11. § 11. Holy Scripture.

11. § 11. Holy Scripture.

§ 11. Holy Scripture.

A. Revelation and Scripture.

. The history of religions indicates not only an intimate connection between religion and revelation, but further also between revelation and Scripture. Magical formulas, liturgical texts, ritual treatises, ceremonial laws, priestly documents, historical and mythological literature, etc. occur in the religious sphere among all civilized peoples. But in an even narrower sense there is talk of holy Scriptures in the religions. Many peoples also have a book or a collection of books that possess divine authority and serve as a rule of doctrine and life. To these belong the Shu-king of the Chinese, the Veda of the Indians, the Tripitaka of the Buddhists, the Avesta of the Persians, the Koran of the Mohammedans, the Old Testament of the Jews, and the Bible of the Christians. Together these seven have been designated by Max Müller, Vorlesungen über den Ursprung der Religion 1880 S. 149

with the name of the book-religions. This phenomenon already indicates that revelation and Scripture cannot stand in an accidental, arbitrary connection. Indeed, the history of the doctrine of the Koran even offers remarkable parallels with that of the dogma of Scripture in the Christian church, M. Th. Houtsma, De strijd over het dogma in den Islâm tot op ElAsh'ari, Leiden 1875 bl. 96 v. See further on the holy books Ch. de la

Saussaye, Lehrb. der Rel. Gesch. I 137 f. Lamers, Wetenschap v. d. godsd.

II 249 v. Max Müller, Theosophy or psychological religion 1893. Lecture 2:

The value of the sacred books.

Now in the first place thought and word, thinking and speaking, are most intimately related to one another. They are indeed not, as Max Müller,

Vorlesungen über die Wissenschaft der Sprache I 3e Aufl. 1875 S. 459, Das Denken im Lichte der Sprache, Leipzig 1888 S. 70-115 thinks, identical; for there is also a thinking, a consciousness, an awareness, however unclear, without a word. Homo enim nihil potest dicere, quod non etiam sentire possit; potest etiam aliquid sentire, quod dicere non possit, Augustinus,

Serm. 117, c. 5. But the word is nevertheless first the completed thought, the thought that has come to independence and to full maturity and therefore also the clear, lucid thought; an indispensable aid for conscious thinking. Language is the soul of the nation, the preserver of the goods and treasures of humanity, the bond of men and peoples and generations, the one great tradition, which makes the world of men, one in physis, also one in consciousness. But just as thought embodies itself in the word, so the word in turn in writing. Language too is nothing but an organism of signs, but of audible signs. And the audible sign naturally seeks stability in the visible sign, in writing. Writing is properly sign-art, and occurs in this broad sense among all peoples, but has gradually developed from signand

picture-writing, through wordor concept-writing, into letter-writing.

However refined and increased in accuracy, it is imperfect. Our thinking, says Augustinus, de trin. 7, 4, de doctr. christ. 1, 6 remains behind the thing, our thinking lags behind our speaking; and so too there is a great distance between word and writing. The sounds are always only approximately rendered in visible signs. Thinking is richer than speaking, and speaking richer than writing. But nevertheless writing is of great value and significance. Writing is the word made enduring, generalized, and aeternized. It makes the thought the property of those who are far from us and who are after us, the common good of humanity. It depicts the word and speaks to the eyes. It gives body and color to the thought. Writing is the ἐνσαρκωσις of the word.

That holds in general. The Traditionalists, de Bonald, Lamennais, Bautain certainly went too far, when they said that language was directly derived from God, that in language all the treasures of truth were preserved, and that man now became partaker of all [297] truth out of and through language, tradition, Stöckl, Lehrb. der neueren Philos. I 406 f. But there is nevertheless a good thought in it. And especially in the religious domain word and writing acquire a higher significance. Revelation in Christianity is a history. It consists in deeds, events, which pass by and soon belong to the past. It is an actus transiens, temporary, even momentary, and has this form of time, this perishable character, in common with all earthly things. And yet it contains eternal thoughts, which had significance not only for the moment in which it took place, and for the persons to whom it occurred, but which are of value for all times and for all men. How is this apparently contradictory to be united? For the strange character of it has been felt almost always. Deism in England called attention to it. Herbert of Cherbury

expressed that only to such a revelation could faith be granted, which came to us ourselves immediately; revelations which others have received are for us only history, tradition, and in history we can never get further than to probability, de veritate 1656 p. 288, Lechler, Gesch. des engl. Deismus 49.

Hobbes likewise said that a revelation which others had received could not be proved for us, Leviathan ch. 32. Locke made the same distinction between original and traditional revelation, Essay concerning human understanding IV ch. 18. Deism inferred from that that the religio naturalis was sufficient. It made a separation between fact and idea, the temporal and the eternal, zufällige Geschichtswahrheiten and nothwendige Vernunftwahrheiten. And the speculative rationalism of Hegel proceeded in the same track; the idea does not pour itself out in a single individual.

