Theology in Particular: The Four Gospels with Jeffrey Riddle

 

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.12: Concerning the words ascribed to John the Baptist

 

Notes:

In this episode, we are looking at Book 2, chapter 12 where Augustine addresses issues related to the veracity of the Gospel records in reporting the recorded speech of John the Baptist.

2.12: Concerning the words ascribed to John by all four of the evangelists respectively.

Augustine here investigates how the reader might understand statements attributed to John the Baptist in each Gospel respectively, while harmonizing such statements overall as they appear throughout all four Gospels. How does one, in particular, understand statements attributed to John that seem to differ from one account to another? This discussion might be described as addressing the question of whether the evangelists reported the ipsissima verba (the very words), in this case of John the Baptist, or the ipsissima vox (the very voice, but not the exact words).

Augustine begins with a discussion of how one differentiates and recognizes direct quotation of speech. How does one distinguish between something Matthew says and something John says when the text does not use some clear grammatical indicator of direct quotations. He gives as an example the statement in Matthew 3:1-3, which begins, “1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,  2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The question is whether or not the next statement in v. 3 [ “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”] was also spoken by John or information added by Matthew. In other words, where does the quotation from John end? At v. 2 or at v. 3? Augustine notes that Matthew and John sometimes speak of themselves in the third person (citing Matthew 9:9 and John 21:24), so v. 3 might legitimately have been spoken by John the Baptist. If so, it harmonizes with John’s statement in John 1:23, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

Such questions, according to Augustine, should not “be deemed worth while in creating any difficulties” for the reader. He adds, “For although one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present a different one, there is really no contradiction in that.” He further affirms that word of God “abides eternal and unchangeable above all that is created.”

Another challenge comes with respect to the question as to whether the reported speech of persons like John are given “with the most literal accuracy.” Augustine suggests that the Christian reader does not have liberty to suppose that an evangelist has stated anything that is false either in the words or facts that he reports.

He offers an example Matthew’s record that John the Baptist said of Christ “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” (Matthew 3:11) and Mark’s statement, “whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose” (Mark 1:7; cf. Luke 3:16). Augustine suggests that such apparent difficulties can be harmonized if one considers that perhaps each version gets the fact straight since “John did give utterance to both these sentences either on two different occasions or in one and the same connection.” Another possibility is that “one of the evangelists may have reproduced the one portion of the saying, and the rest of them the other.” In the end the most important matter is not the variety of words used by each evangelist but the truth of the facts.

Conclusion:

According to Augustine, when it comes to addressing “the concord of the evangelists” one finds “there is not divergence [to be supposed] from the truth.” Thus, he contends that any apparent discrepancies or contradictions can be reasonably explained. For Augustine variety of expression does not mean contradiction.

JTR

Jots & Tittles 21: Early Independent Circulation of the Gospels & Mark's Ending

 

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.3-4: Genealogies

 

Image: Saint Augustine Basilica overlooking the ruins of Hippo Regius.

This is a series of readings from and notes and commentary upon Augustine of Hippo’s Harmony of the Evangelists.

In this episode we are looking at Book 2, chapter 3-4 where Augustine addresses both supposed conflicts between and among the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

2.3: A statement of the reason why Matthew enumerates one succession of ancestors for Christ, and Luke another.

Augustine begins by noting in particular a difference between Matthew and Luke in the line between David and Joseph in the two genealogies. They follow different directions with Matthew offering a series “beginning with David and traveling downwards to Joseph,” and Luke, on the other hand, having “a different succession, ”tracing it from Joseph upwards….” The main source of the difference, however, is in the order between Joseph and David and the fact that Joseph is listed as having two different fathers. Augustine explains that one of these was Joseph’s natural father by whom he was physically begotten (Jacob, in Matthew), and the other was his adopted father (Heli, in Luke). Both of these lines led to David.

