporting.13

9
B ock, “The Words of Jesus” 77-78. Osborne interprets Bock’s position to mean that while the
Go spe ls may at ti m es contain the “exact words” of Jesus, “summaries and paraphrases predominate”
(Osb orne, “H istorical Criticism and th e Ev ange lical” 203 ).
10
Bo ck’s poin t here is that if Jesu s spo ke in Ara maic , there w ould hav e be en a n ine vitab le, eve n if
sligh t, linguistic entropy in translating the spo ken Ara maic of Je sus in to the written Greek of the G ospels.
Bock assumes the long-held scholarly opinion that Jesus spoke and taught primarily in Aramaic, a view
represented, for example, in Joseph A. Fitzm yer, “Th e Lan guag es of P alestine in the First Ce ntury A.D .,”
CBQ 32 ( Oc tobe r 19 70) :501 -31 . Ho we ver, m ore re cen t write rs ha ve m arsh aled imp ressiv e ev iden ce to
challenge that p resu mp tion a nd to support the view that Jesus not only spoke but also taught in Greek at
various times durin g His ministry. See Stanley E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?,” Tyn dale
Bu lletin 44/2 (N ov em be r 19 93 ):19 9-2 35 . I t i s n o ta bl e t ha t e ve n f el lo w ipsissima vox proponent Wallace
disagrees with Bock on this issue (Wallace, “An Ap olog ia” 6; cf. his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] 17-18). Co nse que ntly, B ock ’s vie w o n this imp ortan t issue sho uld
not be accepted as a given.
11
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 77-78.
12
Thomas, “Impact of Historical Criticism” 367-68.
13
Cra ig L. B lom be rg, The His torica l Relia bility o f the G osp els (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,
1987) 118.
52 The Master’s Seminary Journal
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 53

The Key Statement of Thucydides

To supp ort that assertion, ipsissima vox advo cates ro utinely refer to a
famous statement by the ancient historian T hucydide s (c. 460-400 B.C.), w ho was
a pioneer in the writing of history. On e authority states, “Re aders of all opinio ns w ill
probably agree that [Thucydides] saw more truly, inquired more responsibly, and
reported more faithfully than any other ancien t historian.” 14 Thucydides explained
his historical method in the introduction to his work, and described the nature of the
speeches found in his writing as follows:

In this history I have made use of set speeches some of which were delivered just before
and others during the war. I have found it difficult to remember the precise words used
in the speeches which I listened to myself and my various informants have experienced
the same difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the
general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my
opinion, was called for by each situation. 15

Ipsissima vox advocates rely heavily on Thucydides’ acknowledgment that

he did not use the “precise words” in the speeches found in his history, but rather
kept as closely as possible to the “general sense” of what was said. They suggest that
Thucydides’ practice established the standard for recording speeches in subsequent
historical writing up to the time of the Gospels. Since the Gosp el writers were
products of their m ilieu, they shou ld be expected to write in accordance w ith
prevailing historical standards, which only called for adherence to the general sense
of the speeches, not their actual words. 16 Consequently, the modern reader of the
Gospels should expect to find primarily paraphrases and summaries of Jesus’ words,
not His actual words themselves. 17

Verbal Precision of Speeches in Secular H istory

In his discussion of the historiographic standards of ancient times, Bock
quotes exclusively from Charles Fornara’s work The Nature of History in Ancient

14
Hen ry Th eo do re W ad e-G ery , Joh n D ew ar D en nis ton , an d S imo n H orn blo we r, “T hu cyd ide s,”
Oxford C lassical Dictionary, 3d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1996) 1519.
15
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22, rev. ed., trans. Rex Warner (New York:
Penguin, 1972) 47.
16
One writer suggests that scholars who rely on this statement of Thucydides to establish “the”
histo riogr aph ic standard for recording speeches do so at their own peril because of the many interpretive
difficulties in the text (Stanley E. Porter, “Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a
Thucydidean View?” NovT 32 (A pril 1990):121-42). Though those issues will not be addressed here,
they are an area for further study in future w orks.
17
B o ck , “ T he W o rd s o f J es us ” 7 8 -7 9 ; W a ll ac e, “ A n Ap olog ia” 1-5.
54 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Greece and Rome 18 to establish his position. Fornara starts with the statement of
Thucydides and argue s that a genuine “co re” of the speeche s recorded is present in
Greek history from the end of the sixth to the first century B.C. Further, while the
nature of Roman history is more complicated, he “cautiously” asserts that those
speeches are substantially trustw orthy from the time o f the Second Punic W ar (c.
218-201 B.C.) to the end of the fourth century A.D.19
Fornara reaches that conclusion by tracing the attitudes of ancient historians
from the time of Thucydides through the following centuries. Following a
description of historians from Thucydide s into imperial tim es, Fornara concludes that
wh ile the importanc e of speech es in history diminished in the centuries followin g
Thucydides, “the more important principle of reporting the main points of what had
actually been said rem ained (theoretically) an unquestioned rule through Hellenistic
times at least.” 20
Fornara notes a change with the establishment of the Roman Empire. Some
historians were rhetorical in nature, and though some germ of the actual speeches
may remain in their record, preserving what was actually said was not a matter of
importance to the historical author. Other historians, like Tacitus, demonstrated
fidelity to the substance of the speech while still using stylistic freedom. That
freedom included the liberty to rearrange, condense, and give arguments in what
seeme d to him the m ost appropriate form and order. 21
In reviewing the application of that theory in historical practice, Fornara
states why he believes that the ancients proved faithful to that doctrine. 22 He
examines the practice of Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus in support of his position.
Based on this broad e xamina tion of evidenc e, Fornara argue s for a genera l reliability
of ancient speeche s, even if the historians were not invariably reliable.23 He
acknowledges up front, however, that his approach is contrary to the prevailing
estimation of speeches in ancient history that finds them more questionable. 24

