# Ipsissima Verba vs. Ipsissima Vox and The Textus Recepticus



## Jello (Nov 1, 2015)

Hello All,

I am not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere other than the 2009 post, see link: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/53497-Ipsissima-Verba-or-Vox-What-is-the-reformed-position-And-a-question-on-john I am wondering of anyone is willing to comment on the bold words under bullet 4. I am seeking to understand if the Reformed Position a)necessarily entails the position that every word is inspired? and b) If it does so, does that entail that every inspired word also represents Christ's actual words? and if that is also true c)How does one understand different words attributed to Christ when the synoptics and John render different versions of the same story. I am familiar of the standard arguments with respect to answer these questions if either "a" or "b" or "c" were not true. I am also pretty familiar with the Ipsissima Vox explanations. From my recollections I have always been taught the Ipsissima Verba position as the true one, but a little confused now. Any thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## MW (Nov 1, 2015)

a) Every word is inspired.

b) The words in the Gospel are representative of Christ's actual words allowing for a degree of flexibility across languages and concepts. E.g., since we have explicit "interpretations" of words or actions to aid the original reader, it is reasonable there would be other accommodations for their benefit.

c) The synoptic issues are quite complex, and the addition of John makes it even more intricate. Difficulties are often alleviated by giving up on the attempt to create a single harmonised account, and by seeking to understand each Gospel according to its own thematic presentation. Once the individual themes are better understood, the conflicts won't seem so great, and the harmony can be better appreciated.


----------



## Jello (Nov 4, 2015)

Hello Rev Winzer,
Thank you for taking the time to help an inquirer. 

When you say every "word" is inspired to you mean all the words from the textus recepticus are inspired? Or also all the words of the Wescott-Hort documents as well? Or were you meaning "word" in an abstract sense, i.e. the semantic content of a proposition?
When you say "representative" do you mean "not identical in linguistic structure?" i.e. the words address the essence of Jesus’ teaching but are not identical to His?
My main goal is to try to figure out how answers to these questions bear on the doctrine of preservation of scripture. 
p.s. if you don’t mind me asking do you hold to ipsissima verba or vox?

Thanks again.


----------



## MW (Nov 4, 2015)

Jello said:


> Thank you for taking the time to help an inquirer.



My pleasure.



Jello said:


> When you say every "word" is inspired to you mean all the words from the textus recepticus are inspired? Or also all the words of the Wescott-Hort documents as well? Or were you meaning "word" in an abstract sense, i.e. the semantic content of a proposition?



Every written word was immediately inspired by God. I would take the preservation of the inspired word to be a different though connected issue. In terms of preservation my view is that the inspired word is to be found in what we call the textus receptus.



Jello said:


> When you say "representative" do you mean "not identical in linguistic structure?" i.e. the words address the essence of Jesus’ teaching but are not identical to His?
> My main goal is to try to figure out how answers to these questions bear on the doctrine of preservation of scripture.
> p.s. if you don’t mind me asking do you hold to ipsissima verba or vox?



I hold to ipsissima verba as a matter of authorial intention. The intent was to give the readers the very words of Jesus and this is what we have. There are a few dynamics of communication, though, which allow for some flexibility in the use of words. I think these dynamics can account for variations without having to resort to the idea that the Gospels only give us the "sense" of what Jesus said.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 4, 2015)

Hello Jeremiah,

I think the bold words you are referring to in rbcbob’s quote of Hodge in item #4, “*the words as well as the thoughts are God’s revelation to us*”, declare that Christ’s words in the NT are both Ipsissima Vox *and* Ipsissima Verba.

When Jesus said, in John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”, He is referring to His voice (vox) _and_ words (verba). His words _are_ His voice.

When you ask are the words [of Christ, I assume] in the Textus Receptus (the correct spelling) inspired, I would say yes. When you ask the same of the Westcott-Hort edition, I would say, no, not all of them, that is to say, the variants are not. I hold that the TR is the true text (others here on the board may disagree with that—we have had many discussions on this).

But back to the Ipsissima Vox and Ipsissima Verba; it is clear from Scripture that the LORD insisted that His very words were to be exactly recorded:
Jer 26:2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord 's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord' s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word . . .

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Isa 59:21 My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Matt 4:4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​ 
As for the differences in parallel sayings of Christ in the Synoptics, many of them may be explained simply by the fact that Jesus repeated His teachings, and not always verbatim, many times during His teaching journeys across Israel. Other accounts which are clearly of the same situations differences must be due to the Holy Spirit, who inspired them (2 Tim 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . .), as an excerpt from this study asserts:
Discussions of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels say far too little about the role of the Holy Spirit in the composing of those Gospels. He was the major author in the divine-human process of producing the Synoptic Gospels. Some of Jesus’ last words to the Eleven were, “When the paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, that one will testify concerning Me; and you also will testify, because from the beginning you have been with Me” (John 15:26-27). Those words specify the twofold nature of the inspiration that produced the accounts of Jesus’ life. “Randomness” is not a fit description of the combination of coincidences and disagreements in the Synoptics. The Holy Spirit had a controlling role in what the human authors wrote. He had reasons for the occasions when they agree and for the occasions when they disagree. In that sense, the combination of agreements and disagreements is not random, but God-ordained. In this life, we as humans will never comprehend the mind of God (cf. Isa 40:13; 1 Cor 2:16) and be able to detect His reasons for this mixture of agreements and differences in wording. To think that we can do so by treating Scripture as just another human production smacks of egotism on our parts. Readers must content themselves with simply accepting what He used the writers to compose while they worked without consulting the written works of each other.​ 
I don’t really think one can go further than this in explaining. Or if one can, I’d be interested in hearing it. It may very well be as Rev Winzer says above, "There are a few dynamics of communication, though, which allow for some flexibility in the use of words. I think these dynamics can account for variations without having to resort to the idea that the Gospels only give us the 'sense' of what Jesus said." This saying is in accord with simply having faith in the Holy Spirit's perfect work.


----------