Now this separation has proved practically impossible. The detachment of the idea from history amounts in Christianity, as in every other religion, to nothing less than the loss of the idea itself. Lessing's proposition in his writing Ueber den Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft: Zufällige

Geschichtswahrheiten können der Beweis von nothwendigen Vernunftwahrheiten nie werden, at the time met with much approval. But that is only to be explained from the unhistorical sense and the deification of reason of the eighteenth century. The present century has unlearned the raving about the necessary truths of reason and the contempt for [298] history. It has learned to understand history in its deeper sense and in its eternal significance. If the facts of history were accidental, it itself would become an aggregate of events standing by themselves, without order, without coherence, without plan. Then there was no longer any history and its study an idle, useless occupation. And then it follows of itself that the history of revelation too loses all its value. But history is precisely the

realization of God's thoughts, the working out of a counsel of God concerning his creatures; there is unity, course, order, logos in it. And such a conception of history has first become possible through Christianity.

Among Greeks and Romans it is not found; there were only peoples, there was no humanity. Scripture, however, teaches us to know the unity of the human race; it gives us the grand conception of a world history. And in this it itself takes the first and all-dominating place. The Geschichtswahrheiten are therefore not accidental, and least of all among these again the history of revelation. It is so necessary that without it the whole of history and the whole of humanity falls apart. It is the bearer of the thoughts of God; the apocalypse of God's purpose, which again and again filled the apostle Paul with admiration and adoration; the revelatio mysterii, without which man gropes about in the dark. And on the other side the Vernunftwahrheiten of which Lessing spoke are also anything but necessary. Kant's critique has demonstrated that otherwise. Precisely with respect to those nothwendige

Vernunftwahrheiten there prevails at present generally a dubious scepticism.

The relation is therefore precisely reversed. The historical has been seen through in its eternal significance and the rational has come to light in its changeableness.

The fact is, then, that we inherit everything from the forefathers. We bring nothing into the world, 1 Tim. 6:7. Physically and psychically, intellectually and ethically, we are dependent on the world around us. And religiously it is no different. The revelation, which exists in history, cannot come to us otherwise than by way of tradition, in the widest sense. A question why that revelation is not bestowed on every human being, Rousseau in his profession de foi, and Strauss, Glaub. I. 268 f., is really out of place. It presupposes that the revelation contains nothing else [299] than doctrine

and forgets that it is and must be history. The center of revelation is the person of Christ. And Christ is a historical person; his incarnation, his suffering and dying, his resurrection and ascension are not susceptible of any repetition. Yes, it belongs precisely to the ἐνσαρκωσις, that he enter into history and live in the form of time. He would not have been like us in all things, if he had not subjected himself to time and space, to the law of becoming. Revelation, not as doctrine but as incarnation, of course cannot be otherwise than history, i.e. fall in a definite time and be bound to a definite place. The incarnation is the unity of being, ἐγω εἰμι, Joh. 8:58, and becoming, σαρξ ἐγενετο, Joh. 1:14. Moreover, also in revelation God follows the basic lines which He has drawn for the living-together of human beings. Humanity is not an aggregate of individuals, but an organic whole, in which all live from one another. Revelation follows this law, re-creation connects itself to creation. Just as we in every domain by means of tradition obtain a share in the goods of humanity, so also in religion. That too belongs to the idea of the incarnation. It itself is an actus transiens, but through tradition becomes the property and the blessing of all human beings. That, however, this revelation is still limited to such a small whole of human beings, presents a difficult problem, which later still needs to be investigated more closely; but this in itself moving fact can never for those who know it be a reason to reject it. Many peoples live in a state of crude barbarism. That too happens according to the will and the good pleasure of God. Yet it occurs to no one therefore to despise the blessings of civilization. Rousseau raved about the natural man, but he remained quiet in France.

2. The bearer of the ideal goods of humanity is language, and the σαρξ of language is writing. Here too God, in revelation, joins in. In order to enter

fully into humanity and to be able to become wholly its property, revelation assumes the μορφη, the σχημα of Scripture. Scripture is the form of a servant of revelation. Yes, the central fact of revelation, viz. the incarnation, leads toward Scripture. In prophecy and miracle revelation descends so low

[300] and sinks so deep, that it does not disdain even the lowest forms of the human, specifically of the religious life, as a means. The Logos himself becomes not ἀνθρωπος only, but δουλος, σαρξ. And likewise the word of revelation assumes the imperfect, defective form of writing. But only thus does revelation become the good of humanity. The goal of revelation is not Christ; Christ is center and means; the goal is that God again dwell in his creatures and in the cosmos reveal his glory. Θεος τα παντα ἐν πασιν. This too is in a certain sense an ἐνανθρωπησις του θεου, an incarnation of God.