Augustine further notes that adoption was an ancient custom. Though terms like “to beget” generally indicate natural fatherhood, Augustine notes that natural terms can also be used metaphorically, so Christians can speak of being begotten by God (e.g., cf. John 1:12-13: “to them he gave power to become the sons of God”). Augustine thus concludes, “It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted.” Nevertheless, he sees significance in the fact that Matthew says “Jacob begat Joseph” (Matthew 1:16; indicating he was the natural father) and Luke says, “Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23; indicating he was the adopted father of Joseph). Those unwilling to seek harmonizing explanations of such texts “prefer contention to consideration.”

2.4: Of the reason why forty generations (not including Christ Himself) are found in Matthew, although he divides them into three successions of fourteen each.

Augustine begins by noting that consideration of this matter requires a reader “of the greatest attention and carefulness.” Matthew who stresses the kingly character of Christ lists forty names in his genealogy. The number forty is of obvious spiritual significance in the Bible. Moses and Elijah each fasted for forty days, as did Christ himself in his temptation. After his resurrection, Christ also appeared to his disciples for forty days. He sees numerological significance in the fact that forty is four time ten. There are four directions (North, South, East, and West) and ten is the sum of the first four numbers.

Matthew intentionally desires to list forty generations, but he also suggests three successive eras (Abraham to David; David to Babylonian exile; Babylonian exile to Christ). This would be fourteen generations each for a total of forty-two, but Matthew, Augustine suggests, offers a double enumeration of Jechonias, making it “a kind of corner” and excluding it from the overall count, resulting then in the more spiritually significant number forty.

Augustine suggests that Matthew’s genealogy stresses Christ taking our sins upon himself, while Luke, who focuses on Christ as a Priest, stresses “the abolition of our sins.” He sees significance in Matthew’s line from David through Solomon by Bathsheba, acknowledging David’s sin, while Luke’s line flows from David through Nathan, whom Augustine erroneously ties to the prophet Nathan, by whose confrontation with David, God took away sin.

He also sees numerological significance in the fact that Luke’s genealogy includes seventy-seven persons (counting Christ and God himself). He sees the number seventy-seven as referring to “the purging of all sin.” Eleven breaks the perfect number ten, and it was the number of curtains of haircloth in the temple (Exodus 26:7). Seven is the number of days in the week. Seventy-seven is the product of eleven times seven, and so it is “the sign of sin in its totality.”

Conclusion:

The harmonization of the genealogies has been a perennial issue in Gospel studies from the earliest days of Christianity (see Eusebius’ citation of Africanus in his EH). Augustine maintains the continuity and unity of both Gospel genealogies while also noting the uniqueness of each individual Gospel account. In both genealogies Augustine offers pre-critical insight into the intentional use of spiritually significant numbers (forty in Matthew; seventy-seven in Luke) to heighten what he sees as the theological perspectives and intentions of the Evangelists.

JTR

Addendum:

Here's a chart showing Augustine's breakdown of the genealogy in Matt 1:1-17 which yields 40 names according to his calculation. He excludes in his scheme Jechonias as "a kind of corner" and Jesus Christ as "the kingly president" over the whole.

Jots & Tittles 17: "Plus Nothing" LIfe and Teachings of Jesus: A Modern Day Diatessaron?

 

JTR

Byzantine Colophons Suggesting Dates for the Four Canonical Gospels

Note: Taken from twitter: @Riddle1689:

Dating the Gospels is a longstanding challenge in NT studies.

R. A. Boyd's Text-Critical English NT: Byzantine Text Version includes colophons with some conjectures offered by Byzantine scribes:

Matthew: 8 years post-ascension. Mark: 10 years post-ascension. Luke: 15 years post-asension.

John: 32 years post-ascension.

Update (1.25.23):

Nelson Hsieh noted on Twitter that Tommy Wassermen and his student Conrad Thorup Elmelund addressed this colophon tradition in a 2022 SBL paper suggesting that the subscription was taken from Hippolytus of Thebes and reflects a "cascading error" in the entries on Mark-Luke-John with the time reference being not to years after the ascension but the writing of the previous work.

