-- D. Concept of inspiration.
a place cannot be indicated. Also Heb. 4 : 12 is not the word of God like Scripture. Yet the N. T. actually sees in the books of the O. V. nothing else than the word of God. God, or the Holy Spirit, is the auctor primarius, who spoke through, ύια c. gen., the prophets in the Scriptures, Acts 1: 16, 28: 25. The formal and material meaning of the expression is closely connected in Scripture. And finally the name
Word of God is used for Christ Himself. He is the Logos in a completely unique sense, revelator and revelatio at the same time.
All God's revelations, all God's words, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under O. and N. T., have their basis, their unity and their center in Him. He is the sun; the other words of God are His rays. The word of God in nature, among Israel, in the N. T., in Scripture, cannot for a moment be separated from Him and considered. There is only revelation of God, because He is the Logos.
He is the principium cognoscendi, in a general sense of all science, in a special sense, as z/o/oc SVGUQXOC, of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology, Mt. 11 : 27.
D. Concept of inspiration.
13. Scripture nowhere offers us a clearly formulated dogma on inspiration, but it gives the case, the fact of theopneustia, and all the moments necessary for its construction. It teaches the theopneustia of Scripture in the same sense and in the same manner, just as clearly and just as unambiguously, but also just as little in the way of abstract concepts as the dogma of trinity, of the incarnation, of satisfaction, etc. This has been denied more than once. Every sectarian and haeretic direction begins almost with an appeal to Scripture against the Confession, and tries to make its deviation appear as if it were commanded by Scripture. But in most cases deeper examination leads to the recognition that orthodoxy has the testimony of Scripture on its side. The moderns now generally generously admit that Jesus and the apostles accepted the O. T.
Scriptures as the word of God, Lipsius, IJogrn. § 185 s. 141, Strauss I 79, Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, 2nd Aufl. Leipz. 1890 S. 87 f. Rothe,
Zur Dogm. 178 f. recognizes this also with regard to the apostles, but
thinks that ecclesiastical dogmatics cannot appeal to Jesus for its doctrine of inspiration. However, this opinion stands alone and is shared by few. Jesus' positive statements about the O. T. Scriptures,
Mt. 5:8; Luke 16:17; John 10:35, his citation and use, Mt. 19:4, 5, 22:43, etc., speak too strongly for this, and are no more free than those of the apostles. But this contrast, which Rothe makes between the teaching of Jesus and that of the apostles, does not exalt but actually undermines the authority of Jesus himself. For we know nothing of Jesus except through the apostles; so whoever discredits the apostles and presents them as unreliable witnesses of the truth, immediately contradicts Jesus Himself, who appointed His disciples to be perfectly reliable witnesses and who, through His Spirit, would guide them into all the truth. And this certainly includes the truth concerning the Holy Scriptures. The slogan: back to Christ, is deceptive and false, if it stands in contrast to the testimony of the Apostles.
Very common also is another contradiction, which is made in order to be freed from the self testimony of Scripture. Scripture, it is said, may teach inspiration here and there; but in order to build up the doctrine of Scripture concerning Scripture, the facts must also be taken into account, which Scripture makes known to us in its origin, genesis, history, substance and content. Only a theory of inspiration which is consistent with and derived from the phenomena of Scripture is therefore true and good. Very often it is made to appear that the other party is imposing its own, apriorical opinion on Scripture, and is forcing it into the straitjacket of scholasticism. And they claim that in the face of all these theories and systems, they want Scripture to speak for itself and to bear witness only to itself.
Orthodoxy lacks respect for Scripture. It does violence to the text and the facts of the Scriptures, Dr. G. Wildeboer, Letterk. des O. V. bl. V.
This idea sounds beautiful and plausible at first hearing, but proves untenable on closer consideration. In the first place, the contrast is not between some theory of inspiration and the self testimony of Scripture. Inspiration is a fact, taught by Scripture itself. Jesus and the apostles have given a testimony concerning Scripture. Scripture
contains a teaching about itself. Leaving aside all dogmatic or scholastic development of this doctrine, the question is simply this: whether or not Scripture, in this self-attestation, deserves faith.