Secular History and Gospel Speeches

W hen he writes on the words of Jesus in the Gosp els, Bock adopts Fo rnara’s
argumen ts and applies them to the Gospel writers, even though Fornara himself does

18
Ch arle s W illiam Fo rna ra, The N ature of History in Ancient G r ee ce an d Ro m e (B erk eley , Ca lif.:
Un ivers ity of California, 1983). Bock’s thinking may also be influenced by A. W. M osley, “Historical
Reporting in the Ancient World,” NTS 12 ( 196 5-1 966 ):10- 26, a lthough he d oes not c ite M osley in his
popularly-oriented article in Jesus Under Fire.
19
Fo rna ra, The N ature of History 168.
20
Ibid., 151.
21
Ibid ., 15 2-5 3.
22
Ibid., 143.
23
Ibid., 160.
24
Ibid., 142.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 55

not consider the Gospels in his work. Bock believes that Fornara is describing the
pattern of careful ancient historians, and finds a parallel in Luke 1:1-4. He writes,
“ The Evangelists were able to search out what Jesus did and said because they had
access to people and communities wh o had been expo sed to Jesus or his intim ate
follow ers.” 25
In one sense, it is easy to see w hy Bock w ould ado pt Fornara’s
historiographic standards and apply them to the Scriptu res. Fornara m akes a credible
case for the substantial trustworthiness of the accounts of speeche s in antiquity. If
that standard is established and one assumes that the Gospe l writers o perated in
conjunction with the historiographic norm s of the day, then B ock has arguably
presented a prima facie case that the Bible is substantially more reliable than the
Jesus Seminar concluded.

How Acc urate Was Ancient Secular History? However, Bock’s reliance
on Fornara’s statements regard ing an cient historiography is fraught w ith peril. First,
it is not clear that Fornara is accurate in his assessment of the reliability of ancient
records of speeches. He is at odds with numerous historians who believe the
standard is substantially lower than that for which Fornara argues. The Thucydidean
princip le may have established an ideal, but whether it was followed in practice is
another matter altogether.
Some historians have argued that Thucydides himself did not follow the
practice of recording the main substance of the speeches found in his writings. In
some places, Thucydides demonstrably did not follow the actual content of the
speeches which he records. The Oxford Classical Dictionary has these comments:

It is much debated whether [Thucydides made his statement about his speeches] early or
late [in his career]; and it has been much explained away. But it is unreasonable to doubt
that from the start Thucydides took notes himself, or sought for hearers’ notes, of the
speeches he considered important. But since he used speeches dramatically, to reveal the
workings of men’s minds and the impact of circumstance, it is clear that verbatim reports
would not have served even if he could have managed to get them, and he was bound to
compromise (unconsciously) between dramatic and literal truth. It is likely that, as his
technique developed, dramatic truth would tend to prevail; it is tempting to put his
profession of method early, a young man’s intention.26

Oth er writers dispute the notion that subsequ ent histo rians followe d the
Thucydidean principle in their writings, and maintain that subsequent historians
strayed far from Thu cydides’ standard of accuracy and wrote scarc ely believable

25
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 79.
26
Wade-G ery, Denniston, and Hornblower, “Thucydides” 1518. The authors give several examples
to su ppo rt their assertion. They do not reject Thucydides’ speeches as fiction, and indeed, believe that
Thucydides tried to recrea te rea l oc cas ion s. On e do es n ot ha ve to reject a ll of T huc ydid es’ sp eech es to
recognize that he may not have always followed his standard in actual practice.
56 The Master’s Seminary Journal

accounts of speeches. Ferdinand Schevill maintains that some ancient historians

obviously made no effort to convey the true substance of the speeches. He w rites,

The historians who came after Thucydides throughout the long succession of classical
centuries were so hypnotized by what they considered the charms of rhetoric that they
tended to hide and even black out the facts they had set out to present behind a blinding
curtain of verbal fireworks. It has been universally agreed that the speeches of
Thucydides carry so different a content from those of all other classical historians that
they rate as a contribution unique of its kind.27

M . I. Finley says that Thucydides had a passion for accuracy in the field of
history, but he was “an excee dingly lonely figure in the history of ancient historical
writing, for not one man after him, among either the Greek historians or the Roman,
shared his passion.” 28 And M ortimer Chambers, professor emeritus of Ancient Greek
History at the University of California, Los Angeles, writes:

After [the time of Thucydides] the integrity of speeches in narrative dropped off
considerably. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example, who wrote about the time of
Jesus or a bit earlier . . . gave way to fantastic, florid speeches about which no one could
say, as Thucydides said of his speeches, that they tried to give a summary of what was
actually said.29

One need not resolve this dispute among historical experts to see that the
“standards of ancient historiography” are not as well defined as Bock’s article
suggests. In this respect, Bock’s article suffers from its narrow band of research. At
times, Bock alm ost seems to follow Fornara’s analysis beca use it supports his
conclusions, not because Fornara represents a broad historical consensus on ancient
historiographic standards. At the very least, one must conclude that Fornara’s views
are contested amon g mod ern historians, so that Bock’s exclusive reliance on F ornara
is subject to serious question.