And in order to reach that goal, the word of revelation passes over into writing. Scripture too is therefore means and instrument, no goal. It flows forth from the incarnation of God in Christ, it is in a certain sense the continuation of it, the way along which Christ makes his dwelling in his church; the praeparatio viae ad plenam inhabitationem Dei. But in this indwelling of God it then also has its τελος, its end and goal, 1 Cor. 15:28.

Like the whole of revelation, it too is an actus transiens.

As a result, the relation in which Scripture stands to revelation becomes clear. Earlier theology allowed revelation to be almost wholly absorbed into theopneusty, into the gift of Scripture. It mentioned revelation only in passing, and conceived it far too narrowly. It seemed as if there was nothing behind that Scripture. And Scripture came to stand entirely detached and isolated. It was not rooted in history. It had very much the appearance as if it had suddenly fallen down from heaven. The mighty conception of revelation as a history, which begins with the fall and ends only in the

parousia, was almost wholly foreign to it. This view is untenable. For, in by far the most cases, revelation precedes theopneusty and is often separated from it by a long time. God's revelation to the patriarchs, in the history of Israel, in the person of Christ was sometimes described only centuries and years thereafter; and the prophets and apostles also often set their revelations down in writing only a considerable time after receiving them, e.g. Jer. 25:13, 30:1, 36:2 v. Furthermore, many persons, such as Elijah,

Elisha, Thomas, Nathanael, etc., were organs of revelation, who nevertheless never wrote a book that was included in the canon; [301] others, on the other hand, received no revelations and performed no miracles, and yet did indeed commit them to writing, as for example the writers of many historical books. Further, revelation took place in different forms, dream, vision, etc., and intended the making known of something that was hidden; theopneusty was always an operation of God's Spirit in the consciousness and had as its goal the guarantee of the content of Scripture.

The more recent theology therefore rightly made a distinction between revelation and Scripture. But it often fell into another extreme. It detached

Scripture so wholly and entirely from revelation that this became nothing more than an accidental appendage, an arbitrary addition, a human document of revelation, which might perhaps still be useful but in any case was not necessary. In all kinds of variations this theme has been sung. Not the letter but the Spirit, not Scripture but the person of Christ, not the word but the fact is the principium of theology. And Lessing came to the wellknown plea: o Luther! you great and holy man, you have delivered us from the yoke of the Pope, but who will deliver us from the yoke of the letter, from the paper Pope. This view is no less wrong and still more dangerous than the other. For revelation and theopneusty in many cases coincide

entirely. Far from everything that is described in Scripture was previously revealed, but arose in the consciousness under the writing itself, e.g. in the psalms, the letters, etc. Whoever denies theopneusty and despises Scripture loses revelation also for a very great part; he retains nothing but human writings. Furthermore, revelation, even where it in fact or word preceded the description, is known to us solely and only through Holy Scripture. We know literally nothing of God's revelations under Israel and in Christ, except only from Holy Scripture. There is no other principium. With Holy

Scripture, therefore, the whole revelation falls, the person of Christ also falls. Precisely because revelation is history, there is no other way to know anything of it than the ordinary way in all history, that is, the testimony. The testimony decides for our consciousness concerning the reality of a fact. No communion with Christ except only through communion in the word of the apostles, Joh. 17:20, 21; 1 Joh. 1:3. Revelation exists for us, for the church of all centuries, only [302] in the form of Holy Scripture. And finally, theopneusty, as will appear later, is a property of the Scriptures, a proper and separate act of God in the production of Scripture, and thus in so far also itself to be recognized and honored as an act of revelation. Contempt or rejection of Scripture is therefore not an innocent act with respect to human testimonies concerning revelation, but denial of a special act of revelation of God, and thus in principle denial of all revelation.

Both directions are therefore one-sided, both that which fails to recognize revelation for the benefit of Scripture, and that which fails to recognize

Scripture for the benefit of revelation. In the former case the φανερωσις, in the latter the θεοπνευστια, does not come into its own. There one has

Scripture without writings; here one has writings without Scripture. There is a neglect of history there, here a contempt for the word. The first direction

lapses into orthodox intellectualism, the second runs the danger of anabaptistic spiritualism. The correct view is this, that Scripture is neither identified with revelation nor detached from it and placed outside it.

Theopneusty is an element in revelation; a final act, in which the revelation of God in Christ is, for this dispensation, brought to a close; in so far therefore the end, the crown, the perpetuation and the publication of revelation, medium, quo revelatio immediata mediata facta inque libros relata est, Baumgarten bij Twesten, Vorles. über die Dogm. I 402.