There may be differences as to whether Scripture teaches such a theopneustia of itself; but if it does, then it ought to be believed in it, as well as in its statements about God, Christ, salvation, etc. The socalled phenomena of Scripture cannot overthrow this selfexplanation of Scripture, and they must not even be called into question. For he who makes his doctrine of Scripture dependent on historical research into its genesis and structure, already begins to reject the self testimony of Scripture and thus no longer stands in faith with that Scripture. He thinks he can better construct the doctrine of Scripture from his own research, than to derive it in faith from Scripture; he puts his own thoughts in place of and above those of Scripture. Furthermore, while the self-explanation of Scripture is clear and unequivocal, and is even recognized as such by its opponents, the consideration of the phenomena of Scripture is the result of lengthy historical-critical research, and changes in various forms according to the different points of view of the critics; the theologian who, on the basis of such research, wishes to arrive at a doctrine of Scripture, in effect sets his scientific understanding against the teaching of Scripture concerning himself. But in this way one never arrives at a doctrine of Scripture; historical-critical research can give a clear insight in the origin, the history, the structure of Scripture, but it never leads to a doctrine, to a dogma de
S. Scriptura. It can only be built, of course, on the testimony of Scripture concerning itself. No one would think of calling a history of the origin and the main parts of the Iliad a doctrine. This method involves not only some theory of inspiration, but inspiration itself as fact and as testimony of Scripture. Inspiration, if one retains that word, then becomes nothing but the brief summary of what the Bible is, or rather of what it is thought to be, and can then be in direct conflict with what the Bible itself claims to be, and what it presents and advertises itself to be. The method followed is, in the essence of the matter, no other than that by which the doctrine of creation, of man, of sin, etc., is not built up from the testimony of Scripture in
these respects, but from the independent study of these facts. In both cases it is a correction of the doctrine of the Bible by one's own scientific research, a dependence of the testimony of Scripture on human judgment. The facts and phenomena of Scripture, the results of scientific research, may serve to explain, clarify, etc., the teaching of Scripture concerning itself, but they can never annul the fact of inspiration to which it testifies. On the other hand, while it is asserted that only such inspiration as corresponds to the phenomena of Scripture is plausible, it is the principle that the phenomena of Scripture, not as they are seen by criticism, but as they are in themselves, are existent with their own testimony.
14. The word theopneustia or inspiration usually summarizes what Scripture teaches about itself. The word ΰ-εοττνευστος 2 Tim. 3:16 does not occur before and may have been used first by Paul.
Etymologically it can have both an active and a passive meaning, and thus can be translated as: God breathing, as well as: breathed by God. But the passive meaning is preferred, because it is most supported by the places where the word occurs outside the N. T. and is recommended by the teaching of the N. T., 2 Pet. 1:21. In the Vulgate it is rendered by divinitus inspirata. The word inspiration originally had a much wider sense. The Greeks and Romans ascribed an afflatus or instinctus divinus to all who accomplished something great and good. Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam tuit, Cic. de Nat. D. 2, 66. Est deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo, Ovid. Fasti 6, 5. The inspiration of poets, artists, vates, etc., may indeed also serve to elucidate the inspiration of which the H. S. speaks. Almost all great men have said that their most beautiful thoughts suddenly and unconsciously arose in their souls and came as a surprise to themselves. One testimony will suffice. Goethe once wrote to Ekkermann, quoted by Hoekstra, Godg. Contr. 1864, bl. 27,
28. Jede Produktivitat höchster Art, jedes bedeutendes Aper^ue, jede Erfindung, jeder grosse Gedanke der Friïchte bringt und Folgen hat, steht in Niemandes Gewalt und ist über alle irdische Macht erhaben. Dergleichen hat der Mensch als unverhoffte Geschenke von oben, als reine Kinder Gottes zu betrachten, die er mit freudigem
Danke zu empfangen und zu verehren hat. In solchen Fallen ist der Mensch als das Werkzeug einer höhern Weltregierung zu betrachten, als ein würdig befundenes Gefass zur Aufnahme eines göttlichen Einflusses. Carlyle, On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history,
4te ed. London 1854, has therefore pointed to the heroes or geniuses as the core of the history of mankind. In their turn, these geniuses have inspired the masses in every field. Luther, Baco, Napoleon,
Hegel have transformed the thoughts of millions and changed their consciousness. This fact alone teaches us that there can be an influence from one mind on another. The manner varies, when one man speaks to another, when an orator animates his audience by his words, when a hypnotist plants his thoughts in the magnetized person, etc., but there is always a suggestion of thoughts, inspiration in a broader sense. Now Scripture teaches us that "the world is not independent and exists and lives by itself, but that the Spirit of God is immanent in all created things. The immanence of God is the basis of all inspiration and theopneustion, Ps. 104:30, 139:7; Job 33:4.
