Words of Jesus

Red Letters in John 3:16?

In John 3, where do the words of Jesus end and the words of the John begin?

Many “red-letter” Bibles will mark the entire section as the words of Jesus.  The ESV, for example, marks the whole section red, but drops the quote marks at 3:15 with an explanatory footnote.  The NIV2011 drops the red letters starting in 3:16, while many editions of the KJV run the words of Jesus through the end of the section.  The fact that an edition of the Bible prints letters in Red is a an editorial decision.  The pew Bibles in my church do not have red letters at all. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the first Red-Letter Bible was printed only in 1900!  For many people, the “red letters” are more important that the “black letters” because they are the words of Jesus.  In fact, I recently spoke to someone who told me they only read the Red Letters.  I suppose that limits one’s reading in the Old Testament, but I think his point was that he wanted to read the Words of Jesus and the color helped him in his Bible reading.

While this tradition of printing the words of Jesus in red is relatively recent, the tradition of decorating the “special words” in the Bible goes back to medieval manuscripts.  For example,the tenth century Codex 565  is considered one of the most beautiful of all texts, and is housed now at the public library in St. Petersburg.  The Gospels are written on purple vellum with gold lettering.  The 14th century manuscript Codex 16 contains the Gospels in Greek and Latin written in four colors of ink.  The regular text is vermillion, the words of Jesus and the angels, and Jesus’ genealogy are in red, words quoted from the Old Testament and the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue.  The words of the Pharisees, the centurion, and Judas are in black.

Most often Bible editors break off from Jesus’ words after 3:15, making 3:16-21 an exposition of Jesus’ words by the author of the gospel.  John 3:13-15 are though to be the words of Jesus since uses the title “Son of Man,” a phrase used elsewhere only by Jesus to refer to himself.  The beginning of 3:16 implies an explanation of the preceding section (Köstenberger, John, 114).  There is quite a bit a of difference between scholars on where to end the words of Jesus.  For example:  Raymond Brown and Francis Maloney think that Jesus’ words continue through verse 21  Ben Witherington starts John’s section a 3:12. Schnackenburg starts John’s section at 3:13.

In addition, the use of μονογενής, “only born son” in 3:16 is an echo from John’s prologue (1:14, 18).  Clearly the prologue contains the words of the gospel writer, not Jesus.  The light / dark motif in 3:19-21 is typical of John as well, from the prologue and the epistles of John.  That the gospel writer should step in and comment on the words of Jesus is not unusual in John – it occurs again in 3:31-36 where the words of John the Baptist are expanded.

Does this issue matter?  The fact is that John is recording Jesus’ words in his own language, making it very difficult to sort out when he is offering a commentary on the words of Jesus and when he is reporting Jesus’ teaching. For many, the idea that Jesus did not say John 3:16 is a shock, although the content of that verse is echoed in the dialogue with Nicodemus.  Some editors have decided that Jesus’ words in in 3:15 for good reasons and communicate that decision with a splash of red-ink.

To me, this is a matter of truth – what did John intend when he wrote John 3?  It seems as though his intention was to offer a theological explanation of Jesus’ words, developing several themes which he originally raised in the prologue.  Certainly the whole passage is authoritative, whether the words are from Jesus or the inspired author of John.

Bibliography:
Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to St. John I-XII (AB 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1966).
Andreas Köstenberger, John, (BENTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008).
Francis Maloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998).
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (trans. C. Hastings; 3 vol.; New York: Crossroad, 1990).
Ben Witherington, III,  John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990).

The Words of Jesus

redletterIn the first century most information was not recorded, it was reported orally. Jesus taught orally, the disciples listened, remembered, and eventually wrote down what he said. The problem is obvious, how do we know if the disciples accurately recorded the words of Jesus many years after they were spoken? In Luke 6:20, Jesus says “blessed are the poor,” but in Matthew 5:3, he says “blessed are the poor in spirit.”

Two issues are involved. First, should we argue for the “exact words” of Jesus in the first place? Jesus spoke Aramaic, we are reading a translation of a Greek text. For this reason alone we ought to dispense with the pious assumption the “red letters” are exactly what Jesus spoke, but are the accurate recollections of what he spoke. Second, if we think we can we determine whether the words of Jesus are in fact accurate reflections of what he taught, what evidence could we give to support this assertion?

Essentially, there are three options for the Words of Jesus.

