A Brief History of Biblical Inspiration

A Brief History of Inspiration

Plenary inspiration is ancient; going back to, at least, the Second Temple period (6^th century B.C.- 1^st century A.D.). The Jews, roughly about this time, began to believe that the Torah was word-for-word inspired. It did not have any mistakes or contradictions. Any repetition in the Scriptures was divinely inspired and thus probably meant something. A good example of ancient interpretation can be found in Genesis 22: 6-8. Abraham is about to sacrifice his son, Isaac. The text goes on to say this:

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (NIV)

What phrase is being repeated here? Obviously, "the two of them went on together." This phrase is repeated twice in this divinely inspired text. God would not waste His precious time; he placed this repetition in the text for a reason (the ancients thought). What was the reason for the second "the two of them went on together"? The first time the phrase is used it means that Abraham and Isaac walked along together on a physical, earthly path. Now, the second time the phrase is used is sort of ambiguous. Why is it repeated again? Maybe, the ancient's reasoned, maybe this phrase meant something more hidden. Maybe it meant something other than what it appeared to mean.

The Hebrew language has no vowels, thus a biblical text would look something like this: BRHM TK TH WD FR TH BRNT FFRNG. On top of this, the ancient Hebrew text also had no periods or capital letters; where the sentence began was up to the reader. Ancient readers could read the text of Genesis 22: 6-8 differently. One way to read it was; "God himself will provide. The lamb for the burnt offering [is] my son." Wow. So Isaac actually knew that he was going to be sacrificed? His father openly told him so (according to this reading of the ancient text)? Apparently so.[1]

Now, if the text is being read like this, the second phrase means that Isaac actually agreed to being sacrificed. That is why the text says "the two of them went together." It means that Isaac agreed to "walk together" with his father; that is, be of one mind. So, the ancients seen this repetition as divinely inspired; they seen every word of the Scriptures as God-breathed. The Jews, nevertheless, still knew that scribal errors existed in the text. And so they waited for Elijah the Prophet to return and restore the holy text. Such a belief, believe it or not, did exist.

The Jewish tradition of plenary inspiration heavily influenced early Christians. One look into Paul's epistles and one easily sees his views of inspiration. Paul seen Scripture (at least the Old Testament) as 'word-for word' inspired. He makes an argument in Galatians 3: 15-16 that has to do with God's promise to Abraham, writing:

Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ (NIV).

Paul is arguing from Scripture on the basis of one word. That sheds light on Paul's view of inspiration. He also states, in 2 Timothy 3: 14-16,

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (NIV).

Paul sees Scripture as holy and as overall good. He believes that Scripture can create a godly man and that it can make you wise. He is right in everything he has said. The real problem is a person's misunderstanding of the phrase "all Scripture is God-breathed". People usually misapply this phrase to the New Testament and say that Paul, specifically here, calls the New Testament "Scripture". Such is not the case, though. Paul, here, refers to the Old Testament (probably with some form of the apocryphal writings). The NT, as we now know it, most likely did not exist at the time of his writing these words. As far as we can see, Paul believes in inspiration. Whether or not Paul believed his own writings were 'inspired' is the next subject I come to.

Paul, while writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, touches the subject of marriage and the like, makes the following remark:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her (1 Cor. 7: 10-12 NIV).

Notice in this paragraph that Paul gives a command from "the Lord" and one that is from him. This brings us back to the question of a 'canon within a canon'. Is Paul creating a canon within a canon? I really think that that is a tough question to answer. Nevertheless, Paul makes another interesting statement in this same chapter:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy…A woman is bound to her husband as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is- and I think I too have the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 7:25, 39-40 NIV).

Paul obviously thinks he has the "Spirit of God", yet, he himself, also, seems to doubt its inundation in his writings. Does it fill his writings 'to the brim', as some would say? Or does it only pour through his writings every now and then? I, myself, believe (fairly firmly) that Paul's epistles are thoroughly inspired.

Does all of this mean that we should see 'eye to eye' with ancient beliefs? Maybe we should, but, as this writing has shown, we do not have a single, universal, coherent biblical text; many texts have different wordings and/or have additional matter. Thus, in order for this reasoning to work-namely, that the biblical text is word for word inspired-it is necessary for us to have one text that we use. Since we do not have that single, coherent, universal text, it is, essentially, impossible to hold such a narrow view of Scripture. This reasoning is, I can almost hear someone say, "Stupid and foolish." I want to clarify myself at length, though this seems like the most unlikely place.

Some actually do hold a single text of Scripture as 'divinely inspired'. For them, a particular translation or version is 'holy'. Of course, if you choose to believe that a particular translation is/was inspired then (I am sure) you will not see my reasoning. Some hold the ancient Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament as inspired; they see other ancient Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts as inferior. Their logic is, in my opinion, foolish. For reasons that I have shown in this writing, I do not believe that a single biblical text/manuscript is inspired.[2] The eclectic approach seems to be more edifying.