Being and life are inspired by the Spirit in every creature from moment to moment. Still further, the Spirit of the Lord is the principle of all understanding and wisdom, Job 32:8; Isa 11:2, so that all knowledge and art, all talent and genius, flow from Him. In the church He is the Spirit of regeneration and renewal, Ps. 51:13; Ezek.
36:26, 27; John 3:3; the dispenser of the gifts, 1 Cor. 12:4-6. In the prophets He is the Spirit of foretelling, Num. 11 : 25, 24 :2, 3; Isa. 11 :
2. 42 : 1; Micah 3 : 8, etc. And so also in the composition of Scripture He is the Spirit of inspiration. This last activity of the Holy Spirit does not stand alone; it is connected with His entire immanent activity in the world and in the church. It is the crown and the pinnacle of everything. The inspiration of the writers in the production of the books of the Bible is built upon all these other activities of the Holy Spirit. It presupposes a work of the Fathers, by which the organs of revelation were prepared long beforehand, even before birth in their sex, environment, education, development, etc., for that task to which they would later be specially called, Ex. 3-4;
Jer. 1:5; Acts 7:22; Gal. 1:15, etc. Inspiration, therefore, is not to be equated, as the moderns do, with the heroic, poetic, religious
inspiration; it is not a work of the providentia Dei generalis, not an action of God's Spirit to the same extent and in the same manner as in heroes and artists, even though this action of God's Spirit is often suggested in the prophets and biblical writers. The Spirit in creation prepares the Spirit in re-creation. Furthermore, a prior work of the Son is also assumed in the actual inspiration. The gift of theophany is only given within the circle of revelation. Theophany, prophecy and miracle precede inspiration proper. Revelation and inspiration are distinct; one is a work of the Son, of the Logos, the other of the Holy
Spirit. There is truth in Schleiermacher's idea that the holy writers were under the influence of the holy circle in which they lived.
Revelation and inspiration must be distinguished. But inspiration is not identical with revelation (cf. above, p. 300). It is rooted in it, but it rises above it. Finally, inspiration usually, though not always, presupposes the work of the Holy Spirit Himself in regeneration, faith, and conversion. The prophets and apostles were most holy men, children of God. Thus this idea of ethical theology also contains elements of truth. Yet inspiration is not identical with rebirth.
Rebirth encompasses mankind, inspiration is an operation in the consciousness. Gene sanctifies and renews, it enlightens and teaches.
Gene does not bring inspiration by itself, and inspiration is possible without rebirth, Num. 23:5; John 11:51; cf. Num. 22:28; 1 Sam.
19:24; Heb. 6:4. Rebirth is a habitus permanens, inspiration is an actus transiens. With all these mentioned work-activities of God, inspiration is therefore in the closest connection. It may not be isolated from them. It is included in all God's effects in all created things. But here, too, the evolutionary theory must be opposed, as if the higher were to arise from the lower only by immanent development. The working of God's Spirit in nature, in mankind, in the church, in the prophets, in the biblical writers is related and analogous, but not identical. There is harmony, not uniformity.
15. What does it consist of itself? The Scriptures shed light on this when they repeatedly say that the Lord speaks through the prophets or the mouths of His prophets. Of God the talking position νπο is used; He is the speaker, He is the real subject; but the prophets are
His speaking or writing organs, of whom the talking position Λα c. gen. is always used and never ΰπο, Mt. 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 3:3, 4:14, etc.; Lu. 1:70; Rev. 1:16, 3:18, 4:25, 28:25. God, or the Holy Spirit, is the actual speaker, the spokesman, the auctor primarius, and the writers are the organs, through whom God speaks, the auctores secundarii, the scriptores or scribae. Further elucidation is given in 2
Peter 1:19-21, where the origin of prophecy is not sought in the will of man, but in the impelling of God's Spirit. The φε^εσϋ-αι, cf. Acts
27:15, 17 where the ship is driven by the wind, is essentially different from the άγεΰ&αι of the children of God, Bom. 8:14 essentially different; the prophets were carried, driven by the Holy Spirit and spoke as a result. And likewise the preaching of the apostles is called a speaking (sV) πνευματι άγιγ, Mt. 10:20 ; John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7; 1
Cor. 2:10-13, 16, 7:40; 2 Cor. 2:17, 5:20, 13:3. Prophets and apostles are therefore θεοφοβούμενοι; it is God who speaks in and through them. But Scripture itself leads us to understand this speaking of God through the mouth of the prophets as organically as possible.