  1. The gospels are the exact words of Jesus. In the modern world, we expect newspapers to record exactly what someone says. If not, the person quoted will likely complain that they were mis-quoted. In fact, the presence of quote marks is an indication in the modern world that the words between the quote are the exact words that were said.
  2. The word of Jesus in the gospels are fabrications of the early church. The early believers created sayings for Jesus to meet needs in their own communities. The sayings that were created usually are the claims that Jesus makes to be the Messiah or to be God. The gospel writers are using “creative license” to make Jesus claim the things that the church came to believe about him. This is the position of the Jesus Seminar scholars.
  3. The words of Jesus accurately reflect the things that Jesus said, but likely not the exact words in every case. The gospel writers accurately give the gist of the teachings of Jesus. This position understands that in the oral period there were possible adaptations and changes made to the sayings of Jesus, but that the changes were not as radical as the second position states. In fact, the proof that the gospel writers did not create sayings is found in Luke 1:1-4 – Luke bases his gospel on the reports and teachings of eyewitnesses to the events.

Scholars usually uses the phrases Ipsissima Vox and Ipsissima Verba to describe the words of Jesus.  Vox is the “very voice” of Jesus, while verba refers to the “very words” of Jesus. The gospels record the voice of Jesus rather than his exact words. Why is this so? Jesus likely taught in Aramaic, the common language of the first century Jew. When addressing a crowd of Jews in a synagogue, Aramaic would have been the only language he could have used. The text of the New Testament is in Greek, implying that the words of Jesus have been translated from their Jewish/Aramaic context into the Greek language.

Jesus is said to have spoken for hours to attentive audiences (Mark 6:34-36) The longest speeches in the Gospels would only take a few minute to read (Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse, for example). The writers are clearly giving us the teaching of Jesus in a summary fashion. It is very likely that Jesus taught very similar things in different places. Many in the crowds would not have traveled with him, the theme of the Kingdom of God and the ethical demands of the Kingdom would be repeated in many different settings in similar, although different ways. Which set of sayings does Matthew record?

The best solution is that Matthew arranged the sayings of Jesus thematically, for theological reasons. Luke did the same, although his strategy for arranging the Sermon on the Mount differs from Matthew. We are not reading a verbatim 15 minute slice of a long sermon from Jesus, but the sorts of things he often said, so often his followers remembered and repeated the sayings in various contexts.

Does the distinction between  Ipsissima Vox and Ipsissima Verba help with other problems in the Gospels, such as the Synoptic Problem, or the oral period between the events of Jesus’ life and the writing of the Gospels?

John 3:16 and Red Letter Bibles

In John 3, where do the words of Jesus end and the words of the John begin?

Red Letter Bibles

Many “red-letter” Bibles will mark the entire section as the words of Jesus. The ESV, for example, marks the whole section red, but drops the quote marks at 3:15 with an explanatory footnote. The NIV2011 drops the red letters starting in 3:16, while many editions of the KJV run the words of Jesus through the end of the section.

It is an editorial decision to print letters in red, the original manuscripts did not mark these words with any specific color and not all modern Bibles have red letters (for example, the pew Bibles in my church do not have red letters at all). In fact, according to Wikipedia, the first red-letter Bible was printed in 1900! For many people, the “red letters” are more important that the “black letters” because they are the words of Jesus.  In fact, I recently spoke to someone who told me they only read the “Red Letters.” I suppose this limits one’s reading in the Old Testament, but I think his point was that he wanted to read the “Real Words of Jesus“ and the color helped him in his Bible reading.

While this tradition of printing the words of Jesus in red is a relatively recent innovation, the tradition of decorating the “special words” in the Bible goes back to medieval manuscripts. For example, the tenth century Codex 565  is considered one of the most beautiful of all texts (currently in  St. Petersburg). In this manuscript, the Gospels are on purple vellum with gold lettering. The 14th century manuscript Codex 16 contains the Gospels in Greek and Latin written in four colors of ink.  The regular text is vermilion, the words of Jesus and the angels, and Jesus’s genealogy are in red, words quoted from the Old Testament and the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue. The words of the Pharisees, the centurion, and Judas are in black.

Most often Bible editors break off from Jesus’s words after 3:15, making 3:16-21 an exposition of Jesus’s words by the author of the gospel. John 3:13-15 are the words of Jesus since uses the title “Son of Man,” a phrase used elsewhere only by Jesus to refer to himself. The beginning of 3:16 is John’s explanation of the preceding words of Jesus (Köstenberger, John, 114). There is a significant range of scholarly opinion on where to end the words of Jesus.  For example: Raymond Brown and Francis Maloney think Jesus’s words continue through verse 21  Ben Witherington starts John’s section a 3:12. Schnackenburg starts John’s section at 3:13.

