Inspiration
Lecture Notes for Topic 1.2.2-
Religion 492
Last revised: 1/29/04
Explanation:
Contained below
is a manuscript summarizing the class lecture(s) covering the above specified
range of topics from the List of Topics for Religion 492. Quite often
hyperlinks (underlined)
to sources of information etc. will be inserted in the text of the lecture.
Test questions for all quizzes and exams will be derived in their entirety
or in part from these lectures; see Exams
in the course syllabus for details. To display the Greek text contained
in this page download and install the free BSTGreek
from Bible Study Tools.
Created
by 
a division of 
All rights reserved©
|
|
|
1.2.2
Divine Inspiration
Assigned Readings for This
Topic:
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, "Bible, Inspiration of, " Baker's Evangelical
Dictionary of Biblical Theology, online at
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/
Alfred Durand, "Inspiration of the Bible," Catholic Encyclopedia,
online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm
Resource Materials to
also be studied:
Below is a copy of an article written by Dr. Lorin L Cranford and published
in the Encyclopedia
of Early Christianity by Garland Press (NYC) in 1996. This article
needs to be carefully studied. The article covers the emerging concept
from biblical times through the Church Fathers.
Inspiration
by
Lorin L. Cranford
The modern discussion of inspiration creates many barriers for understanding
the idea in the ancient world. Contemporary concern with precise
measurement generates the mistaken notion that the ancient world was similarly
concerned. Thus ideas of inerrancy etc. never occurred to the ancient
mind simply because these ideas depend on post-enlightenment notions.
The modern struggle to balance psychologically the divine and the human
aspects in the act of inspiration was of no interest to the ancient world.
No discussion of any 'theory of inspiration' ever took place in that earlier
period. Therefore the modern reader -- to understand the ancient
texts accurately -- must lay aside most every modern framing of the topic
and seek to hear the ancient authors on their own terms. Only then
can linkages to modern ideas be set up. Unfortunately all too many
contemporary descriptions of ancient texts on this subject seem to presuppose
naively the modern framing of the issue.
One important perspective is to note the idea of inspiration of persons
as they spoke and the inspiration of persons as they wrote. During
the biblical period, especially the Hebrew Bible, the former was the dominant
emphasis (i.e., Jer. 1:1-9). The Hebrew prophets spoke the words
of God as they proclaimed "Thus says the Lord . . . " (400 plus occurrences).
The basis for this prophetic speaking was primarily the calling by God
to such ministry. Out of their developing relationship with deity
came the insight and wisdom to speak in behalf of God. Closely connected
was the presence of the Spirit of God (1 Sam. 10:6; Joel 2:28). But
the Spirit's presence not only enabled prophetic utterance, all kinds of
skills were possible, even to construct buildings (Exod. 31:3; 35:31).
The possession of wisdom and understanding came about through God pouring
his Spirit into an individual's life. Does this then imply inspiration
when the prophet spoke? Seldom, if ever, does the Hebrew Bible directly
assert this, even though such evidently was assumed. An important
distinction here is the Hebrew concept from the Greek view. Plato
typified the Hellenistic mantic view of inspiration "which perceived that
the prophet was seized by a daimon or the deity and forced to utter
words in a frenzied state that came directly from the divine source" (Gnuse,
17; cf. Vawter, Biblical Inspiration, 8-10, 13-17). Philo
became the source of introducing this alien concept into Jewish thinking
later. Hebrew tradition focused on the individual relationship with
God and cooperation with His Spirit as the basis of being able to speak
in God's behalf (Schmaus,
Handbuch, 3-4); personality and individuality
were never absorbed nor overwhelmed by the divine.
Regarding written materials, the 'Book' in most OT references is the "book
of the law (of Moses)" that Moses was commanded to write (Exod. 17:14).
No mention of its inspiration is found in any of the references.
God's word to the Jewish nation is contained in this book (Deut. 30:10);
it formed the written record of the covenant of the people with God (Exod.
24:7; Deut. 29:21; 2 Kings 23:2, 21; 2 Chron. 34:30-31). The closest
to a concept of inspiration regarding writing is in Jer. 30:2 where God
said to Jeremiah, "Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to
you." Yet, nothing is directly expressed about inspiration or the
involvement of the divine Spirit in the writing of this material.
A similar injunction to write came to the prophet in 36:2. The writing
was therefore to be the record of God's words.
The literary transmission of the message of the prophets generated the
notion of inspiration (Vawter,
Biblical Inspiration, 13-15).