3. Revelation, then, taken as a whole, has reached its end and goal only in the parousia of Christ. But it falls apart into two great periods, into two distinct dispensations (above p. 270). The first dispensation extended to incorporate the full revelation of God into, and to make it a part of, the history of humanity. That whole economy can be regarded as a coming of God to his people, as a seeking of a tabernacle for Christ. It is thus predominantly a revelation of God in Christ. It bears an objective character.

It is characterized by extraordinary acts; theophany, prophecy, and miracle are the ways along which God comes to his people. Christ is the subject of it. He is the Logos, who shines in the darkness, comes to his own, and becomes flesh in [303] Jesus. The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Christ had not yet been glorified. In this dispensation the committing to writing keeps pace with the revelation. Both grow from century to century. As the revelation advances, Scripture increases in extent. When in Christ the full revelation of God has been given, theophany, prophecy, and miracle in him have reached their climax, and the grace of God in Christ has appeared to all men, then at the same time the completion of Scripture is also there.

Christ has in his person and work fully revealed the Father to us; therefore in Scripture that revelation is fully described to us. Revelation has in a

certain sense reached its end. The dispensation of the Son makes way for the dispensation of the Spirit. The objective revelation passes over into the subjective appropriation. In Christ, in the midst of history, an organic center has been created by God; from there the circles are now drawn in ever wider circumference, within which the light of revelation shines. The sun, rising, covers only a small surface of the earth with its rays; standing in the zenith, it shines over the whole earth. Israel was only an instrument of revelation; it has performed its service and falls away, when it has brought forth the Christ, as far as the flesh is concerned; now the grace of God appears to all men. Revelation therefore does indeed continue, but in another way and in other forms. The Holy Spirit takes everything from Christ; he adds nothing new to the revelation. This is completed and therefore not susceptible of any increase. Christ is the Logos, full of grace and truth; his work is finished; the Father himself rests in his labor. His work cannot be supplemented or increased by the good works of the saints; his word not by tradition; his person not by the pope. In Christ God has fully revealed himself and fully bestowed himself. Therefore Scripture is also completed; it is the perfect word of God. And yet, though in another way, revelation continues, for it does not have its final goal in Christ, who is mediator, but in the new humanity, in the dwelling of God with his people.

It continues in all its three forms of theophany, prophecy, and miracle. God comes to and dwells in the congregation of Christ; where two or three are gathered in his name, he is in the midst. He always continues to do miracles; he renews it by regeneration, [304] sanctification, and glorification; the spiritual miracles do not cease. God always works. But that is not enough. Not only the world of being, also that of consciousness must be renewed. In the Logos was the life but also the light of men; Christ

is full of grace but also of truth; revelation consisted in miracle but also in prophecy. Word and deed went together in the first dispensation; they also accompany each other in the economy of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit regenerates but also illumines. But just as the spiritual miracles add no new element to the objective facts of revelation but are only effects of the miracle of God's grace, wrought in Christ; so also prophecy in the congregation, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is no revelation of hidden things but application of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which are comprehended in Christ and are displayed in his word. And both these activities of the Holy Spirit go hand in hand in this dispensation. Prophecy and miracle, word and fact, illumination and regeneration, Scripture and church accompany one another. Also now revelation is not doctrine alone, which illumines the understanding, but also a life, which renews the heart.

It is both together in indissoluble unity. The one-sidednesses of intellectualism and mysticism are both to be avoided, for they are both a failure to recognize the richness of revelation. Because head and heart, the whole man in his being and consciousness, must be renewed, revelation in this dispensation continues in Scripture and in the church together. And both stand thereby in the closest connection to one another. Scripture is the light of the church, the church is the life of Scripture. Outside the church

Scripture is a riddle, an offense. Without regeneration no one can know it.

Whoever does not partake of its life cannot understand its sense and meaning. And conversely the life of the church is a hidden thing, if Scripture does not let its light shine upon it. Scripture explains the church, the church understands Scripture. In the church Scripture confirms and seals its revelation, and in Scripture the Christian, the church, learns to

understand itself, in its relation to God and the world, in its past and present and future.

Therefore Scripture also does not stand by itself. It may not be conceived deistically. It is rooted in a history of centuries [305] and is the fruit of revelation under Israel and in Christ. But it is nevertheless not a book from long bygone times, which brings us into relation only with persons and events of the past. Holy Scripture is not a dull story and not an old chronicle, but it is the ever-living, eternally youthful word, which God now in this time and always causes to go forth to his people. It is the evercontinuing speech of God to us. It serves not only to make us know historically what has happened in the past. It does not even have the intention of providing us with a historical narrative according to the standard of fidelity that is demanded in other sciences. Holy Scripture is a tendenz-book; all that was written beforehand was written for our instruction, that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures might have hope. Scripture was written by the Holy Spirit, in order that it might serve Him in his guidance of the church, in the perfecting of the saints, in the building up of the body of Christ. In it God comes daily to his people. In it He speaks to his children, not from afar, but from near. In it He reveals himself from day to day to the believers in the fullness of his grace and truth. Through it He works his wonders of compassion and faithfulness.

