Ipsissima Verba and Ipsissima Vox

Ipsissima verba is a Latin expression translated as “the actual words”, i.e. of a particular author or speaker. It has been used primarily in Gospel studies, applied to the sayings of Jesus (see below). It can also be applied to any of the narrative portions of Scripture (including most of Genesis through Esther, the four Gospels and Acts), as well as to the oracles and sayings of the Prophetic and Wisdom books, and even to the (superscriptions of the) Psalms. The expression can be understood or qualified two ways:

    1. In a strict sense—the exact words in the exact language
    2. In a looser sense—the actual words, but in translation, or modified/edited slightly in context

The first is a matter of linguistics and source-criticism. In fact, the words of the speakers in many of the Biblical narratives would not be considered their “actual words” (ipsissima verba) in the strict sense. For example, nearly all of the speakers in Genesis through Samuel would have spoken a language (or dialect) often very different from the Hebrew in which their words have come down to us—this is certainly true, say, for Abraham and Moses (the traditional author of the Pentateuch). In the New Testament, it is generally assumed that Jesus would have done most of his normal speaking and teaching in Aramaic; if so, then the Greek of the Gospels does not preserve Jesus’ “actual words” in the strict sense (except in the rare instances of transliterated Aramaic, Mark 5:41, etc). The same could be said for the words of Peter, James, etc (and even Paul, to some extent) in the book of Acts. Anyone who has attempted to translate Hebrew (or Greek) into a very different language (such as English) knows how difficult it can be to capture and transmit accurately the detail (and even the basic sense) of the original—a strict word-for-word, or otherwise ‘literal’, rendering can, at times, be almost impossible. The idea of ipsissima verba (in this strict sense) is, to a great extent, the result of an interest in trying to “recover” the original Aramaic of Jesus’ sayings; however, as I point out below, this has been rendered largely obsolete by modern trends in New Testament scholarship.

The second, looser, sense of the expression ipsissima verba is of far greater interest, from the standpoint of historical criticism. It has to do with the question of whether, or to what extent, the words of the speakers in the Scriptures are: (a) authentic and (b) (historically) accurate. Here it is worth mentioning the corollary expression ipsissima vox (“the actual voice“)—by this is meant that, though they may not represent the speakers “actual words” (in either a strict or loose sense), the words preserved in the Scripture do reflect the substance of what was actually said. In this regard, let us consider the two characteristics mentioned above:

    • Authenticity—i.e., the speaker really did say, in whole or in part, something similar to what is recorded. Again, this concept is most prevalent in Gospel studies, where scholars have sought to defend, disprove, or otherwise determine, whether sayings of Jesus are authentic. Critical scholars have developed a number of so-called “criteria of authenticity”, some of which are more useful (and convincing) than others.
    • Accuracy—i.e., on the whole, to a varying degree, the recorded words are reasonably close to what the speaker actually said (even if given in translation); to this may be added the qualification that the words may (or may not) have been spoken in the exact historical context (the place and position) indicated within the Scripture narrative.

A special difficulty arises with regard to the extended speeches in Biblical narrative—in the New Testament, most notably, the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John and the speeches in the book of Acts. As I discuss the latter in a study series (soon to be posted here), I will use the speeches of Acts as an example. Traditional-conservative scholars would tend to accept the speeches as representing the “actual” words of Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc, whereas many critical scholars believe the speeches are largely the product of the author (trad. Luke). A moderate critical position would see the end product as essentially Lukan, but built, to some extent, upon authentic tradition. Consider for the moment, the idea that the speeches do represent the ipsissima verba (as at least some tradition-conservative commentators would hold)—how exactly could this be? There are two possibilities: one natural, the other supernatural.

    • Natural—Luke (or the author of Acts) has access to a source (written or oral) of the speech, a stenographic record preserved by eye/ear-witnesses.
    • Supernatural—God (by the Holy Spirit) has somehow vouchsafed to the author a (perfect) stenographic record of the speech.

A “natural” word-for-word (or otherwise accurate) source for speeches (especially lengthy ones) given years prior can be extremely hard to obtain, as Thucydides clearly admits (cf. The Peloponnesian War I.22.1); to expect a record of the ipsissima verba of such speeches by entirely natural means would seem to be quite unrealistic. A “supernatural” source is often assumed simply on the basis of a belief of the divine inspiration of Scripture (for many believers, this includes the idea of verbal/plenary inerrancy). However, it is often unclear just how this works, especially in the case of historical speeches (as in Acts). Most of the clear examples of divine inspiration (or, more accurately, revelation) described in the Scriptures themselves refer either to: (a) God’s own original words (of instruction, prophecy, etc), or (b) foreknowledge of future events (including things people will say). It is hard to find many definite instances where inspiration functions by preserving a perfect record of what was done/said in the past. A “synergistic” theory, whereby the Spirit of God guides and superintends—enhancing, if you will—the natural process and development of historical tradition appears far more realistic. Along these lines, I might recommend a variation of the moderate critical view of the speeches in Acts: they accurately record a substantive tradition regarding what was said at the time (i.e. ipsissima vox), but are, to a significant degree, expressed by the author’s own (Spirit-guided) artistic style and wording. Clearly, the end result is not a mere stenographic record, but a powerful, dynamic work of literary art.

