Biblical inspiration is the doctrine inChristian theology that the human writers andcanonizers of theBible wereled by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word ofGod.[1] This belief is traditionally associated with concepts of thebiblical infallibility and theinternal consistency of the Bible.[2]
| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
At2 Tim 3:16 (NRSV), it is written: "All scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos] and is useful for teaching".[3]
WhenJerome translated the Greek text of the Bible into the language of theVulgate, he translated the Greektheopneustos (θεόπνευστος[4]) of2 Timothy 3:16 asdivinitus inspirata ("divinely breathed into").[5]
Some modernEnglish translations opt for "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV). The -tos ending in the Greektheopneustos also designates a passive construct whereby the subject God is breathing out the object (scripture).
TheologianC. H. Dodd suggests that it is "probably to be rendered" as: "Every inspired Scripture is also useful".[6]
Daniel B. Wallace states that numerous scholars believe that the proper translation should be: "Every inspired scripture is also profitable". Wallace, however, criticises this translation; he proposes the translation "every scripture is inspired and profitable".[7]
Evangelicals view theBible as superintended by theHoly Spirit, preserving the writers' works from error without eliminating their specific concerns, situation, or style.[8] This divine involvement, they say, allowed the biblical writers to communicate without corruptingGod's own message both to the immediate recipients of the writings and to those who would come after. Some Evangelicals have labelled the conservative or traditional view as "verbal, plenary inspiration of the originalmanuscripts", by which they mean that each word (not just the overarching ideas or concepts) was meaningfully chosen under the superintendence of God.[9]
Evangelicals acknowledge the existence of textual variations between biblical accounts of apparently identical events and speeches. They see these as complementary, not contradictory, and explain them as the differing viewpoints of different writers. For instance, theGospel of Matthew was intended to communicate the Gospel toJews, theGospel of Luke to Greeks, and theGospel of Mark to Romans. Evangelical apologists such as John W. Haley in his bookAlleged Discrepancies in the Bible[10] andNorman Geisler inWhen Critics Ask[11] have proposed answers to hundreds of claimed contradictions. Some discrepancies are accounted for by changes from the master manuscripts (which are alleged to contain very nearly the original text and) that these alterations were introduced as copies were made (maybe of copies themselves), either deliberately or accidentally.
Three basic approaches to inspiration are often described when the evangelical approach to scripture is discussed:[12]: 239
Theories seeing only parts of the Bible as inspired ("partial inspiration")[16] meet with insistent emphasis on plenary inspiration on the part of its proponents.
TheNew American Commentary by T.D. Lea and H.P. Griffen says "[n]o respected Evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture".[12] By this, Lea & Griffen were referring to the entirety of the Scriptures, i.e. every single word in the Bible. Lea & Griffen meant that they advocated verbal plenary inspiration as fact, instead of the verbal dictation theory.
The Evangelical position was criticized as beingcircular byCatholic Answers. They claimed that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with.[17] Some defenders of the evangelical doctrine such asB. B. Warfield andCharles Hodge, however, moved away from a circular argument and "committed themselves to the legitimacy of external verification" toinductively prove the doctrine, though they placed some restrictions on the evidences that could be considered.[18]
TheApology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God[19] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.[20] Article 3 (entitled 'Of the Written Word of God') of theBelgic Confession, a Reformed confession of faith, states "We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, butthat holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith (2 Peter 1:21). And that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing; and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures."[21] Here a consensus with Lutheranism is apparent, namely, that Scripture is conceived of as being the 'Word of God' by virtue of its principal author, the Holy Spirit, which used human authors as instruments to write Scripture without superseding their humanity.
According toFrederic Farrar,Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that the scriptures weredictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther "held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act".[22]John Calvin also rejected the verbal dictation theory.[23]
Luther asserted that "He [the pious Christian] should not doubt that however simple they [the Scriptures] may seem, these are the very words, deeds, judgments, and history of the high majesty and wisdom of God; for this is the Scripture which makes fools out of all the wise".[24]
The doctrine ofsola scriptura was one of the central teachings during theProtestant Reformation. It teaches that the Bible is the final authority for moral, spiritual, and for some, civil matters. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so".[25]
TheCatechism of the Catholic Church alleges that the Bible's human writers were "consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more".[26] TheCatechism also claims that the Bible "without error teach that truth whichGod, for the sake of oursalvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures".[27] TheCatholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but that it does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person.[28]
Pope Benedict XVI gave the following explanation in 2007:[29]
The Scripture emerged from within the heart of a living subject — the pilgrimpeople of God — and lives within this same subject. [...] [T]he individual author or group of authors [...] are not autonomous [...] they form part of [...] the "people of God," [...] the deeper "author" of the Scriptures. [...] [L]ikewise, this people [...] knows that it is led, and spoken to, by God himself, who — through men and their humanity — is at the deepest level the one speaking.
The Catholic view of biblical inspiration stems from the belief in the historical authenticity of the foundation of aninfallible Church, and Jesus' grant ofteaching authority to that church through hisApostles. Because the Catholic Church designated thebiblical canon through its tradition, its authority to identify the inspired books is accepted, rather than any self-contained or inherent claims of the Scriptures themselves.[17][30][28]
The typical view withinLiberal Christianity andProgressive Christianity rejects the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired[citation needed]. Some advocates ofhigher criticism who espouse this view even go so far as to regard the Bible as purely a product of human invention. However, mostform critics, such asRudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) andWalter Brueggemann (1933–2025 ), still regard the Bible as asacred text, just not a text that communicates the unaltered word of God.[31]
Emil Brunner (1889–1966) was one of the primary advocates ofNeo-orthodoxy. He wrote: "[T]heChristian Church believes theBible to be the Word of God", and that "Christian faith is Bible faith".[32] He also wrote: "Yes,God has made known the secret of His will through the Prophets and Apostles in the Holy Scriptures".[33] Brunner rhetorically asked, "Is the whole Bible God's Word then?"; Brunner answered, "Yes, insofar as it speaks of that which is 'here' in Christ".[34] Brunner's illustration, relying on the name of the labelHis Master's Voice, was: "If you buy aphonograph record you are told that you will hear the MasterCaruso. Is that true? Of course! But really his voice? Certainly! And yet—there are some noises made by the machine which are not the Master's voice". Brunner adds: "[T]he Bible[...] makes the real Master's voice audible,—really his voice, his words, what he wants to say". Brunner ultimately concludes: "Only a fool listens to the incidental noises when he might listen to his Master's voice!".[35]
A 2011Gallup survey reports, "A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be takenliterally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question".[36]
Many scholars feel that the translation should be: 'Every inspired scripture is also profitable.' This is probably not the best translation, however
The spirit of the Renaissance, developments in philology and textual criticism, the emergence of ideas of the partial inspiration of the Bible in some quarters, and the initial expression of philosophical views that would find their culmination in the Enlightenment - all helped to stimulate theological reflection. And the refinement of plenary and thenverbal inspiration were among the consequences.
| Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundations | |||||||||
| History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
| Denominations (list,members) |
| ||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||
| Other features |
| ||||||||
| General topics | | |
|---|---|---|
| Different views | ||
| See also | ||