Historical Error in Ancient Secular Speeches. That w eakness in Bock ’s

position is compounded further as one investigates Fornara’s position more closely.
Bock omits some of Fornara’s conclusions that are critical for the evangelical
committed to the inspiration of Scriptures. W hile Fornara adopts a generally high
view toward secular speeches in ancient history, he acknowledges that the historical
standard of the time often did not even keep to the gist of the speech:

Always there was the admixture of the imagination and intellect of the historian, and it
obviously increased in the degree that the recollection of speeches actually delivered grew

27
Fe rdin an d S ch evill, Six Historians (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956) 19.
28
M . I. Fin ley, Asp ects o f An tiquity , 2d. ed. (New York: Penguin, 1977) 52.
29
From personal correspondence with Professor Mortimer Chambers, August 10, 2000.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 57

dimmer, or the same speech was recast by a succession of authors to suit the best
rhetorical theory. The vagaries of the historical tradition accessible to the writer also
facilitated self-deception. Knowledge that a speech actually had been delivered, the
conviction that a speech must have been delivered, the inference that a speech probably
was delivered because it was required, are easy gradations leading to unintentional
perjury, and it would be rash to deny the occasional occurrence of such defalcations as
these. . . . But these imperfections in the practice of the historians should not detract from
the basic integrity of their approach. 30

The student of the Gospels should not miss that Fornara’s standard allows
for “self-deception,” “unintentional perjury,” and “defalcations” in the historical
writings. Though that may be acceptable in the realm of secular history, an
evangelical commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture cannot accept
such errors in the Bible. The Scrip tures that assert their pe rfection (Ps 19 :7), truth
(John 17:17 ), and inviolab ility (Matt 5:18) preclude such a conclusion..
To be sure, Bock does not argue for such imperfections in Scripture.
How ever, his adoption of Fornara’s standards paves a broad road for the conclusion
that the Scriptures must also include deception and perjury. For if Fornara is correct
about the historiographic standards, and Bock is correct that the NT autho rs wro te in
accordance with those standards, then the student of Scripture should not only expect
paraphrases and summaries of Jesus’ words in the Gospels, he should also expect the
kind of errors that Fornara adopts. Bock’s analysis leaves him utterly defenseless
against that conclusion.

Other Problems w ith Assuming the An cient Secular History Standard.

The foregoing discussion has assumed the validity of the premise that the Gospel
writers followed Greco-Roman historiographic standards. However, two points need
to be made at this juncture. First, ipsissima vox proponents offer no eviden ce to
suppo rt the assertion that the Gospel writers were familiar with Thucydides. Even
if such familiarity is assumed, no proof that they consciously patterned their writings
after him exists. The ipsissima vox position on ancient historiography has been
assumed , not proven.
Second, the citation of Thucydides proves nothing about the habits of the
Gospel writers. Over four centuries separate Thucydides from the Gospel writers.
Although a verbal parallel exists between Thucydides and w hat ipsissima vox writers
want to prove, to say (w ithout further proof) that a nearly 500-year-old statement
proves what the Gospel w riters’ standard was when they w rote the Gospels is a
logical leap of cosmic proportions. It would be akin to “proving” modern nautical
habits by establishing what Columbus did when he sailed the Atlantic in 1492.31

30
Fo rna ra, The N ature of History 167 -68 [em phas is adde d].
31
Wallace acknowledges this point when he writes, “One of the factors that needs to be addressed
is how ancient historiography evolved from Thucydides on” ( “An Ap olog ia” 4 n.18). If that evolution
is unkno wn, as W allace suggests, it is bald speculation to assert that the Gosp el writers fol lo w ed
58 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Jewish Historiography
Is there any historical testimony that would shed light on the regard that the
Gospel writers had for Greco-Roman history? Perhaps some clues can be found in
the writings of Josephus. It is a reasonable assumption that a first-century Jewish
historian would more likely refle ct the mindset of the Gospel writers than a fifth-
century B.C. Greek historian. If Josephus is to be believed, Jews did not hold Greek
historiography in high regard . Josep hus g oes into this matter at length, beginn ing
with his defense of Jewish historical accuracy:

But what is the strongest argument of our exact management in this matter is what I am
now going to say, that we have the names of our high priests from father to son set down
in our records for the interval of two thousand years. . . . [E]very one is not permitted of
his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being
only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned
them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their
own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.32