Gradually the written record and the oral message of the prophets became
one and the same. Other writings in the Hebrew Bible became construed
as were the prophets. Yet, in Palestinian Judaism the Torah held
a higher place of importance than the other two groups of materials, because
of the central role of Moses as God's spokesman and prophet. With
the gradual adoption of the Hellenistic view of enthousiasmos (ejnqousiasmov")
Hellenistic Judaism spoke of the entire Bible as an emanation
of the prophetic spirit (e.g., Philo, Vita Mosis, 2.188-191).
Inspiration could be conceived of quite apart from the OT inspiration of
the prophet, more in the Greek view of ecstasy (Jubilees 2).
The New Testament inherited both the Jewish and the Greek perspectives,
although the Jewish view was the controlling perspective (cf. Heb.
1:1-2a; 2
Pet. 1:20-21). In both Hebrews and 2 Peter the OT prophetic model
is clearly in view with emphasis on the oral delivery of the prophet's
message being the words of God via the guidance of the Spirit of God.
In a secondary sense then, the written record of those prophetic messages
could lay claim to being the words of God also. With Hebrews 1:2
similarly could the claim be made regarding the message of Jesus.
The inspiration of written materials is treated more directly in 2 Timothy
3:16-17. Several key expressions provide insight into the assertion
of this text. "All Scripture" (pa'sa
grafh;) refers most naturally to the texts
of the Hebrew Bible; only by inference can they be applied to the texts
of the NT. The Greek text more accurately reads "every writing"
alluding to individual texts, rather than a collection of texts viewed
as a unit. Nothing can be gleaned about canon issues here.
"inspired by God" (qeovpneusto").
Contra the Vulgate's
divinitus inspirata as though the Scripture
was in-spired, the Greek term underscores the out-breathing.
God did not breathe his word into the minds of the human authors.
Rather, that which they wrote was the ex-pression of God (Warfield,
132-33). Although the Greek term comes out of the Hellenistic ecstatic
tradition, the context of its single NT use here clearly suggests that
it should rather be interpreted within the Hebrew prophetic tradition (Vawter,
15-19). "In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage
is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication
of how God has operated in producing them" (Warfield, 133).
"useful for" (wjfevlimo" pro;"...).
The value of these writings is defined functionally, rather than theoretically;
they can shape the behavior and thinking of the Christian for enhanced
service. That no legalistic slavery to the written letter prevailed
in the NT era is quite clear from the sometimes 'creative' ways in which
Paul used the texts of the OT (Schrenk, 758).
The church fathers reflect a convergence of both the Jewish and Greek traditions
in the way the texts of the Bible were viewed. While echoing
the biblical formulas about the written documents (aiJ
a&giai grafaiv, Theophilus of Antioch;
iJera;
gravmmata, Clement of Alexandria; iJera;"
bivblou", Origen et als; cf. Vawter, 20),
the meaning attached to these formulas increasingly depended far more on
the Hellenistic mantic tradition than the Hebrew heritage, thus profoundly
redefining the ideas away from apostolic thinking. Philo's view ultimately
had much greater impact on Christian thinking than on Jewish tradition.
The earliest group of fathers, the apostolic fathers, made only incidental
allusion to inspiration since their concern was "practical rather than
doctrinal" (Westcott, 3). Very little distinction was made by the
apostolic fathers and the apologists between the inspiration of the prophetic
speakers and the writings bearing their names (Schmaus, 12). The
apologist, Athenagoras
(c. 133 - c.190), reflects clearly the induction of the Hellenistic mantic
view of inspiration in his assertion that "while entranced and deprived
of their natural powers of reason (kat
j e[kstasivn tw'n ejn aujtoi'" logismw'n)
by the influence of the divine Spirit, they uttered that which was wrought
in them (a& ejnhrgou'nto),
the Spirit using them as its instruments, as a flute-player might blow
a flute" (Westcott, 10-11).
Vawter, 20-42, has well summarized the developing view by emphasizing the
following aspects: (1) God was asserted to be the author of the scriptures
by the fathers. (2) The Hellenistic view of inspiration served as
an important basis for their allegorizing approach to the sacred texts.
(3) Allegorical preoccupation with the words of the text led to Augustine's
dictum: Scriptura Sancta in nulla parte discordat (Serm.
82.9, PL 38:510). (4) They struggled continuously with the human
elements undeniably present in the written texts. These emerging
perspectives developed as Christians fought to defend the faith to external
opponents and against the perceived corruption internally, thus utilizing
ideas current and understandable in their day.