Scripture is the abiding report between heaven and earth, between Christ and his congregation, between God and his children. It does not only fasten us to the past, it binds us to the living Lord in the heavens. It is the viva vox

Dei, epistola Dei omnipotentis ad suam creaturam. Through the word God once created the world, through the word He maintains it; but through the word He also recreates it and prepares it for his dwelling. The theopneusty

is therefore also an abiding property of Holy Scripture. It was not only theopneusted in the moment that it was set down in a book; it is theopneust.

Divinitus inspirata est scriptura, non solum dum scripta est Deo spirante per scriptores; sed etiam dum legitur Deo spirante per scripturam et scriptura ipsum spirante, Bengel op 2 Tim. 3:16. Having proceeded from revelation, it is kept living and made efficax by the theopneusty. It is the Holy Spirit who maintains and connects with each other both prophecy and miracle,

Scripture and church, and who thus prepares the parousia. For when being and consciousness both once [306] shall have been wholly renewed, then revelation has its end. Scripture is then no longer necessary. The theopneusty is then the portion of all the children of God. They shall all have been taught by the Lord and shall serve Him in his temple. Prophecy and miracle have become into nature, for God dwells among his people.

B. The doctrine of inspiration.

4. The authority of Holy Scripture has been acknowledged by all Christian churches. There is no dogma about which there is more unity than that of Holy Scripture. The genesis of this faith in Holy Scripture can no longer be traced. It exists, as far back as we go. In the O. T. the authority of Jahveh's commandments and ordinances, i.e. of the thora and likewise of the prophets, is already established. Moses and the prophets have always been men of divine authority in Israel; their writings were immediately recognized as authoritative. The Jews have built upon that a doctrine of inspiration, as strict and exclusive as possible. The thora stands at the head in the Scripture of the O. T.; in its content it is identical with the divine

Wisdom, the image of God, the daughter of God, the revelation of salvation sufficient in itself, destined for all peoples, the highest good, the way to life.

If Israel had not sinned, it would have been sufficient. But now the writings of the prophets have later been added to it for explanation. All those writings are divine, holy, rule of doctrine and life, and with an infinite content. Nothing in it is superfluous; everything has meaning, every letter, every sign, down to the shape and form of a letter, for everything is derived from God. According to Philo, de migr. Abrahae, and Josephus, Ant. 4, 6, 5. c. Ap. 1,7 the prophets, at the inspiration, were in a state of rapture and unconsciousness, which they compared with the pagan mantics and also extended to others than the prophets, but the divine authority of Holy

Scripture also stands immovably firm with them. Only, that authority was in fact again impaired by tradition. Scripture was namely insufficient in itself.

According to the conception of the Jews there was also an oral tradition, which, originating from God, had been handed down by Moses, Aaron, the elders, the prophets, the men of the great synagogue to the scribes. It [307] was finally set down in the Mishna and Gemara, which now, as norma normata, has been added to the norma normans and, with the help especially of thirteen hermeneutical rules, was brought into agreement with Scripture, Zunz, Die gottesd. Vorträge der Juden 1832 S. 37 f. Weber,

System der altsyn. pal. Theol. 1880. S. 14 f. 78 f. Schürer, Neutest.

Zeitgeschichte, Leipzig, 1874. S. 437 f.

The Christian congregation now, together with Jesus and the apostles, did indeed reject the entire Jewish tradition, but nevertheless from the beginning acknowledged the divine authority of the O. T. Scripture,

Harnack, Dogm. gesch. I 39 f. 145 f. 244 f. The congregation has never been without a Bible. It received the O. Test. from the hand of the apostles

immediately with divine authority. The Christian faith from the beginning included within itself faith in the divine authority of the O. T. Clemens

Romanus teaches the inspiration of the O. T. as clearly as possible. He calls the O. T. writings τα λογια του θεου, 1 Cor. 53, τας γραφας, τας ἀληθεις τας δια πνευματος του ἁγιου, ib. 45, adduces passages from the O. T. with the formula: the H. Spirit says, ib. 13 and says of the prophets: οἱ λειτουργοι της χαριτος του θεου δια πνευματος ἁγιου ἐλαλησαν ib. 8. He extends the inspiration also to the apostles, and says that they μετα πληροφοριας πνευματος ἁγιου went forth to preach, ib. 42, and that Paul wrote to the Corinthians πνευματικως ib. 47. For the rest, the apost. fathers supply little material for the dogma of Scripture: the inspiration itself stands firm, but about the extent and the limits of inspiration there is still difference; of the N. T. writings little is spoken, and apocryphal ones are sometimes cited as canonical. The Apologists of the 2nd century, Justinus, Coh. ad Graecos c.