In the quoted section , Josephus argues for a high concern for historical
accuracy among Jews, as seen in their careful preservation of the genealogical
records of the high priests. Further, he argues that Jews attributed their historical
accounts to the direct inspiration of God. Josephus takes great pride in the Jewish
distinctives:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and
contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty-two books, which contain
the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five
belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till
his death . . . and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is
evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been
so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any
change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very
birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and if
occasion be, willingly to die for them . . . that they may not be obliged to say one word
against our laws and the records that contain them.33

Of vital importance to the present subject is the contrast that Josephus draws
between these esteemed Jewish historical writings, and the Greek writings that were
in circulation:

Thucy dides.
32
Josephus Against Apion 1.7-1.8, in The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William
W his ton (Ph ilad elp hia : Jo hn C. W ins ton , 19 57 ) 86 1 [e mp ha sis a dd ed ].
33
Ibid ., 1.8 , 86 2.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 59

[T]here are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that
account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for
they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those
that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they
see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they
were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those
that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some
persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places
concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few
things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the
name of Histories.34

Josephus claims that Greek histories had “insolently abused the world” and
indicates that they were not worthy to bear the name “histories.” Un less on e posits
that Josephus was totally out of touch with Jewish sen timents in the first century , his
writings mak e it virtually impossible to assert that the G ospe l writers m odeled their
work after their Greek counterparts. The low regard for Greek histories surely meant
that they were writing after a different pattern, a pattern inherited from their fathers.
Comm enting on this section of Josephus, Martin Hengel writes:

Thus the model for the collection and the literary presentation of the ‘biographical’ Jesus
tradition is [rooted] in the accounts of history to be found in the Old Testament and
Judaism, which to a large degree are composed of ‘biographical’ sections. . . . Josephus
shows us that the educated Greek-speaking Jew understood the narrative writings of the
Jewish canon as historical works sui generis, which differed fundamentally from the
works of pagan historians by virtue of their divine authorization and inspiration and were
therefore especially reliable. . . . Conscious though they were of the different character
of their message, the New Testament historians wanted to take up the tradition which
already existed. 35

Birger Gerhardsson concurs as he describes the Jewish attitude toward the

words of their teachers from OT times to Rabbinic Judaism:

The art of reproducing another person’s statements in one’s own words, and of abstracting
points of view and ideas from someone’s words, has been carried to considerable lengths
in the Hellenized West. But the art was not practised [sic] in ancient Israel. A person’s
views were conveyed in his own words. Authentic statements contained the authority and
power of the one who uttered them; this we know from the Old Testament.

This also applies to Rabbinic Judaism, though certain developments and changes have
come about. We can distinguish tendencies towards a more abstract mode of thought.

34
Ibid.
35
M artin He ng el, Acts and the H istory of E arlies t Ch ristian ity, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979) 30-31.
60 The Master’s Seminary Journal

We see above all the method—which was taken to extreme lengths—of subjecting
authoritative sayings to thorough penetration and exegesis. But reverence and care for
the ipsissima verba of each authority remains unaltered. In the colleges no attempt was
made to give a synopsis of the views of the old masters; their words were quoted—togeth-
er with the name of the one who had uttered them.36

The historical tradition that the Gospel writers drew upon came not from the
Greco-Roman tradition, but rather from the Jewish/OT tradition that was conscious
of the divine inspiration of its writings. The comparison to secular historians for
which the ipsissima vox proponents so valiantly argue is invalid, poorly conceived,
and lacking evidence—and cannot stand against the clear testimony of Josephus on
this point. The Gospel writers’ pattern for transmission of the words of Jesus does
not lie in ancient Greek historiography, but in the Jewish pattern that paid close
attention to the actual words used.37

Ipsissima Vox and Parallel Accou nts in the Syn optic G ospe ls

Since Bock believes in ad vance that the Gospe l writers w ere mostly
summarizing and “giving the gist” of Jesus’ statements, it is not surprising that he
believes his scriptural examples demonstrate that phenomenon. Bock uses two
different kinds of parallel passages in the Synoptic G ospe ls as evidence o f his
ipsissima vox position — (1) those that differ in their recording of the order of events;
and (2) those that are similar but not identical in their account of sayings. These
differences between the Synoptic writers, he believes, inexorably lead the interpreter
to the conclusion that they were not concerned to preserve the ipsissima verba of
Jesus— only the substance of what He said. The following analysis is not intended
to analyze in detail each of Bock’s examples, but simply to show in a broad fashion
that the passages can reasonably be understood without resorting to an ipsissima vox
position.

Parallel Accou nts of E vents

The Temptations of Jesus. Bock begins by discussing the parallel accounts
of Jesus’ temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. As is well known, Matthew and
Luke reverse the order of the second and third temptations. Since Bock offers that
examp le in the context of his discussion of his position on ipsissima vox, he