The use of the word for
author in reference to God is late and of
Latin origin. Auctor became an important concept of the African
Church in its battles with Manicheism as a counter-formula to the denial
of God as the scriptor of the OT. The term auctor was
capable of a wide diversity of meaning. Some scholars are convinced
that it was employed in this battle with the sense of literary author,
although Karl Rahner and others have challenged this rigid understanding.
Augustine, however, clearly understood it in this sense, but Ambrose viewed
it somewhat differently. God was the author of scripture not in the
sense of literary author, but as the ai[tio"
(cause) of scripture being written: "God's work in the Scripture had been
to flood the minds of its writers with the dew of his wisdom (operatur,
irrigat mentes rore sapientiae), and he invoked the idea of cause expressly
to affirm, based on texts like Mt 10.20, that the words of Scripture were
those of God and not of men (see Ep. 8.10, PL 16:912-916)" (Vawter,
23). Justin reflects a similar rigid Hellenized view: "prophetic
speech is not the words of the inspired men, the ejmpepneusmevnwn,
but of him who moved them" (Vawter, 25). Origen, in spite of inconsistencies
and contradictions rampant in his works, stands generally as one of the
few voices raised opposing this mechanical view of inspiration. The
prophets "voluntarily and consciously collaborated with the word that came
to them" (Hom. in Ezek. frag. 6.1, PG 13:709). The apostles
could express their own opinions, their ejpivnoia,
which he used in his commentary on the fourth gospel to resolve contradictions
between the gospels. This did not rule out the view of the divine
authorship; rather, it stood along side in his attempt to grapple with
the human and the divine aspects in the written texts.
Allegorical exegesis depended upon the Hellenized view of inspiration since
every word was 'God-breathed' and thus capable of hidden meaning that only
the orthodox could rightly discern. This provided a helpful way of overcoming
serious historical problems at the surface level especially of the OT text
in opposing heresy. Such a mechanical view of inspiration facilitated
the move away from historical interests, since God had completely sublimated
the human element in the act of inspiration. Interestingly this interpretive
method reflected a paradoxical view toward the words of the text.
Disdainful of words in their natural, surface-level meaning as vehicles
of communication, divinely inspired words become the word from Heaven.
Thus, as Augustine contended, "no discordancy of any kind could be admitted
to exist in the Scripture" (Vawter, 33). Associated with the antihistorical
interests of allegorizing, Augustine could naively accept the legend
of the seventy translators of the LXX as proof of its divine inspiration
and truth (Civ. 18.43, PL 41:603-604). Also concluded from
this rigid view of inspiration was the assertion that nothing trivial could
exist in scripture, every letter had to have a significant
raison d'être
of its own. Thus, as Vawter, 35, contends, Clement of Alexandria's
'five senses' of scripture resulted, as well as Origen's three, etc.
The fathers found themselves resorting to Stoic Platonism for their etymologizing
of word for secret meanings, to Pythagoreanism for their numerology.
The connection between the divine and the human in scripture puzzled many
fathers. Origen attempted to find a healthy balance while resisting
the prevailing mechanical view of inspiration. The Holy Spirit illuminated
(fwtivzonti)
the inspired writer (De princ. 4.14, PG 11:372), thus leaving the human
author with his own mind and thought processes rather than turning him
into an automaton (Contra Celsum 7.3-4, PG: 1424-5). John
Chrysostom followed a similar line of thinking. Augustine's struggle
took a different turn. Not ignoring the signs of human frailty evident
in the scripture and often embarrassed by them, "he could only conclude
that the Holy Spirit had 'permitted' one or the other writer to compose
what he did in apparent variance with other Scripture (Cons. evang.
2.21.52, PL 34:1102)" (Vawter, 38). Jerome, more than any other,
was sensitive to the human dimensions in scripture in his translation efforts,
but made little effort to link these insights to the contention of the
scriptures as divine. The conviction that proved more helpful in
resolving this tension between the divine and the human was John Chrysostum's
sugkatavbasi"
(condescension) perspective. Origen's accommodation view, sumperiforav,was
similar though he used it to account for the anthropomorphisms of scripture,
but without detracting from the divine authorship view. Chrysostum
often extended his notion to human authorship itself of the sacred writings
thus accounting for metaphors, deliberate overstatements or captatio
benevolentiae. The incarnation of Christ increasingly came to
be seen as analogous to the divine/human aspects of scripture.