8. and Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christo cap. 7. compare the writers to a cithara, lyre, or flute, of which the divine πληκτρον made use as of an organ. The doctrine of the apostles stands on one line with that of the prophets; just as Abraham, so we believe τῃ φωνῃ του θεου, τῃ δια τε των ἀποστολων του χριστου λαληθεισῃ παλιν και τῃ δια των προφητων κηρυχθεισῃ ἡμιν, Just. Dial. 119. The Gospels share in the same inspiration as the prophets, δια το τους παντας πνευματοφορους ἑνι πνευματι θεου λελαληκεναι, Theoph. ad Autol. 3 n. 12. With Irenaeus the full recognition is already present of the inspiration of both Testaments; [308] Scripturae perfectae sunt, quippe a Deo et Spiritu ejus dictae, adv. haer. 2, 28., they have one author and one purpose, 4, 9. And further the H. Scriptures are cited by the church fathers as θεια γραφη, κυριακαι γραφαι, θεοπνευστοι γραφαι, coelestes literae, divinae voces, bibliotheca sancta, chirographum

Dei, etc. The writers are called λειτουργοι της χαριτος του θεου, ὀργανα θειας φωνης, στομα θεου, πνευματοφοροι, χριστοφοροι, ἐμπνευσθεντες, θεοφορουμενοι, Spiritu divino inundati, pleni etc. The act of inspiration is represented as a driving, leading, etc., but especially often as a dictating of the H. Spirit, Iren. 1. c. Aug. de cons. Evang. 1, 54; the writers were the hands of the H. S., Aug. ib., they were not the auctores, but only scriptores, scribae; auctor of the H. Scripture is God alone, Isidorus Hisp. lib. 1. de offic. c. 12, with Dausch, Die Schriftinspiration 1891 S. 87. Scripture is an epistola omnipotentis Dei ad suam creaturam, Aug. in Ps. 20. Serm. 2, 1.

Greg. Magnus, Epist. 1. 4. ep. 31. There is nothing indifferent and nothing superfluous in it, but everything is full of divine wisdom; nihil enim vacuum, neque sine signo apud Deum, Iren. adv. haer. 4, 21, 3. Origenes in particular pressed this strongly and said that no tittle or iota was in vain, that there was nothing in Scripture, quod non a plenitudine divinae majestatis descendat, Homil. 2. 21. 39 in Jerem., and likewise Hieronymus, who said: singuli sermones, syllabae, apices, puncta in divinis scripturis plena sunt sensibus et spirant caelestia sacramenta. The H. Scripture was therefore without any defect, without any error, also in chronological, historical matters, Theoph. ad Autol. 23, Iren. adv. haer. 3, 5. What the apostles have written must likewise be accepted as if Christ himself had written it, for they were, as it were, his hands, Aug. de cons. Evang. 1, 54.

In his letter to Hieronymus he says that he firmly believes that none of the canonical writers scribendo aliquid errasse. If therefore there is an error, non licet dicere: auctor hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed: aut codex mendosus est, aut interpres erravit, aut tu non intelligis, c. Faust. 11, 5. But at the same time the self-consciousness of the writers in inspiration, over against Montanism, was accentuated as strongly as possible; prior

investigation, distinction in development, use of sources and of memory, difference in language and style was by Iren. Orig. Euseb. [309] August.

Hieron. etc. fully recognized; indeed by some a difference in the manner of inspiration between O. and N. T., or also a difference in degree of inspiration according to the moral condition of the writers, was assumed,

Novatianus, de trin. 4. Orig. c. Cels. 7. 4. But all that did not detract from faith in the divine origin and the divine authority of the H. S. These were generally established. The practical use of Scripture in preaching, in proof, in exegetical treatment, etc. proves that still more and still more strongly than the statements standing by themselves. The church in this first period had more to do with the establishment of the canon than with the concept of inspiration, but understood by the canonical precisely divinae scripturae,

Conc. Carth. 397 can. 47, and ascribed authority to these alone, Conc. Tolet.

447, cf. Denzinger, Enchir. symb. et defin. nr. 49. 125. Joh. Delitzsch, de inspir. scripturae s., quid statuerint patres apostolici et apologetae sec. saec.

Lips. 1872. Hagenbach, Dogm. Gesch. § 31 f. Rudelbach, Zeits. f. d. ges. luth. Theol. u. Kirche 1840. W. Rohnert, Die Inspiration der H. S. u. ihre

Bestreiter, Leipz. 1889 S. 85 f. P. Dausch, Die Schriftinspiration, eine bibl. geschichtl. Studie, Freiburg 1891. S. 45 f. Koelling, Die Lehre von der

Theopneustie, Breslau 1891. 84 f. Cramer, Godgel. Bijdragen IV 49-121.