In addition, the use of μονογενής, “only born son” in 3:16 is an echo from John’s prologue (1:14, 18). The prologue contains the words of the Gospel writer, not Jesus. The light and dark motif in John 3:19-21 is also typical of John theology from the prologue and the epistles of John. That the gospel writer should step in and comment on the words of Jesus is not unusual in John. This sort of commentary occurs again in John 3:31-36 where John expands on the words of John the Baptist.

Does this issue matter?  The fact is that John is recording Jesus’s words in his own language, making it very difficult to sort out when he is offering a commentary on the words of Jesus and when he is reporting Jesus’s teaching. For many, the idea Jesus did not say John 3:16 is a shock, although the content of that verse is found throughout the dialogue with Nicodemus. Some editors have decided that Jesus’s words in in 3:15 for good reasons and communicate that decision with a splash of red-ink.

To me, this is a matter of truth: what did John intend when he wrote John 3?  It appears his intention was to explain Jesus’s words from his own theological perspective. He develops several themes he originally raised in his prologue. The whole chapter is authoritative, whether the words are from Jesus or the inspired author of John.

 

Bibliography:
Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to St. John I-XII (AB 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1966).
Andreas Köstenberger, John, (BENTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008).
Francis Maloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998).
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (trans. C. Hastings; 3 vol.; New York: Crossroad, 1990).
Ben Witherington, III,  John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990).

Are these Really the Words of Jesus?

In the first century most information was not recorded, it was reported orally.  Jesus taught orally, the disciples listened, remembered, and eventually wrote down what he said. The problem is obvious, how do we know if the disciples accurately recorded the words of Jesus many years after they were spoken?  For example, compare Matthew 16:13 with Mark 8:27and Luke 9:18:  What does Jesus say? “who do the people / crowds say that I / Son of Man is?”

Two issues are involved.  First, should we argue for the “exact words” of Jesus in the first place, and second, how can we determine whether the words of Jesus are in fact accurate reflections of what he taught to his disciples and the crowds?  I will discuss the second question in the next post, but for now, how can we be sure that the words of Jesus as we have them in the text could be what Jesus actually said?  Essentially, there are three options for the Words of Jesus.

  • The gospels are the exact words of Jesus.  In the modern world, we expect newspapers to record exactly what someone says.  If not, the person quoted will likely complain that they were mis-quoted. In fact, the presence of quote marks is an indication in the modern world that the words between the quote are the exact words that were said.
  • The word of Jesus in the gospels are fabrications of the early church.  The early believers created sayings for Jesus to meet needs in their own communities.  The sayings that were created usually are the claims that Jesus makes to be the Messiah or to be God.  The gospel writers are using “creative license” to make Jesus claim the things that the church came to believe about him.  This is the position of the Jesus Seminar scholars.
  • The words of Jesus accurately reflect the things that Jesus said, but likely not the exact words in every case.  The gospel writers accurately give the gist of the teachings of Jesus.  This position understands that in the oral period there were possible adaptations and changes made to the sayings of Jesus, but that the changes were not as radical as the second position states.  In fact, the proof that the gospel writers did not create sayings is found in Luke 1:1-4 – Luke bases his gospel on the reports and teachings of eyewitnesses to the events.

Scholarship usually uses the terms Ipsissima Vox versus  Ipsissima Verba.  Vox is the “very voice” of Jesus, while verba refers to the “very words” of Jesus.  The gospels record the voice of Jesus rather than his exact words.  Why is this so?

First, Jesus likely taught in Aramaic, the common language of the first century Jew.  When addressing a crowd of Jews in a synagogue, Aramaic would have been the only language he could have used.  The text of the New Testament is in Greek, implying that the words of Jesus have been translated from their Jewish / Aramaic context into the Greek  language.

Second, Jesus is said to have spoken for hours to attentive audiences (Mark 6:34-36.)  The longest speeches in the Gospels would only take a few minute to read (Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse, for example).  The writers are clearly giving us the teaching of Jesus in a summary fashion.

Third, It is very likely that Jesus taught very similar things in different places.  Many in the crowds would not have traveled with him, the theme of the Kingdom of God and the ethical demands of the Kingdom would be repeated in many different settings in similar, although different ways.  Which set of sayings does Matthew record?

In the end, I think we ought to treat the words of Jesus in the gospels the same way that we would treat the words of any ancient speech.  No ancient writer claimed to have written word for word what was said by a historical character.  In the ancient world, this was impossible and not expected as it is in the modern world.  A writer like Thucydides knew that he did not have the exact words of the famous speeches in his history, but he was confident he had the gist of what was said.

A question remains for the evangelical Christian:  Is “the gist of the words of Jesus” good enough?