If this is correct, this tradition would suggest the following timeline:

Matthew: 8 years post-ascension.

Mark: 10 years post-Matthew (18 years post-ascension).

Luke: 15 years post-Mark (33 years post-ascension).

John: 32 years post-Luke (65 years post-ascension).

Interesting. Even assuming the "cascading error" this traditon assumes the priority of Matthew (and not Mark!) and the chronological ordering Matthew-Mark-Luke-John. It also suggests Matthew was written early and not multiple decades after the ascension and indeed places the first three Gospels as all being pre-AD 70.

JTR

Introduction: Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists

Notes:

Introduction to this Project

I am undertaking a consecutive reading along with notes and commentary of Augustine of Hippo’s work Harmony of the Evangelists [De Consensu Evangelistarum], also known under the title The Harmony of the Gospels.

For the reading, I am going to be making use of this English translation edition:

From Marcus Dodds, Ed., The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. A New Translation. Vol. VIII. The Sermon on the Mount, and the Harmony of the Evangelists. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1873.

Translated by S. F. D. Salmond.

For the work in Latin online, look here.

A Very Brief Sketch of the Life of Augustine of Hippo

Augustine (354-430) was the influential bishop of Hippo in North Africa. He was born to a Christian mother, Monica, and a pagan father. He was intellectually gifted, embraced Neoplatonic philosophy, and became a teacher of rhetoric in Milan, Italy. In Italy he dabbled in an Eastern religion known as Manichaeism, which he rejected, and eventually came under the sway of the preaching of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. In 386 he was converted while walking in a garden, having heard a voice say Tolle lege (“Take up and read.”), having picked up a Bible to read Romans 13:13.

After his baptism he returned to North Africa thinking he might establish a monastic community with a circle of his Christian friends, but he was soon pressed into ministerial service by his local bishop and eventually become bishop himself of Hippo. Augustine was a prolific writer, teacher, and theologian. He was also a polemicist and apologist engaged in the great controversies of his day, including the Donatist Controversy dealing with the restoration of those who had accepted compromise during earlier seasons of persecution and the Pelagian Controversy, dealing with the unorthodox teaching of Pelagius, who denied the power and extent of sin among fallen men.

Among Augustine’s two best known works are his Confessions, which many consider to be the earliest example of an autobiography, and The City of God, his defense of Christianity in the face of those pagans who blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome (AD 410). When he died, his own city of Hippo was besieged.

Augustine’s writings had an immense influence in the generations after his death, particularly in the Western world. In the Middle Ages he was acknowledged to be one of the four preeminent “Doctors” of the Western church (the others being Gregory the Great, Ambrose, and Jerome).  His teachings on original sin, predestination, and the sovereignty of God in salvation were among the hallmarks of what would come to be called “Augustinian” theology, a perspective that was heartily retrieved, in particular, at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

A Brief Introduction to the Harmony

This introduction is based on S. F. D. Salmond’s “Introductory Notice” provided in the 1873 edition (135-138).

The composition of the work is assigned to about the year AD 400. According to Salmond, “Among Augustine’s numerous theological productions, this one takes rank with the most toilsome and exhaustive” (135-136). It is an apologetic and polemical work. The editor notes, “Its great object is to vindicate the Gospel against the critical assaults of the heathen” (136). Persecution having failed, pagans tried to discredit the faith “by slandering its doctrine, impeaching its history, and attacking with special persistency the veracity of the gospel writers” (136). He continues, “Many alleged that the original Gospels had received considerable additions of a spurious character. And it was a favorite manner of argumentation, adopted by both pagan and Manichean adversaries, to urge that the evangelical historians contradicted each other” (136).

The plan of the work is presented in four divisions:

In Book 1, “he refutes those who asserted that Christ was only the wisest among men, and who aimed at detracting from the authority of the Gospels, by insisting on the absence of any written compositions proceeding from the hand of Christ Himself, and by affirming that the disciples went beyond what had been His own teaching both on the subject of His divinity, and on the duty of abandoning the worship of the gods” (136).