Dr. W. Sanday, Inspiration, eight lectures on the early history and origin of the doctrine of biblical inspiration, Bampton lectures 1893.

5. The theology of the Middle Ages remained with the church fathers and did not further develop the doctrine of inspiration. Joh. Damasc., de fide orthod. 4, 17 only mentions Scripture in passing and says that law and prophets, evangelists and apostles, shepherds and teachers have spoken through the H. Geest; and therefore Scripture is theopneust. Erigena, de div.

nat. I 66 sq. says that in all matters one must follow the authority of the H.

S. because vera auctoritas rectae rationi non obsistit, but also omnis auctoritas, quae vera ratione non approbatur, infirma videtur esse. Thomas no more treats the doctrine of the H. Schrift than Lombardus does, but he nevertheless gives his thought about inspiration in his doctrine of prophecy,

S. Theol. II 2 qu. 171 sq. Prophecy is specifically a gift of the intellect and consists first [310] in inspiratio, i.e. in an elevatio mentis ad percipienda divina, which takes place Spiritu Sancto movente, and second in revelatio, by which the divine things are known, darkness and ignorance are removed, and prophecy itself is completed, qu. 171 art. 1. More particularly, prophecy consists in the gift of the lumen propheticum, by which the divine things become visible, just as natural things do by the natural light of reason, ib. art. 2. But that revelation differs; sometimes it takes place through the mediation of the senses, sometimes by means of the power of imagination, sometimes also in a purely spiritual way, as with Solomon and the apostles, ib. qu. 173 art. 2. Prophecy per intellectualem visionem in general stands higher than that per imaginariam visionem; if, however, the lumen intellectuale does not reveal supernatural things, but only causes the naturally knowable things to be known and judged in a divine way, then such a prophetia intellectualis stands below that visio imaginaria which reveals supernatural truth. The writers of the hagiographa wrote repeatedly about matters that are naturally knowable, and then they spoke non quasi ex persona Dei, sed ex persona propria, cum adjutorio tamen divini luminis.

Thomas thus recognizes different ways and degrees of inspiration. He also says, qu. 176 art. 1, that the apostles received the gift of tongues in order to be able to preach the gospel to all peoples, sed quantum ad quaedam quae superadduntur humana arte ad ornatum et elegantiam locutionis, apostolus

instructus erat in propria lingua, non autem in aliena, and likewise the apostles were sufficiently equipped with knowledge for their office, but did not know everything that can be known, e.g. arithematica etc. But an error or untruth cannot occur in Scripture, S. Theol. I qu. 32 art. 4. II 2 qu. 110 art. 4 ad 3. The most extensive discussion of Scripture is by Bonaventura in the prooemium before his Breviloquium, ed. Freiburg 1881 p. 1-32: the H.

Schrift has its origin not from human investigation, but from revelation of the Father through the Son in the H. Geest. No one can know it except through faith, for Christ is its content. It is cor Dei, os Dei (of the Father), lingua Dei (of the Son), calamus Dei (of the H. G.). Four things especially come into consideration with Scripture; its latitudo: it contains many parts,

O. and N. T., different kinds [311] of books, legal, historical, prophetic etc.; its longitudo: it describes all times from creation up to the day of judgment in the three time periods of lex naturae, lex scripta and lex gratiae or in seven aetates; its sublimitas: it describes the different hierarchies, ecclesiastica, angelica, divina; its profunditas: it has a multiplicitas mysticarum intelligentiarum. However much the H. Schrift also uses different ways of speaking, it is always genuine, there is nothing untrue in it. For the H. Geest, ejus auctor perfectissimus nihil potuit dicere falsum, nihil superfluum, nihil diminutum. Therefore the reading and investigation of the H. S. is so urgently necessary; and for this purpose Bonaventura wrote his precious Breviloquium. Duns Scotus in the Prologus before his

Sententiae does indeed adduce various grounds on which faith in the H. S. rests, such as prophecy, inner agreement, authenticity, miracles etc., but does not treat the doctrine of the H. S. And otherwise too we find little material for the dogma of Scripture in scholasticism. No need was felt for a special treatment of the locus de S. Scr., because its authority stood firm

and no one contested it. It had in the Middle Ages, at least formally, an undisputed dominion. It was symbolically represented as the water of life, glorified in panegyrics, venerated and worshiped like the image of Christ, copied, illustrated, bound, and displayed in the most precious manner. It had a place of honor at the councils, was kept as a relic, worn around the neck as an amulet, buried together with the deceased, and used as a foundation for the taking of oaths. And it was also much more, than the Protestants later supposed, read, studied, explained and translated, Vigouroux, Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste, 3e ed. I 226 s. Janssen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes, I 48 f. Herzog2 3, 545 f. There was no combating of Scripture. Nor does Abaelard, Sic et Non, ed. Henke et Lindenkohl, Marb.