36
Birg er Gerhards son , M em ory and M anu scrip t: Or al Tr aditio n an d W ritten T ran sm ission in
Ra bbin ic Jud aism and Ea rly C hristia nity, w ith Tr aditio n an d T ran sm ission in E arly C hristia nity,
combined ed. with new preface, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (G rand Rap ids: Eerdman s, 199 8) 1 30- 31 [ emp has is
adde d].
37
Bock touches on the transmission of oral tradition in Jewish culture, but he creates the impression
that there was no fundamental difference between Greeks and Jews in their approach to historical
precision (“The W ords of Jesus” 79 -81). The failure to draw that distinction waters dow n Jewish
standards and u njustifiably lowers expectations for the reader of the G ospels.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 61

apparently believes that the Gospe l writers’ a rrangeme nt of chronological material

somehow proves their willingness to modify the words of Jesus. However, the order
of the temptations of Jesus does not contribute to the ipsissima vox discussion. Th ere
is no logical relationship between an a-chronological arrangeme nt of histo rically
accu rate material and the assertion that the Go spel writers did not record the precise
words of Jesus. An example that does not involve the words of Jesus is, at best, of
only marg inal relev ance in establishing how the Gospel writers handled His sayings.
Matthew most likely establishes the chronological order with his use of
J`J, (tote, “then”) in 4:5, 10, along with the terminal indicator in 4:10-11 of
“Begone, Satan! . . . Then the devil left Him.” Luke does not employ temporal
markers, using 6"\ (kai, “and”) and *X (de, “but”) instead, which indicates that he
did not intend to give a chronological arrangement as Matthew did. Consequently,
the passages do not contradict each othe r. 38 Neither do they prove the ipsissima vox
position.

Miracle Accounts in Matthew 8–9. A similar analysis applies to Bock’s

citation of the miracle accounts in Matthew 8–9 and its parallels. That Matthew 8–9
is arranged topically rather than chronologically is widely acknowledged. Bock
states, “[These differences] reflect differences in theme and emphasis in terms of
intended presentation. They give evidence of conscious choices in ordering even ts
within the G ospe l accounts.” 39
Again, however, this ordering of events says nothing about the Gospel
writers’ treatment of the words of Jesus. To arrange material topically rather than
chronolog ically does not mean the author has taken liberty to change spoken w ords.
Broadus speaks for the traditional position regarding the arrangement of material
when he w rites:

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.40

Thus, as with the temptations of Jesus, Bock’s citation of Matthew 8–9 does
not advance the ipsissima vox position. Chronological arrangement of genuine
historical material does not necessarily correlate with Bock’s assertion that the
Gospel writers modified Jesus’ words in their effort to summarize His teaching.

38
Bock acknowledges the legitimacy of this harmonization (Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 97 n. 21).
39
Ibid., 85.
40
John A. B roa du s, Com mentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: American B aptist
Publication So ciet y, 1 88 6; re prin t, Com mentary on M atthew, Grand Rapids: K regel, 1990) 174 (page
reference s are to rep rint edition).
62 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Arrangement does not negate historical accuracy when the author does not imply
chronological sequence.41

Parallel Accounts of Sayings

Gist of the Saying or Harmonization? More to the point is Bock’s
comparison of the accounts of the baptism of Jesu s, Peter’s confession , and the trials
of Jesus, which actually involve the Gospel writers’ report of words spoken by Jesus
and others. By w ay of o verview, Boc k asse rts that the differences in th e manner in
which parallel saying s are rec orded prove that the writers intended to summarize
statements rather than give the equivalent of modern-day quotations. The Gospel
writers were content to give the gist of the saying, because otherw ise they would
have given full and accurate quotations. 42
By way of contrast, and before examining Bock’s specific examples, it
should be noted that others have examined the differing statements in parallel
acco unts and reach ed an en tirely different conclusion. Instead of finding a disregard
for verbal precision, these writers find harmonization of the differences in the
assumption that each writer recorded different aspects of a broader conversation or
discourse.
Benjamin B. W arfield writes,

It lies in the nature of the case that two accounts of a conversation which agree as to the
substance of what was said, but differ slightly in the details reported, are reporting
different fragments of the conversation, selected according to the judgment of each writer
as the best vehicles of its substance.43

Similarly, Kelly Osborne says,

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. . . . This does not provide
facile solutions to all difficulties in the text, but it avoids the need to say that one or
another evangelist inserted into the text of his gospel words or phrases never actually
spoken by Jesus.44

Indeed, Scripture itself gives many ex amp les of rep eated statements in the
same discourse to supp ort this principle. Several illustrations are found where a

41
Ro bert L. T ho ma s, “R ed acti on Cr iticis m,” in Th e Jes us C risis, ed. Robert L. Th om as an d F . Da vid
Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) 257.
42
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 86.
43
Be njam in B. Warfield, “Jesus’ Alleged Confession of Sin,” The Princeton Theological Review 12
(April 1914):191.
44
Ke lly Osborne, “The Imp act o f H istorica l Critic ism o n G osp el Inte rpreta tion: A Tes t Ca se,” in
Th e Je sus Cr isis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) 304.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 63

statement is repeated in the same immediate context for the sake of em phasis. M ark
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, “C hildren , how hard
it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Another example can be addu ced from John 14:10-11, where Jesus says,
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the F ather is in Me? The words that
I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does
His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” Paul’s
com men ts in Phil 4:4 also c ome to mind in this contex t: “Rejoice in the Lord always,
again I will say , rejoice!”
In light of these examples, one must concur with the writer who said,
“Those who so narrowly restrict conversations and discourses to only w hat is
recorded in the gospels apparently have a distorted concept of what communication
was like in these early time s.” 45 The view of Warfield and Osborne, long held by
those who practice traditional harmonization, is not an uncritical failure to d eal w ith
problems. Rather, it approaches these issues with common sense and is justified
readily by examples from the Scriptures themselves. In the analysis that follows,
then, application of that principle w ill show that the scriptural evidence upon which
Bock relies does not prove the ipsissima vox position . The d ata are susce ptible to
better explanations—explanations that Bock usually does not even consider in his
article.