FOR FURTHER READING:
Gnuse, Robert. The Authority of
the Bible: Theories of Inspiration, Revelation and the Canon of Scripture.
New York: Paulist Press, 1985.
Schmaus, Michael, ed. Die Inspiration
der Heiligen Schrift. Vol. 1, pt. 3B in Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte.
Freiburg: Herder, 1976.
Schrenk, Gottlob. "grafhv,"
Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel, editor.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, translator. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's
Publishing Company, 1964.
Vawter, Bruce. Biblical Inspiration.
Theological
Resources. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.
Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and
Authority of the Bible. Samuel G. Craig, editor. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948.
Westcott, Brooks F. "On the Primitive Doctrine
of Inspiration." In The Bible in the Early Church, Ferguson,
Everett, ed., pp. 2-46. Vol. 3 in Studies in Early Christianity:
A Collection of Scholarly Essays. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
1993.
Summation
In attempting to understand the theological concept of divine inspiration
several factors must be held clearly in view.
(1) Modern understandings of inspiration, both at a merely human level
and in a doctrine of divine inspiration, frame the discussion very differently
than did the ancient world. At the merely human level the emotional aspect
is very prominent as is reflected in the Meriam-Webster
Dictionary definitions 1b-d of the verb "to inspire": "1
a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration
b : to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on <was
particularly inspired by the Romanticists> c : to spur on : IMPEL, MOTIVATE
<threats don't necessarily inspire people to work> d : AFFECT <seeing
the old room again inspired him with nostalgia>" At the religious
level (definition 1a), the sense of being carried along by the divine is
how the word is defined. The M-W
Dictionary defines the noun "inspiration" in somewhat similar fashion:
"1
a : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or
her to receive and communicate sacred revelation, b : the action or power
of moving the intellect or emotions, c : the act of influencing or suggesting
opinions; 2: the act of drawing in; specifically : the drawing of air into
the lungs; 3 a : the quality or state of being inspired; b : something
that is inspired <a scheme that was pure inspiration>; 4 : an inspiring
agent or influence." Although not directly stated, these definitions
related to both orally spoken and written words.
(2) A very different understanding of inspiration is found between the
ancient Hebrew and Greek worlds. In the Old Testament era the concept of
inspiration related to the orally spoken words of those who were labeled
as prophets, that is, authorized spokesmen for the God of Israel. Moses
was called a prophet also. The presence of the Spirit of the Lord enabled
these individuals to declare "Thus says the Lord..." Only after the close
of the OT era, does the idea of inspiration become attached to the written
documents recording the messages of these prophets. Even then the concept
of divine inspiration is never developed to any extent in Judaism, at least
in ways somewhat similar to how the concept evolved in Christian tradition.
The authority of the written documents of the OT as sacred scriptures containing
the revelation of God was not linked to some concept of divine inspiration
in Jewish tradition. God commanded various prophets, or their scribes,
to write down His words -- as discussed above in
my article -- but this was never related to any theory of inspiration.
(3) The Greek mantic view of inspiration where a human being is overpowered
by the divine and becomes essentially a robot of the divine for either
orally spoken or written words had no influence on either ancient Hebrew
understanding or apostolic Christianity at the beginning of the Christian
era. In the isolated allusions in the NT to the inspiration of the OT scriptures
-- Heb.
1:1-3; 2
Pet. 1:20-21; 2
Tim. 3:16-17 -- the ancient Hebrew model of God's Spirit enabling the
chosen spokesmen to speak in God's behalf is clearly the interpretative
assumption; not the Greek mantic view. Inside the New Testament itself,
absolutely nothing is said regarding the documents of the NT and their
inspiration. Later Christian interpretation will assume that what these
three passages say about the Hebrew Bible can, by implication, be applied
to the documents of the New Testament as well.
(4) Not until Christianity has made a virtually complete shift away from
its Jewish roots and into a restructuring of itself based on Greco-Roman
models beginning in the middle of the second Christian century does the
Greek mantic view of inspiration begin showing up in isolated instances
among some of the Church Fathers. Even then the discussion is varied, with
some of the fathers applying the Greek mantic view to the NT, e.g., Athenagoras,
while others resisted such a rigid view, e.g., Origen. What drove the move
toward the Greek view was the theological battles with perceived heretical
groups, coupled with the adoption of the Greek allegorical approach to
interpreting ancient documents. This view of inspiration enabled the apologists
and other fathers of the church to find deeper, hidden meanings in the
words of the inspired text that could be used to fight heresy. Gradually
this Greek based view of inspiration would dominate Christian thinking
until the Enlightenment centuries later.