In Book 2, “he enters upon a careful examination of Matthew’s Gospel, on to the record of the supper, comparing it with Mark, Luke, and John, and exhibiting the perfect harmony subsisting between them” (136-137).

In Book 3, Augustine “demonstrates the same consistency between the four evangelists, from the account of the supper to the end” (137).

In Book 4, “he subjects to a similar investigation those passages in Mark, Luke, and John, which have no proper parallels in Matthew” (137).

Salmond notes that in taking up this task Augustine was both “gifted with much, but he also lacked much.” He had a high view of Scripture, but “he was deficient in exact scholarship” (137). Though well versed in Latin literature, “he knew little Greek, and no Hebrew” (137). The editor notes that there is “less digression” than is customary in his writing, and he less frequently indulges in “extravagant allegorizing” (137). He has “an inordinate dependence” on the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and almost seems to claim “special inspiration” for it (137-138).

With respect to Augustine’s harmonization of the Gospel narratives, Salmond observe: “In general, he surmounts the difficulty of what may seem at first sight discordant versions of one incident, by supposing different instances of the same circumstances, or repeated utterance of the same words” (138). Furthermore, “He holds emphatically by the position that wherever it is possible to believe two similar incidents to have taken place, no contradiction can legitimately be alleged, although no evangelist may relate them both together” (238).

Finally, Salmond suggests Augustine’s work should not be subjected to overly harsh judgement given he entered “an untrodden field” (138). His work cannot be denied “the merit of grandeur in original conception, and exemplary faithfulness in actual execution” (138).

It is this Harmony that we will attempt to read and offer notes and commentary in upcoming episodes in this series.

JTR

Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 4 of 8)

 

 JTR

Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 3 of 8)

 

 

 JTR

Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 2 of 8)

 

I have added Part 2 of 8 (covering chapters 6-10) of Clement of Alexandria's "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?" (Mark 10:17-31).

A few points to be clear:

I am not necessarily suggesting that everything Clement says about this text is accurate, nor am I commending all aspects of his interpretation. It should be taken with some caution (especially his views on soteriology).

I am more interested in how a second century Christian would approach interpretation of a Gospel text from a pre-critical perspective.

So, I am interested in things like:

How he harmonizes this account with the other Synoptic Gospels.

How he makes use of allegorical/spiritual interpretations alongside literal ones.

How his views may or may not be shaped by Socratic thought.

Etc.

Enjoy, JTR

Gospels Class Upcoming at IRBS Seminary August 3-7, 2021

Looking forward to teaching an intensive class on the Gospels for IRBS Seminary in Mansfield, Texas, Tuesday-Saturday, August 3-7, 2021.

If you live in or near the Dallas-FW area and would like to take the class face to face, I'd love to meet you in person. You can also take the class virtually. For more info visit the IRBS Seminary website. Or, the IRBS FB page.

Check out the syllabus for the class here.

JTR

Book Review: Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, The Life and Teaching of Jesus, Vol. 1:The Beginning of the Gospel

 

I have posted audio versions of my book review of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, The Life and Teaching of Jesus, Vol. 1: The Beginning of the Gospel (SVP, 2018).

My written review appeared in the Midwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2021): 121-124. I have posted the pdf to my academia.edu page. You can read it here.

For more on Alfeyev you can visit his personal website where you can find this recent account of his meeting with some Russian Baptist leaders. We pray that Alfeyev and other leaders in the Russian Orthodox church will not restrict the religious freedom of Protestants (including Baptists) in that great nation. You can also listen to a portion of his St. Mathew's Passion here in English.

JTR 

WM 203: Warfield: Why Four Gospels?

 

Some quotes:

"He has, as it were, stationed Spirit-led men around the foot of the mountain and bidden them look and write."

"We ought to study them both separately and together. A patchwork narrative made out of the events recorded in these four precious volumes is far from being a suitable substitute for the four books themselves."