The Baptism of Jesus. Bock first refers to the parallel pa ssages on the
baptism of Jesus. He notes that separate writers record the voice from heaven
differently. Mark and Luke portray the remark as a second person reference made
directly to Jesu s (“You are my b elove d Son”), w hile Ma tthew reco rds it as a third
person remark (“This is my beloved Son”). From this data, Bock concludes that
Mark and L uke have probably g iven the actual remark, while Matthew relays “the
general report of its significance.” 46 In other words, the Father did not actually say,
“This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased,” as Matthew reports.
Instead, Matthew only relayed the general gist of what the Father meant to help his
reade rs und erstand the significance o f the event.
Bock’s assessment, however, lacks precision and underestimates the effect
that such a change has on the historical accuracy of Matthew’s ac count. Bo ck’s
proposal mea ns that Matthew modified the Father’s words and changed what was

45
Ro bert L. Thomas, “The Rich Young M an in Matthew,” Grace Theological Journal 3 (F all
1982):256.
46
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 86.
64 The Master’s Seminary Journal

really a private dialogue with the Son into a public affirmation of Jesus. In other
words, Bock has M atthew putting words on the lips of the Father that He never
actually spok e. The reader of Matthew’s gospel, standing alone, would receive a
significa ntly inaccurate perception of Jesus’ baptism. Contrary to Bock’s claims, this
is not an issue of getting the “gist” of the m eaning. It alters the dynamic of the entire
even t. One never knows exactly what was said, because he never knows whether the
writer is reporting the actual words that were spoken or his interpretation as though
that interp retation were the actual w ords o f the speake r.
In the instance of Jesus’ baptism, persuasive reasons lead one to believe the
Father uttered both the second- and third-person statements, and the statements thus
harmonize with each other without doing violence to the context or wording of any
of the passages. The Father could very well have spoken first to Jesus directly, then
for emphasis repeated Matthew’s third person version for the benefit of witnesses at
the baptism . This approach o f traditiona l harmoniza tion is preferable to an approach
that obscures historical clarity and puts non-existent w ords o n the F ather’s lips.

Peter’s Confession. Bock next centers on Peter’s confession at Caesarea

Philippi (Matt 16:13:20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21). He sets forth Jesus’ initial
question as follows:

Matthew 16:13: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

Mark 8:27: “Who do people say I am?”

Luke 9:18: “Who do the crowds say I am?”

Bock maintains that the gist of the statement is present, but with variation.
He notes the variation between “Son of Man” and the first-person personal pronoun
“I,” along with the difference between “people” and “crowds.” H e then asks:

Did the translation of remarks in distinct reports of the event merely use two similar
Greek words to render one Aramaic one? Or did one writer put the question in language
that was more like his own style? Or did one writer simply intend to summarize the event
rather than transcribe it? Any of these options is possible. What is crucial to note is that
the texts themselves show no necessity to render each other word for word, even in
dialogue.47

Bock’s analysis does not exhaust the possible alternatives, however. Perhaps
each writer gave a precise, but not exhaustive, account of the conversation. Nothing

47
Ibid., 86-87.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 65

about these differences demands that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic at the time, 48 or
that one of the writers made a stylistic variation, or that Jesus’ words were
paraphrased. The data can be explained equally w ell by positing an ongoing
conversation about Jesus’ ide ntity.
Indeed, variations of the same question would heighten the disciples’
attention and allow th em to focus on Jesus’ identity, more so than a single question
would. By using repeated questions, Jesus may have been heightening the
importance of the m ome nt. He wanted to establish clearly who the people—the
crow d— said that He was. Repeated statements of the questions in slightly differing
forms would bring that emphasis to the disciples’ mind. By establishing the
confusion of the m ultitudes, He set the stage for Peter’s great confession that
follow ed.
It would also set the stage for the emph atic question that Jesus addressed to
the disciples next: “But who do you ( ß:,ÃH, hym eis) say that I am?” Jesus used
repeated questions about the crowds to establish emphasis, and then turne d to
emp hatic voca bulary and g ramm ar in a single qu estion that crystallized the main
issue for the disciples and men of all ages: Who is this Jesus? The disciples,
conscious of the significance of the moment, were about to articulate what the rest
of the world was missing. Bock notices the following differences in the account of
Peter’s reply:

Matthew 16:16 : “You are the Ch rist, the So n of the living G od.”

Mark 8:29: “You are the Christ.”

Luk e 9:20 : “The Christ of God.”