(5) With the Enlightenment beginning in the 1400s and the Protestant Reformation
emphasis upon sola scriptura beginning in the 1500s, the concept
of inspiration underwent significant changes in understanding. From then
on ideas such as infallible, verbal plenary etc. will begin showing up
in the discussion of divine inspiration. With the Renaissance development
of the modern scientific method and new approaches to historiography, inspiration
increasingly became the critical foundation to the authority of the Bible
as divine revelation. Only a view of inspiration that could claim absolute
truth and historical and scientific accuracy in all matters of reality
was acceptable to various segments of the Christian world. Thus inspiration
became a synonym for complete accuracy and reliability. If any definition
of inspiration allowed for fallible human qualities in the writing of scripture,
it had to be rejected out of hand, since such would undermine the credibility
of the Bible and ultimately destroy the Christian faith -- so the old domino
theory goes. Yet, the obvious human fallibilities in the text of the scripture,
as especially noted in comparison of the double and triple tradition materials
in the synoptic gospels and also in the way the NT writers used the text
of the OT, could not be ignored. Various efforts by the rigid modernist
views of inspiration have been brought to bear to explain away these issues.
Interpretative efforts at harmonization of the gospel texts, often using
a modern version of the earlier allegorization method called spiritualizing
the text, have been attempted. Also, the application of this rigid view
of inspiration only to the original autographs of the documents of the
Bible, which no longer exist, has often been the way to cop out in honestly
dealing with the humanness of the biblical documents. Such an argument
is phony since it can neither be proven nor disproven because of the lack
of evidence to come to any confident conclusions. Any honest view of inspiration
must deal with the available NT documents, not with a non-existent set
of documents.
Because of the obvious distaste fulness of such an approach much of modern
critical scholarship has pretty much abandoned the idea of divine inspiration
of the biblical texts completely. Most of the more recent technical methods
of interpreting scripture have focused exclusively on the human angle of
the composition of the documents found in the Bible. Scientific oriented
biblical scholarship in a post-enlightment framework must deal only with
the human aspect in order to be legitimately scientific and scholarly.
For many in this group, the divine angle of scripture is the work of church
theologians, not the work of biblical scholars. Thus a kind of religious
schizophrenia has developed over the past couple of centuries in Christian
interpretative tradition. Often the same person will function in the university
classroom as a technical, critical scholar interpreting the biblical text
one way, and then become a faithful churchman worshipping and affirming
the same biblical text as the authoritative sacred text for the church.
These two very different interpretative worlds never intersect one another!
During the past forty years of ministry I have witnessed a growing shift
away from this paradigm among many biblical scholars in North America.
In my European experiences I never witnessed this dichotomy between scholar
and churchman to any degree near what has been true on the western side
of the Atlantic since the middle 1800s. Increasingly, biblical scholars
who are committed churchmen are concerned to integrate both the human and
the divine angles of sacred scripture as divine revelation. Finding legitimate
understandings of divine inspiration of the sacred texts is an important
key to that integration.
The proposal offered in the above article on inspiration that I wrote a
number of years ago offers an important step in that direction. By detaching
ideas of infallibility and scientific accuracy from the concept of inspiration
and returning to the ancient Hebrew and first Christian century model,
we can find an understanding of inspiration that allows affirmation of
both the divine and the human aspects of scripture. These words of fallible
men who both spoke and wrote in behalf of God contain the divine breath
(qeovpneusto")
that
permeates them. Thus the presence of God exists in these words. When these
words are uttered by human breath, the divine breath comes alive and produces
profound spiritual impact upon the reader/hearer. In this way, the Words,
i.e., the Gospel, become the instrument of salvation to all who hear them
and respond in faith commitment to Jesus as redeemer. Issues of infallibility
etc. become a detraction and obstacle to the divine breath being unleashed
in the written words of scripture, since these are modern based philosophical
abstractions and the scriptures are working experientially to impact lives
toward God. Thus even imperfect translations of the Bible -- as all translations
certainly are -- can serve as powerful tools of spiritual impact, when
God's breath comes alive through them. The key in both public worship and
individual testimony is to speak the written words to the hearer; then
God's breath is free to turn these words into His words impacting the hearer.
Bibliography
Check Bray's bibliography in appropriate chapter of the textbook.
Check the appropriate Bibliography section
in Cranfordville.com
A new bibliography containing
almost 400 references has been uploaded in both MS doc and internet html
formats.