The dangers of holding a single translation as 'holy' above others are two-fold. First, one has to realize that translations have their limits; languages are different, after all. A translator may translate something inappropriately; or, at best, make room for ambiguity. If a single translation is treasured above others, one may miss the opportunity to read something in a different light; a divine light, I dare say. Second, many people tend to become very defensive about their particular translation: they begin to worship it and embrace it with all of its all-too-human mistakes. We have recently witnessed the rise of the so-called 'KJV-only advocates'. For them [KJV-only advocates], the King James Version is the only translation that should be trusted. Just like their predecessor, Catholicism, the Protestant King James Version is being proclaimed the holy text; more holy than the original Hebrew/Greek! Previously, the Catholics maintained that the Latin Vulgate translation was 'divinely inspired'; any attempt to translate the Bible into English was proclaimed heresy and they [the translators] were burned at the stake. Hallelujah? Oh, sorry. I see the dangers of such reasoning; people might be burned for reading the New Revised Standard Version someday. Let us hope that we do not allow such cruelty to replace our dogmatic beliefs. Anyhow, we have plenty of people throughout the world that have, at some point, maintained one translation (or version or 'original text') as divinely inspired. The Greek Orthodox Church treasures the 'holy' Greek translation: the Septuagint. For them, it is the Holy Scripture of God.

As one can tell, holding the belief that the Bible is word-for-word inspired is very problematic; especially when most of us are reading a mere translation. I am not, strictly, arguing against inspiration in any way (God forbid!). I am only saying that we need to realize that the Bible can (and should) be read in a few different (but good) translations. No one should, for example, declare the American Standard Version as 'satanic'. It is the Bible, after all. We should not become dogmatic and vicious over our beliefs. They are mere beliefs. Since, I am certain, people will misinterpret and twist my statements, I will say this once again: I believe that the Bible is inspired. It is God's word. I, to be more precise, believe that the Bible is 'content inspired'. It may have been, originally (in the original texts), plenary inspired. The variant texts, nevertheless, clearly show simple diversity. Thus, it is up to textual critics to decide whether or not a certain reading is most authentic. Since I do believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I want to say that, I am certain, the Holy Spirit also may reveal to an ordinary human the 'original' text.

As I have stated earlier, plenary inspiration appears to be highly unlikely.[3] The texts we have contain little, (usually) minor differences. Even with such minor differences, plenary inspiration (to this day) is very doubtful. Whether or not the text was plenary inspired at the time of writing is a whole other question. I think that the Bible could have been inspired, originally, 'word-for-word.' But, at the same time, as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, it appears that a few different texts of the same book were still (all) deemed holy Scripture. The book of Jeremiah, for example, was found circulating under two (or more) different texts at the community of Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). One text resembled that of the Septuagint, while the other resembled that of the Hebrew Masoretic text. You may ask: how different are they? Well, the differences, especially for the book of Jeremiah, are great; the Septuagint-like Jeremiah lacks 2, 700 words than the traditional Masoretic text! If you thought one word mattered…imagine a difference of 2, 700![4] Both texts were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Did the community at Qumran (thought to be the community that authored the D.S.S.) accept both texts of Jeremiah as canonical? The answer: afraid so.

What does all of this mean? Well, maybe, like the ancient 'Qumranites,' we should just embrace the vast (and minor) textual differences and thank God for them. After all, the textual critics would lose their jobs! We should read both the KJV and the NIV and the NRSV. The Qumranites accepted different 'translations,' so to speak. And so should we. This brings us back to the matter of inspiration. I believe that we should read the Bible with scholarly eyes and with devotional eyes. We should attempt to find God through reading His word. And, at the same time, we should be open to textual criticism. Maybe an ambiguous passage could be, suddenly, 'brought to life.' Beyond all of this lies the heart of the matter: is the Bible, as we have it now, inspired? Speaking of the canon, I do not think so; it is an absolutely human production. But, on the other hand, the text (I believe) is inspired. It seems that the text was originally, as apostle 'Paul' said, "God-breathed." Remember, all of these minor textual differences that I am bringing to light are exactly that: minor. God's Word, has, through the centuries, been preserved with great accuracy. The very nature of my argument forces me to present the 'negative' aspects of the history of the Bible. In no way do I for a minute doubt the accuracy of the Bible. I am only 'exaggerating' the problem; making the biblical text look as if it is full of holes. That is, if taken at face value, the furthest thing from the truth. The truth is this: the biblical text is extremely accurate when compared to other ancient writings (like the Iliad or the Odyssey). The textual variants that I present have been known for centuries. They are not new and offending. The word of God, when taking everything into account, is very elegantly preserved. It still is as inspired as ever.

[1] James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York City: Free Press, 2007), 123-126.

[2] By saying this I mean that a single codex is probably not 'inspired'; it, most likely, contains scribal errors. In other words, it is difficult to believe that, somewhere and somehow, a scribe actually created a manuscript that contained God's-own canon and (exact) text!

[3] When saying "plenary inspiration" I mean word-for-word inspired to this day. The Hebrew Old Testament, according to Paul, was word-for-word inspired. But, for us moderns, as textual variants increased, word-for-word inspiration began to make less and less sense.

[4] Kugel, 594-597