There is a distinction here between the prophets and the apostles, and between them again. Moses stands at the top of the prophets;
God spoke to him as a friend to his friend. With Isaiah the impulse of the Spirit has a different character than with Ezekiel; Jeremiah's prophecies are distinguished by their simplicity and naturalness from those of Zechariah and Daniel. In all the prophets of the Bible, the impulse of the Spirit is more or less transcendent; it comes to them from above and from without, falls upon them and acts momentarily. With the apostles, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit dwells immanently in their hearts, leading and driving them, enlightening and teaching them. Thus there is a great difference also in the organic character of inspiration. Nevertheless, the whole of Scripture commands us to think of inspiration as organic rather than mechanical. Not, however, because mechanical inspiration in itself would be impossible and impermissible and contrary to the dignity of man. If it is not unworthy of a child to believe its parents and teachers on authority and simply to learn from them what it does not know; if it is not unworthy of a servant to receive commands from his master which he does not understand and has only to carry out, what
unworthiness would there be for man to have such a relationship with the Lord his God? But God has not taken this road; He has come down to man in revelation and inspiration and has accommodated
Himself to the peculiarities and even the weaknesses of His human nature. That too has been a grace of the ένσαρχωσις. Just as the Logos did not invade a human being and unite him with himself, but entered into the human nature and prepared and formed it by the Spirit from whom it was received, so has the Spirit of the Lord acted by inspiration. He entered into the prophets and apostles themselves and thus engaged them and caused them to investigate and think, to speak and write. It is He who speaks through them; but it is they themselves who speak and write. They were thought by the Spirit, but they themselves spoke, έλαληΰατ, 2 Peter 1:20: 16, 3:18, 4: 25,
28: 25 and always in Heb. 1:5 v., 4: 3, 5 etc., but just as often with the auctores secundarii, Moses, David. Isaiah etc., The moments of inspiration are not to be considered separately, but are in connection with all that has gone before: the prophets and apostles are prepared and qualified for their task from their youth; their character, nature, inclination, intellect, development, etc., are not suppressed, but, as they are, are the subject of a special study. Their whole person, with all their gifts and powers, is made subservient to the calling to which they are called. Research, Luke 1:1, reflection and memory, John
14:26, use of sources, etc., are therefore not excluded by inspiration, but are included in it. Virtually all the books of O. and N. T. are therefore in a certain sense also occasional writings. There is a direct command to write only in a few texts; they do not by any means cover the entire content of the Scriptures. But also those occasions which compelled him to write, belong to the guidance of the Spirit; it was through them that he urged on writing. The calling to be a prophet and an apostle naturally included that to speak and to testify, Ex. 3; Ez. 3; Am. 3:8; Acts 1:8 etc., but not that of writing.
After all, many prophets and apostles did not write. From Mt. 28 :19 a special commandment to write is not to be inferred. Among the charismata, 1 Cor. 12 does not mention writing, Bellarm., de verbo
Dei IV cap. 3-4. But the Holy Spirit has guided the history of the Church under Israel and in the N.T. in such a way that the deed had
to pass into the word and the word into the writing. From this guidance the calling to write, the impulsus ad scribendum, was born in prophets and apostles. And that writing is the highest, the most powerful, the most universal testimony, which does not evaporate at the breath of the wind but manets in aeternum. And precisely because the writings of the prophets and apostles did not originate outside, but rather out of and within history, there is a science in theology that examines and makes known all those occasions and circumstances under which the books of the Bible were created.