"The Gospels are not bundles of facts to be shaken apart like so many bundles of sticks, and then bound together into one greater fagot. They are rather like the several portraits which Van Dyke painted from various points of view of Charles I, that the sculptor might combine them into one rounded statue--not part by part, but as so many wholes."

-B.B. Warfield, "Why Four Gospels?" (1887)

JTR

Book Review: Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?

 

I have posted an audio version of my book review of Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2018).

The written review appeared in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 2021): 204-207. I have also posted the pdf to my academia.edu site. You can read it here.

JTR

Q & A on John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Gospels

I responded to an email message today from a student in my New Testament and Early Christianity class and thought others might be interested in this.

The question:

Hello,

I have a question for you about the bible.

So John the Baptist was Elizabeth and Zecharias' son right?  But in the interactions between Jesus and him do not portray anything of them having known each other before.  I know he is wise enough because the Lord has opened his eyes about the fact that Jesus is Lord and the son of God but he does not act like he knows Jesus.

My response:

Good insight. Yes, the only place where it is said that John and Jesus were related is in Luke 1-2, but in the other Gospels it does not seem that Jesus and John know of each other as having a family relation.

This would be an example of an "apparent" contradiction in the Gospel accounts. The skeptical critical scholars would see this as an outright contradiction and suggest that Luke's account of their family relationship is not historical but that Luke was attempting to blend a tradition about the birth of John and one about the birth of Jesus. Traditional Christians, however, believe that the Gospels are historically reliable. They would seek to harmonize the "apparent" discrepancy by some reasonable explanation. In this case, one explanation might be that since John's parents were old when he was born (Luke 1:7) that they both died when he was young, and he was raised without an awareness of his kinship relationship with Jesus.

At any rate, one thing to consider is that early Christians did not think it was contradictory to have both accounts in the NT (Luke's account of John, alongside the other Gospel accounts). They did not see them as contradictory.

JTR

Ned B. Stonehouse on the Authorship and Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels

Image: Ned B. Stonehouse (1902-1962).

An interesting point is made by Ned B. Stonehouse in the opening of chapter two (“The Self-Witness of Matthew”) in his Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Tyndale Press, 1963) relating to the self-disclosure of the canonical Gospel authors (19 ff).

He notes that the canonical Gospels are technically “anonymous writings” in that the authors never directly self-identify. In this regard he makes a distinction between Matthew and Mark, on one hand, and Luke and John on the other, with the latter at least including some “features of self-disclosure” (cf. Luke’s historical prologue, Luke 1:1-4, the “we passages” in Acts, and passages in John like John 13:23 ff; 19:26 ff, 35; 20:2 ff).

He contrasts this with the apocryphal Gospel of Peter which includes this statement, “But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went out into the sea….” One does not find Matthew or the other Gospel writers speaking in the first person about themselves quite like this. The sense is that the canonical Gospel authors did not feel compelled to “prove” or “show” that they were eyewitnesses (at least in the case of Matthew and John), in the way that the pseudonymous author of the Gospel of Peter did, and this, in fact, subtly supports the traditional view of their authorship.

JTR

Peter J. Williams on why the "telephone game" analogy is ill chosen for the transmission of Jesus traditions in the NT Gospels

Image: Norman Rockwell's "The Gossips" which appeared on the cover of the March 6, 1948 edition of The Saturday Evening Post.

I’ve been reading Peter J. Williams’s book Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway 2018).

In the book Williams provides reasonable arguments as to why the information about Jesus in the NT Gospels should be considered historically reliable.

At one point he offers a response to those who use the “Chinesewhispers” or “telephone game” analogy to argue for corruption in the transmission of factual information in the Gospels.

Williams offers this response:

The analogy is, however, ill chosen. After all, this game is specifically optimized to produce corruption. Hence come the rules that one must whisper, passing on the message only once and only to a single person, and there must be sufficient people playing to ensure that the message is corrupted.