On the ipsissima verba of Jesus and Gospel Studies

As mentioned above, the expression ipsissima verba has been used primarily in terms of criticism and study related to the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (primarily the Synoptic Gospels). In the late 19th-century through to the middle of the twentieth, there was a particular interest among many New Testament scholars in the relationship between the current Greek of the Gospels (and Acts) and the Aramaic with which many of the original sayings and traditions are assumed to have been expressed. This interest and emphasis can be seen in the work of scholars such as Gustav Dalman, Adolf Harnack, C. C. Torrey, Matthew Black, and many others. To a large extent, this involved an effort to ‘recover’ or re-establish the “original” Aramaic, by way of, e.g.—

(1) textual criticism, working back from textual variants and other details in the text to find examples where the Greek may translating (or mis-translating) an Aramaic original
(2) comparative analysis, working with the Syriac versions, the Targums, etc., sometimes involving attempts to convert (retrovert) the Greek into a possible Aramaic original
(3) historical and critical study regarding possible (original) Aramaic versions and/or sources of the Gospels and Acts

In more recent decades, New Testament scholars have largely abandoned such efforts, along with a growing recognition that theories involving Aramaic sources for the Gospels and Acts are highly speculative and questionable. Scholars with an Aramaic speciality (such as J. A. Fitzmyer) have offered incisive criticism of earlier methodology, such as the use of later Jewish Aramaic sources to establish the Aramaic of the first-century. A greater emphasis on form-, genre- and literary-critical approaches has also tended to focus scholars back to the Greek text (of the Gospels and Acts) as it has come down to us, and away from pursuing source-critical Aramaic theories.

The Beatitudes: Introduction

This study series focuses on the Beatitudes of Jesus, beginning with several introductory notes, and then treating each beatitude individually. It was originally created as a series of daily notes (for the previous Biblesoft study blog), and is being re-posted here in a new and improved format.

The Beatitudes of Jesus, in their best-known form, are part of the collection of teaching commonly referred to as the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7—Beatitudes, 5:3-12). This collection is similar, in both content and arrangement, to the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6:20-49 (Beatitudes, 6:20-26). In both, a group of Beatitudes head the collection (in the position of an exordium), introducing the teaching that Jesus gives to his disciples. This being the case, in discussing the Beatitudes, it is necessary first to examine the relationship between the Matthean and Lukan collections (or “sermons”), touching upon matters of Source Criticism and the so-called Synoptic Problem.

In both Gospels (Matthew and Luke) this material is presented as though delivered as a connected ‘sermon’; however, it seems clear enough that this is principally a literary framing device (cf. Matt 5:1-2; 7:28; Lk 6:17ff, 20; 7:1), and that the “sermon” is better understood as a collection of sayings and teachings, originally spoken on different occasions, and brought together as a way of summarizing or epitomizing how Jesus instructed his disciples. This has been recognized by critical commentators since at least the time of Calvin (cf. his Gospel Commentary [Harmony], on Matt 5:1).

As the “Sermon” on the Mount/Plain contains material found in both Matthew and Luke, but not (for the most part) in the Gospel of Mark, it is technically part of so-called “Q” (for German Quelle, “source”). One may speak of “Q” loosely (simply as reflecting common/shared traditions, whether written or oral, i.e., the “double tradition”), or strictly (as a specific written document). Nearly all critical scholars mean it in the latter sense, as an actual source document—an early Gospel, contemporary with (or prior to) Mark, which no longer survives. Most scholars (including a fair percentage of traditional-conservative commentators) adopt some variation of the Two-Source hypothesis—that Matthew and Luke, in fashioning their own Gospels, each made use of Mark and so-called Q for the core collection of traditions as well as the basic narrative framework. Traditions and material unique to Matthew or Luke are typically labeled “M” and “L” respectively; these labels may also be understood to represent actual source documents, or simply as a way to describe a set of traditions used by the Gospel writer.

With regard to the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (and its relation to “Q”), there are several critical theories:

  • The Lukan “Sermon on the Plain”, being considerably shorter, more or less represents the collection as found in “Q”; Matthew has modified/expanded this material (from other traditions, i.e. “M”) to create the “Sermon on the Mount”
  • Both Matthew and Luke have significantly modified (redacted) a simple core “Sermon” which was part of “Q”
  • The differences between the Matthean and Lukan “Sermons” are primarily the result of different versions (recensions) of “Q” (call them QM and QL) used by Matthew and Luke respectively.
  • A variation of this last theory would be that the Matthean and Lukan “Sermons” reflect different versions of a source collection of traditions/sayings (the “Sermon” as such) separate from so-called “Q”

I would say that the second and fourth options are more likely to be correct. The arrangement of material is similar enough that a core collection of traditions must lie behind both versions. This collection (the core “Sermon”) may (or may not) have been part of a separate “Q” document. I suspect that, as a clearly-defined collection, it is extremely old, perhaps going back to the earliest layer of Gospel tradition. Scholars debate whether the “Sermon” (and/or “Q”) existed in Aramaic (being subsequently translated into Greek), or whether the earliest written form was already Greek. It is usually assumed that (most of) Jesus’ original teaching was in Aramaic; but how this relates to the Greek forms recorded in the Gospels (and their sources) remains an open (and much disputed) question.

Here is an outline of the portions of the “Sermon” Matthew and Luke share:

Matthew includes much which is not in Luke (or is found elsewhere in Lk), and Luke, too, has some sayings not in Matthew; however, the portions they share (in the same order, and often in similar wording) are significant enough to indicate a common source.

It should be noted that, even if one accepts the general critical view of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain as a traditional collection of sayings and teachings which has been modified/redacted in different ways, there is little reason to doubt, on objective grounds, that the sayings/teachings themselves are authentic. In other words, while not necessarily reflecting full-fledged sermons delivered by Jesus, they must, in a fundamental sense, accurately reflect his teaching.

In the first article of this series, I will address the basic form and significance of the Beatitude.

This series is available for use in Biblesoft’s PC Study Bible program (Version 5 or OneTouch) [find out more]