When the prophets and apostles write in this way, they also retain their own character, their own language and style. At all times this difference in the books of the Bible has been recognized, but not always satisfactorily explained. It cannot be explained by the fact that the Holy Spirit arbitrarily wanted to write sometimes this way and sometimes that way; but entering into the writers, He also entered into their style and language, into their character and peculiarities, which He Himself had already prepared and formed.
This also includes the fact that He chose Hebrew in the Old Testament and Hellenistic Greek in the New Testament as the vehicle for His divine thoughts. Here, too, there was no arbitrariness.
Purism awkwardly defended a precious truth. Measured in terms of the Greek of Plato and Demosthenes, the N. T. is full of barbarism and soliloquy; but the marriage that took place in Hellenistic Greek between pure Hebrew and pure Attic, between the Eastern and Western spirits, was the realization in the field of language of the divine idea that salvation is of the Jews, but is destined for all mankind. The language of the New Testament is not the most beautiful, grammatically or linguistically speaking, but it is the most suitable for communicating God's thoughts. In this respect, too, the word has become truly and generally human. And finally, when the prophets and apostles wrote, their own experience and history often provided the material for their writings. In the psalms it is the pious singer who alternately complains and rejoices, sits down in sorrow or rejoices with joy. In Romans 7 Paul portrays his own life experience, and throughout the Scriptures it is always the persons of the writers themselves whose life and experience, their hope and fear, their faith
and trust, their complaint and misery are described and portrayed.
That rich life, that deep experience, of a David, for example, was formed and guided by the Spirit of the Lord in such a way that it would be recorded in Scripture as a lesson for future generations, that we might have hope through patience and consolation in the Scriptures, Rom. 15:4. Organic inspiration alone does justice to Scripture. In the teaching of Scripture it is the effect and application of the central fact of revelation, the incarnation of the word. The Λογος became σαρξ, and the word became Scripture; these are two facts which not only run parallel but are also intimately connected.
Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or glory, the most despised of men; He came down to the lowest parts of the earth, became obedient to the death of the cross. And so the word, the revelation of God, has entered into the creature, into the life and history of men and nations, into all human forms of dream and vision, of research and thought, even into the weak and despised and insignificant; the word has become scripture, and as scripture has submitted to the fate of all scripture. All this has happened so that the excellence of the power, even of the power of Scripture, may be
God's and not ours. As every human thought and action is the fruit entirely of the action of God in whom we live and are, and at the same time the fruit of man's activity, so also the Scriptures are the product entirely of the Spirit of God who speaks through the prophets and apostles, and at the same time the product of the activity of the writers. Θεία παντα και άν'/ρωπινα παντα.
16. This organic view, however, has been used several times to detract from the first, from the authorship of the EL Spirit. The incarnation of Christ demands that we search for her down to the depths of her humiliation, in all her weakness and reproach. The description of the word, of the revelation, invites us to recognize also in Scripture that weak and humble, that servant form. But just as the human being in Christ, however weak and humble, nevertheless remained free from sinfulness, so too Scripture is sine lege concepta.
It is human in its entirety and in all its parts, but it is also 'Ji-ia παντα. Yet in many ways this divine character of Scripture has been
undermined. The history of inspiration teaches us that first it was extended up to the 17th century, to the vowels and points (inspiratio punctualis), and then that it was gradually contracted and limited, from the points to the words (insp. verbalis), from the singula verba to the word, the thought (Wort instead of Wörterinspiration in Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. 18, 252), from the word as thought to the things (insp. realis), from the things to the religious-ethical content, to what is actually revealed, to the word of God sensu stricto, to the special object of the beatific faith (insp. fundamentalis, religiosa), from these things again to the persons (insp. personalis), and from these finally to the denial of all inspiration as a supernatural gift.
Now it is gratifying that even the most negative orientation is willing to secure a place for Scripture and to attribute some value to it in the religious life and thinking of Christendom. The doctrine of the Holy
Scriptures is not an opinion of this or that school, not a dogma of a particular church or sect, but an articulus iündamentalis, an article of faith of the one holy universal Christian Church. Its significance for Christianity as a whole is more and more recognized; its indissoluble connection with Christian faith and life more and more.
For a time referred to in dogmatics as the media gratiae, it has reclaimed its place in the entrance to dogmatics with honor, Nitzsch,
Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. 212. The whole Roman and Greek church still stands unswervingly in the confession of the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Many Protestant churches and denominations have hitherto resisted all violence in order to drive it away from this basis.