The circumstances surrounding the passing on of reliable information in the Gospels could not be more different. Not only are the names of people and places authentic, showing that they could not have been passed through multiple unreliable steps in transmission, but the very conditions in early Christianity were unsuitable for producing corruption: they were marked by a high emphasis on truth, a sense of authoritative teaching, a wide geographical spread among followers of Jesus, and a high personal cost to following him. A plausible scenario for accidental corruption simply was not there. By contrast, the view that people passed on reliable information explains the data more simply (77-78).

JTR

WM 83: Ipsissima Verba or Ipsissima Vox?

Today, I recorded and posted Word Magazine # 83: Ipsissima Verba or Ipsissima Vox? You can listen here.

Here are my notes: 

In the recent Megiddo radiointerview I did with Paul Flynn on the text of the NT, he had asked me about this quote from Dan Wallace:

Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort. -Daniel B. Wallace https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

I’ve been wanting to do a follow up response to this idea of the verba/vox distinction and related issues, like whether Jesus spoke Greek or only Aramaic.

So, I want to look at four sources I’ve recently reviewed on these topics, along with some final thoughts conclusions on how believers are to understand the use of modern historical-critical methodology in Biblical criticism.

First: Irving Hexham, Understanding World Religions: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Zondervan, 2011).

A few weeks ago, I noted Irving Hexham’s questions about whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek. See my post here. Hexham suggests that the consensus among modern NT scholars that Jesus spoke Aramaic rather than Greek only came about in the eighteenth century with the rise of source criticism and subtly undermined the traditional view that the Gospels faithfully recorded the exact words of Jesus.  

Second: Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Norman L. Geiser, Ed. Inerrancy (Zondervan, 1980): 267-304; esp. 301.

This book comes from the evangelical “Battle for the Bible” period. It was written to defend inerrancy against its liberal despisers. In Feinberg’s article he attempts to define inerrancy in such a way that it might remain compatible with the challenges of the modern historical critical method.

Of note is his specific discussion about whether the Gospels record the ipsissima verba (the very words) or the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus.

Feinberg notes: “Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice)” (301). He adds:

When a New Testament writer cites the sayings of Jesus, it need not be that Jesus said those exact words. Undoubtedly, the exact words of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament, but they need not be so in every instance.

Feinberg gives two reasons for his argument. First, he says “many of the sayings were spoken by our Lord in Aramaic and therefore had to be translated into Greek.” Second, he suggests that it is impossible which of the sayings are “direct quotes, which are indirect discourse, and which are freer renderings.”

My guess, however, is that most faithful, ordinary Christians (untrained in modern historical criticism) will be puzzled by this viewpoint for two reasons. First, they likely expect that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels are, just that, his words, and not merely a close approximation of them. Second, they assume that distinctions between direct and indirect discourse are no harder to discern in the Greek of the New Testament than in English (or any other coherent language). So, for example, when they read John 5:8: “Jesus said unto him [i.e., the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda], Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,” they assume that this is a direct quotation, recording not merely an approximation of Jesus’ words but his exact words. If he originally spoke those words in Greek, and not Aramaic, it would, of course, require no translation.

Feinberg’s analysis appears not to be aimed at that ordinary Christian reader but at the skeptic who is eager to find errors or inconsistencies in the Biblical text. He believes that by surrendering a vigorous defense of the Logia Jesu in the Gospels as Christ’s precise words, in favor of a more nuanced suggestion that such sayings might only be free renderings by the Evangelists, he has safeguarded the Scriptures against charges of errancy. But has he conceded too much? Does this not buttress the skeptic’s view that the Gospels provide an often creative and inventive account of Jesus’ life and ministry as opposed to a meticulously accurate record of his words and deeds?

Furthermore, does Feinberg’s approach neglect the supernatural aspect of the faithful transmission of Scripture? Its accuracy does not, in the end, depend on the care or skill of the penmen but on the faithfulness of the God who directed them. Consider Christ’s promise to his disciples: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).

Third: Darrell Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Eds., Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Zondervan, 1995): 73-99.