Bock says, “There are tw o possibilities here. E ith er M ark and Luke have
simplified a much deeper confession as recorded here by Matthew, or Matthew has
presented in ambiguo us term s the fundamental messianic confession of Mark and
Luk e.” 49
But again, Bock’s proposal does not exhaust the possibilities. An even mo re
plausible alternative exists. Peter, who only recently had been an unsung fisherman,
was suddenly in a position to affirm what the multitudes had missed. Jesus was the
Messiah! Matthew and Mark both record Peter’s use of the emphatic pronoun Fb
(sy) as he says, “You are the Christ.” One can almost picture Peter with his index
finger pointing at Jesus, and with conviction saying, “I know who You are— you are

48
Though Bock does not allude to it in his article, part of the reason that some believe this dialogue
origin ally took place in Aramaic relates to a possible Aramaic word-play involving Peter’s name. For a
full discussion and bibliography related to this passage, along with a defense of the position that the
dialogue took place in Greek, see Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” 229-35.
49
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 87.
66 The Master’s Seminary Journal

the Christ, the Christ of God! You are the Son of the living God!”
One further aspect supports this scenario. Peter’s confession came at a
turning point in Jesus’ ministry. As all three Synoptists record, it was immediately
after Peter’s confession that Jesus began teaching them that He must go to Jerusalem,
suffer, be killed, and be raised on the third day (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22).
Jesus fixed His identity in the disciples’ minds before He unfolded for them the
fulcrum of the redemption of mankind. Frederic Godet writes,

The question addressed to the disciples is designed, first of all, to make them distinctly
conscious of the wide difference between the popular opinion and the conviction at which
they have themselves arrived; next, to serve as a starting-point for the fresh communica-
tion which Jesus is about to make respecting the manner in which the work of the Christ
is to be accomplished.50

The grammar and surrounding context in this event all call for an emph asis
that repeated questions and multiple emphatic responses would supply. Traditional
harmonization can well explain the data, preserve the exact words as they are
recorded, and at the same time call attention to the high drama of the moment in the
life of Jesus. Contrary to Bock’s assertion, the choices are not limited to “Either
Mark and Luke have simplified a much deeper confession as recorded by Matthew,
or Matthew has presented in ambiguous terms the fundamental messianic confession
of Mark an d Luke.” 51 The data are consistent with an entirely different explanation
that Bock does not consider, but that W arfield articulated nearly a century ago—the
Gospel writers simply recorded different parts of a larger whole. Nothing about the
data comp els the conclusion that Bock sugg ests.

The Trial of Jesus. Bock’s final example relates to different statements

made at the trial of Jesus (Matt 26:57-68; Mark 14 :53-65; Luke 22 :54-71). Bock sets
forth the different questions from the high p riest:

Matthew 26:63: I charge yo u under oath by the living G od: Tell us if you are
the Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 14:61: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?

Luke 22:67: If you are the Christ, . . . tell us.

Bock says, “Jesus is asked about his messianic claim, though again the
wording differs. So som e of the Evangelists must be summ arizing.” 52 Again,

50
Fre de ric G od et, A Com mentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (New York: I. K. Funk, 1881) 265.
51
Bock, “The Words of Jesus” 87.
52
Ibid., 88.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 67

how ever, the data simply do not compel his dogmatic conclusion. First, Bock
acknow ledges that Luke may be describing an event separate from Matthew and
Mark. If that is the case (and others wo uld agree), 53 the comparison of Matthew and
Mark with L uke on this p oint is irrelev ant to establishing how the Gospel writers
reported the same saying made at the same time.
Secondly, even for the differences between Matthew and Mark, Bock takes
his conc lusions far beyond what the evidence w arrants. No reason prohibits the
making of both statemen ts: “I charg e you under oath by the living G od: Tell us if
you are the Christ, the Son of God. Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Both Matthew and Mark would have exercised verbal precision in quo ting on ly a part
of the larger portion of the inque st. 54 It is not at all necessary tha t one of the w riters
has put words on the lips of the high priest that he never in fact uttered . Jesus’ reply
can be handled similarly. “Yes, it is as you say. I am He.” A verbally precise
account could report a portion of the response witho ut giving the respon se in its
entirety.55
After considering all of Bock’s examples, one sees that w hen he is
confronted with similar but differing passages, he assumes that, at best, only one
statement records the precise words that were actually spoken at the time. He
explains differences as some editorial activity by one of the writers— usua lly
Matthew or Luke. It seems that he is drawn to that explanation by his historical
presupposition that the G ospe ls are co mpa rable to ancient secu lar history in their
method of recording speeches. But the Scriptures tha t he quotes do not prove his
position, especially when he utterly omits the possibility that the individual Gospel
writers may have preserved only a portion of a larger con versation or statement.

Inspiration and Ipsissima Vox

The Holy Spirit’s Role in Recalling Jesus’ Words

Not only do ipsissima vox proponents fail in their comparison to ancient
history, their failure to account for the doctrine of inspiration in their analysis results
in another significant omission. Thucydides clearly states that he resorted to
summaries because he had difficulty in remembering the exact substance of the

53
Ro bert L. Thomas and Stanley N. G un dry , A H arm ony of the Go spe ls (New York: HarperC ollins,
1978) 227-30, 329-30.
54
The present writer has experienced first-hand the often-repetitive nature of legal questioning,
having participated in hundreds of hours of courtroom and dep ositio n testim ony dur ing h is former legal
practice. Seldom, if ever, are case-determinative questions asked only one time and in one way. A skilled
litigator will ask sev eral q ues tions with only the slightest difference in nuance to highlight an issue when
he ha s the op portun ity to nail do wn a poin t in his favo r.
55
R . C. H . Le nsk i, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1946) 665.
Len ski ac kno wle dge s this o ption with out c om mittin g him self to it.
68 The Master’s Seminary Journal

speeches he heard. 56 How ever, such m emory lapses w ere decidedly not a hindrance
to the inspired Gospel writers. Neither Bock nor Wallace quo tes Jesus’ w ords in
John 14:26, which leave no room for doubt on this issue:

But the H elper, the Holy Spirit, w hom the Father w ill se nd in M y nam e, He will
teach you all things, and bring to you r reme mbrance all that I said to you
(NA SB, cf. John 16:13-14) [emph asis added ].