The congregation continues to live and feed itself directly or indirectly from the Scriptures through preaching and teaching, reading and research. Even those who deny inspiration in theory often speak and act in the practice of life as if they fully accept it. The dualism of believing and knowing, in which, according to many, orthodoxy finds itself when it comes to the teaching of Scripture, cannot be compared with the ambivalent position of VermittelungsTheologie, which denies inspiration from the rostrum and actually confesses it from the pulpit. Radicalism comes more and more to the recognition that the inspiration of Scripture is taught by Scripture itself and must be accepted or rejected along with it. All this shows
that life is stronger than doctrine and that Scripture itself always responds to any naturalistic explanation. It claims to be the product of the Spirit of God and upholds this claim in the face of all criticism.
Any attempt to strip it of the mysterious character of its origin, content and power, has so far ended with its abandonment and its being left as Scripture. Inspiration, therefore, is not an explanation of Scripture, and not really a theory; but it is and ought to be a faithful profession of what Scripture testifies concerning itself, in spite of appearances to the contrary. Inspiration is a dogma, like Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., which the Christian assumes, not because he sees its truth, but because God testifies to it. It is not a scientific statement but a profession of faith. With inspiration, as with any other dogma, the question is not primarily: how much can and may I profess without coming into conflict with science, but what is God's testimony and what, accordingly, is the statement of Christian faith?
And then there is only one possible answer, that Scripture presents itself as the word of God and the Church of God has recognized it as such throughout the ages. Inspiration rests on the authority of Scripture and has received witness from the Church of all ages.
With this dogmatic and religious character of the doctrine of inspiration, the inspiratio personalis and fundamentals are in conflict. However, in these views also lies a good thought. For it has certainly been the persons, with all their gifts and powers, who have been engaged in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and those persons were holy men, men of God, skilfully equipped for this work. There is no doubt also a distinction in Scripture between more and less important portions; not all books of the Bible are of equal value. But both ideas of inspiration weaken the testimony which Scripture gives of itself, and are not born of the plerophoria of faith, but of transaction with science. Moreover, the inspiratio personalis runs up against these objections, that it erases the distinction between inspiration and illumination (rebirth), between the intellectual and the ethical life, between the ysqsci&ai of the prophets, 2 Peter 1:21 and the άγεσϋ-αι of the children of God, Rom 8:14, between Holy
Scripture and edifying reading. Furthermore, it reverses with Rome
the relationship between Scripture and the church, robs the church of the certainty it needs, and makes it dependent on science, which must decide what in Scripture is or is not the word of God. Many advocates of this theory of inspiration do try to escape these objections by appealing to the person of Christ as the source and authority of dogmatics, but this is of no avail, since the difference is precisely who Christ is and what He taught and did. If the apostolic witness concerning Christ is not reliable, no knowledge of Christ is possible. In addition, if Christ is authority, He is also authority in the teaching of Scripture; inspiration must then be taken on His authority. The above theory conflicts with the authority of Christ
Himself. The inspiratio fundamentalis differs from the inspiratio personalis in that it assumes a special activity of the Spirit in writing, but only in certain portions of Scripture. This idea, however, is so deistic and dualistic that it is already implausible. Moreover, word and fact, the religious and the historical, what was spoken by God and by men, are so interwoven and interwoven in Scripture that separation is impossible. The history of Scripture is also a revelation of God. And finally, these two theories do not fail to meet the objections raised by science against Scripture and its inspiration. For these objections do not apply at all to some minor points in the periphery of Revelation, but touch its very heart and center. The inspiratio personalis and fundamentalis is by no means more scientific and rational, than the strictest inspiratio verbalis.
The other theories of inspiration, inspiratio punctualis, verbalis, realis, and also the Wortinspiration of Philippi, differ little from one another. The activity of the Holy Spirit in writing has consisted in the fact that, after having prepared the human consciousness of the scriptors in all kinds of ways, by birth, education, natural gifts, research, memory, reflection, life experience, revelation, etc., He now, in and under and during the writing itself, has raised in that consciousness those thoughts and words, that language and style, which could best express the divine thought for people of all ranks and classes and people and centuries. The thoughts contain the words and the words contain the vocals. But it does not follow that