This essay appears in a volume dedicated to defending the reliability of the NT Gospels over against the hyper-skepticism of the Jesus Seminar. As with Feinberg, however, one wonders if the author does not concede too much to the Bible’s despisers.

Bock suggests three points on a spectrum of understanding Christ’s words in the Gospels: live, jive, and Memorex. The “Memorex view” would be that of the traditionalists who assume that the words recorded in the Gospels are the exact words spoken. Bock rejects this view, however, stating, “It is possible to have historical truth without always resorting to explicit citation” (75). The “jive view” would be that the Jesus Seminar, which holds that the Gospel writers had maximal freedom in inventing or creating the recorded words. The mediating position which Bock champions is the “live” option, suggesting:

This is what the “live” approach is all about. Each evangelist retells the living and powerful words of Jesus in a fresh way for his readers, while faithfully and accurately presenting the “gist” of what Jesus said. I call this approach one that recognizes the Jesus tradition as “live” in its dynamic and quality (77).

Bock then follows Feinberg by insisting on a distinction between ipsissima verba and ispissima vox.  He cites one “universally recognized reality” as making the verba/vox distinction necessary: “that Jesus probably gave most of his teaching in Aramaic” while the Gospels were written in Greek, adding, “In other words, most of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels is already a translation” (77). So, Bock concedes: “Since a translation is already present in much of the tradition, we do not have ‘his very words’ in the strictest sense of the term” (77). The best Bock can say is that the Gospels “give us the true gist of his teaching and the central thrust of his message” (78).

Bock defends this view as in keeping with (1) the practices of Greco-Roman historiography; (2) the oral Jewish culture of remembering; and (3) the nature of historical writing. Regarding the third point, Bock notes: “History is not a static entity” (81).

Again, it seems unlikely that the faithful Christian reader will necessarily share these assumptions. Whatever the ordinary practices of secular Greek, Roman, or Jewish authors or the customary vagaries of ancient or modern history, the believing reader sees the Bible as an extra-ordinary work. Why then, under the Spirit’s direction, should it not faithfully record the very words of Jesus?

Note: When one reviews the examples cited by Bock one notices how thin are the actual citations of perceived variances in the words of Jesus among the Gospels (see pp. 84-89).

Bocks gives attention to variances in the order of the temptations in the temptation narratives, perceived differences in narrative sequencing in the Synoptic Gospels, detail differences in Synoptic parallels, and differences in verbal citations (like the Father’s voice at Jesus’ baptism or Peter’s confession).

When it comes to specific words from Jesus, Bock only cites two examples: (1) Jesus’ question to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi (p. 86); and (2) Jesus’ teaching on the coming of the Son of Man (p. 88).

Bock concludes: “The Gospels are summaries of the teaching of Jesus,” giving the “gist” but not the exact words (89).

This modern, evangelical approach was not, however, the one taken by pre-critical interpreters, who could acknowledge slight variations in the Gospels accounts while still affirming the full reliability of the Gospels in accurately recording Christ’s precise words (and those of others). How did they do this? By making reasonable harmonizations, often assuming that one Gospel writer might have recorded what Jesus (or another figure) said on one occasion or moment while another Gospel writer recorded what he said on another occasion or in another moment, thus explaining the occasional differences in wording. A report of Christ’s words might then be precise but only partial without assuming that the Evangelist had creatively summarized Christ’s words.

Fourth: Robert L. Thomas, “Impact of Historical Criticism on Theology and Apologetics,” in Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship (Kregel, 1998): 356-377, especially 367-372.

Thomas challenges the evangelical embrace of the verba/vox distinction. According to Thomas, this move “now has the evangelical world wondering what words Jesus spoke. The general impact of that field of scholarship has been on the side of assuming the gospel writers never reported His exact words or the ipsissima verba—the very words—of the Lord” (367).

While conceding that Jesus’ speeches in the Gospels are shorter than the original speeches, Thomas argues that this does not mean that the words which are recorded in the Gospels are not Christ’s exact words.