In this verse, Jesus uses the term ßB@:4:<Z6T (hypomimn‘ skÇ ) to describe
the Spirit’s work in the lives of the disciples after the resurrection. The term means
“to cause one to rememb er,” “pu t one in mind,” or “rem ind on e of.” 57 It is used six
other times in the N T: Luke 22:61; 2 Tim 2:14; Tit 3:1; 2 Pet 1:12; 3 John 10; Jude
5. In each verse, the co ntent of the rem emb rance appe ars to be something that was
previously known or heard. Here in John 14:26, the remembrance means, “The H oly
Spirit ratifies, confirms and explains the work of Jesus and thereby brings definitive
and conc lusive remembrance .” 58
Godet puts it this way:

This internal activity of the Spirit will unceasingly recall to their memory some former
word of Jesus, so that in proportion as He shall illuminate them, they will cry out: Now,
I understand this word of the Master! And this vivid clearness will cause other words
long forgotten to come forth from forgetfulness.59

Consequently, the appeal to Thucydides— whatever it may say about secular

history—does not clarify the precision of the G ospe ls in reco rding the words of
Jesus. Thucydides resorted to ipsissima vox because he “found it difficult to
remember the precise words used in the speeches.” 60 Jesus’ promise of the direct
inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed the Gospel writers in a different realm in which
different standards of mem ory w ould b e ope rative. They would be supernatura lly
enabled to recall Jesus’ words in a manner that freed them from the human
limitations of secular historians. As a result, they would not have the same need to
resort to ipsissima vox. To com pare them with Thucydide s at this point is to compa re
apples and orang es.

Absence of Biblical Disclaimers About Historical Accuracy

56
See p. 52.
57
G . Abbott-Sm ith, A M anual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1991) 462.
58
O. M ich el, “ :4:<¯6@:"4 6. J. 8.,” T D N T (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 4:677.
59
Fred eric Go de t, Comm entary on John’s Gospel (rep rint o f 18 86 ed ., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1985)
847.
60
See p. 52.
 Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox 69

Yet anoth er con sideration makes the comparison between ancient historians
and the Gospel writers untenable. Thucydides gives his reader an honest disclaimer
about the extent of his historical accuracy. He tells the reader in no uncertain terms
that he is not giving exact quotations, but summaries to the best of his abilities. By
contrast, the Gospel writers—w ho were allegedly following Thucydides’
example—made no such disclaimers. To the contrary, Luke giv es the o pposite
impression when he tells Theophilus that he investigated everything carefully “so that
you migh t know the exact tru th about the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4,
NA SB [emp hasis added]).
That self-conscious claim to precision, combined with the supernatural
ministry of the H oly Spirit, is a telling blow against the historical argument framed
to date by eva ngelical ipsissima vox proponents. To argue that the interpreter’s
expectations of the historical precision of the Gospels in recording Jesus’ words
shou ld be determined by analogy to the pattern of an cient secular history co ntroverts
the biblical data that are directly on point. In this rega rd, ipsissima vox proponents
have presupposed the validity of their analogy to ancient history without evaluating
their assumptions biblically.

Conclusion

The ramifica tions of recent ipsissima vox writing s could have far-reaching
effects on evangelical confidence in the historical accuracy of the Gospels. The more
the position explains away the words attributed on face value to Jesu s in the G ospe ls
as additions, accretions, and editorial modifications, the more the historical authority
of the Gospels is threatened. Evangelicals professing a commitment to the
inspiration of Scripture should thus tread with utmost care in this area.
Unfortunately, evan gelical ipsissima vox proponents have conceded too
much ground in their recent writings, and the evidence at hand does not even
remo tely require the concessions given. The historical and scriptural argum ents
presently advanced are surprisingly weak and usually fail to con sider m ore viable
solutions to the issues at hand.
Not only are those arguments faulty, ipsissima vox writers have thus far
neglected a discu ssion of the role of the Holy Spirit in enab ling the Gospel writers
to recall the words of Jesus as they wrote. The Gospel writers decidedly did not face
the same human limitations as ancient historians. Consequently, one cannot restrict
the scope of their ability to reproduce Jesus’ words to the abilities of uninspired
secular historian s. Evangelical ipsissima vox proponents either need to account for
Jesus’ words in John 14:26 in the formulation of their view s or explain w hy H is
words there are not pertinent to the discussion.
The final word on these matters has surely not yet been written. The
interpreter who seeks to uphold the truth that has been delivered once for all to the
saints should scrutinize closely the future of this discussion.