Thomas offers a direct challenge to Bock, in particular, including his assumption that Jesus spoke only in Aramaic and this had to be translated into Greek. He notes a “growing realization among contemporary scholars” recognizing “the wide use of Greek among the Jews of Jesus’ day,” adding, “The assumption that Jesus never spoke Greek is certainly unfounded” (368).

Thomas thinks it highly likely that the followers of Jesus would have written down and accurately memorized Jesus’ exact words. Regarding the differences in the Synoptic Gospels, Thomas reflects:

If the Gospels do contain the very words of Jesus, what is one to make of their disagreement in wording when recording the same discourse or conversation? The fact that no single gospel records everything spoken on a given occasion furnishes an adequate response to that challenge. It is probable, in fact, that no combination of parallel accounts records the entirety of a speech or dialogue. Christ undoubtedly repeated some of His teachings with slightly differing wording on different occasions. He very probably did so on the same occasion too. So instances where parallel accounts report the same substance in slightly different forms may easily be traceable to different but similar statements on the same occasion, with each writer selecting for his account only a part of what was said (369).

Thomas’ view here reflects that held by the pre-critical interpreters.

He likewise notes the special nature of the Bible as a Holy Spirit inspired work:

Another factor overlooked by evangelicals in the whole issue of literary independence versus interdependence is the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling the memories of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s life….

The Spirit’s work in reminding and inspiring is a supernatural work, guaranteeing a degree of accuracy and precision that is without parallel in the annals of human historiography (372).

Concluding Reflections:

In conclusion, let me share some insights from Alvin Plantinga’s Knowledge and Christian Belief (Eerdmans, 2015). This is a simplified and popular version of his Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000).

Plantinga argues in that book that there is warrant or justification for Christian belief (i.e., that it is not necessarily irrational to hold Christian beliefs). At the conclusion of that book he addresses three “defeaters” (arguments against his thesis). The three are challenges based on Historical Biblical Criticism; Pluralism; and Evil.

For the purposes of this discussion, I thought his comments on Historical Biblical Criticism (HBC) are worth sharing. Plantinga writes:

So HBC has not in general been sympathetic to traditional Christian belief; it has hardly been an encouragement to the faithful. The faithful, however, seem relatively unconcerned; they find traditional biblical commentary of great interest and importance, but the beliefs and attitudes of HBC have not seemed to filter down to them, in spite of its dominance in mainline seminaries. According to Van Harvey, “Despite decades of research, the average person tends to think of the life of Jesus in much the same terms as Christians did three centuries ago” [“New Testament Scholarship,” p. 194]. One possible reason is that there is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of HBC are to be preferred, by Christians, to those of traditional Biblical commentary. A little epistemological reflection enables us to see something further: the traditional Christian has good reason to reject the skeptical claims of HBC and continue to hold traditional Christian belief despite the allegedly corrosive acids of HBC (103).

I think Plantinga gets it very right here. Modern evangelical scholars have embraced and accommodated the modern historical-critical method to their reading of the Bible (in this case the Gospels) in an effort to defend the faith against objections. The problem is that these are not objections raised by the faithful but by unbelieving skeptics. The faithful, in fact, find the “new” interpretations unconvincing, at best, and undermining the faith, at worst.

So, what can we conclude?

Jesus spoke Aramaic. That is clear from the Gospel quotations of his Aramaic speech. But it is not unreasonable to assume that he also spoke Greek and that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded his words in Greek. Not only did they rely on accurate written accounts and carefully preserved memories, but the Holy Spirit enabled faithful remembering (John 14:26). Agreements in the Gospel record do not have to explained through complex literary dependence theories. Any discrepancies in the account of speech from Jesus or other figures can also be reasonably explained through harmonization (e.g., distinctions between direct and indirect discourse, repetitions, partial citations, etc.) without abandoning confidence in the Gospels as faithfully preserving the ipsissima verba, which is essentially the default understanding of ordinary believing readers who have not been exposed to higher criticism.

JTR