1851 p. 10.11 say that prophets and apostles erred in writing, but only that they sometimes erred as persons, with appeal to Gregorius, who had also acknowledged that of Petrus; the gratia prophetiae was sometimes taken from them, so that they would remain humble and would acknowledge that they received and possessed that Spirit of God, qui mentiri vel falli nescit, only as a gift. And Agobard of Lyon [312] is no opponent of inspiration either; only, over against Fredegis of Tours, he advocates a more organic conception, which recognizes difference of language and style, grammatical deviations etc., Münscher-v. Coelln, Dogm. Gesch. II 1 S. 105.

Ecclesiastically, the inspiration and authority of the H. Schrift were repeatedly expressed and recognized, Denzinger, Enchir. n. 296. 386. 367.

600.

6. The Council of Trent declared in sess. 4, that the truth is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions, which have been received from the mouth of Christ by the apostles or have been handed down by the same apostles, Spirito Sancto dictante, as from hand to hand and have come down

to us; and that it therefore, after the example of the fathers, accepts and venerates all the books of O. and N. T., cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, and likewise the traditions ... tanquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu

Sancto dictatas ... . Inspiration was here indeed extended to tradition, but nevertheless also clearly pronounced of Holy Scripture. But among the Roman theologians there soon arose great difference about the nature and the extent of inspiration. Both the auctor utriusque testamenti and the dictare were interpreted differently. The theologians of the 16th century were in general still devoted to the stricter direction of church fathers and scholastics. They were mostly adherents of Augustine in the doctrine of grace, Jansenists, Augustinians and Dominicans. The principal among this direction are Melchior Canus, Loci theol. 1563, Bannez, Comment. in primam partem D. Thomae Lugd. 1788. Bajus and Jansenius, Billuart,

Summa S. Thomae tom. 2. Wirceb. 1758, Rabaudy, Exerc. de Scriptura sacra; in this century still Fernandez, diss. crit. theol. de verbali S. Bibl. inspiratione, but moreover also Jesuits, such as Tostatus, Costerus,

Turrianus, Salmeron, Gregor de Valencia, De rebus fidei h. t. controv. Lugd.

1591 etc. These all teach a positive operation of God's Spirit upon the writers, which also extended to the singula verba. But soon a laxer direction arose, and indeed among the Jesuits. In the year 1586 Lessius and Hamelius opened their lectures at the Jesuit college at Leuven, and defended there inter alia the propositions: 1o ut aliquis sit S. Scriptura, non est necessarium, singula ejus verba inspirata esse a Sp. So. 2o non est necessarium, [313] ut singulae veritates et sententiae sint immediate a Sp.

So. ipsi scriptori inspiratae. 3o liber aliquis (qualis forte est secundus Machabaeorum) humana industria sine assistentia Sp. Si. scriptus, si Sp.

Sus postea testetur, ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura sacra. Here

verbal inspiration is rejected, immediate inspiration also of many matters, e.g. of history, which the writers knew, is deemed unnecessary, and even in the case of some books an inspiratio subsequens, so named later by Bonfrerius, or a posterior approbation of the H. G. is held to be sufficient.

The faculties of Leuven and Douai condemned the propositions, but others in turn disapproved this censure, and the pope made no decision. The first two propositions found much acceptance, but the third went too far and was adopted only by few, inter alia by Bonfrerius, Frassenius, Richard Simon,

Histoire critique du N. T. 1689 ch. 23, and in this century still by the bishop of Spiers, Haneberg, Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung, 3e Aufl. 1863. Another direction is represented by Mariana, Tract. varii VIII, Ed. du Pin, Dissert. préliminaire tom. I Paris 1701. J. Jahn, Introductio in libros Vet. Test. 1814 and conceives inspiration as a purely negative assistance of the H. G., by which the writers were preserved from error. Both these directions held fast to the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, but identified this factual outcome with the divine origin of Scripture. In contrast, inerrancy in matters which were not in the narrower sense religious-ethical was surrendered and inspiration was limited to the properly dogmatic-ethical by Erasmus, on Mt. 2, Hd. 10, and Apologia adv. monachos quosdam Hispanos, Abbé Le Noir, Lenormant,

Les origines de l'histoire d'après la Bible Paris 1880, de Broglie, Langen in Bonn, Rohling, Natur und Offenbarung 1872. Related to that is the representation of Holden, doctor of the Sorbonne, in his Divinae fidei analysis 1770 and Chrismann, Regula fidei catholicae, who assumed a proper inspiration for the truths of faith and morals but for the remaining content of Scripture taught only such an assistance as all believers enjoy. Of like purport is also the conception in the Roman Tübingen school, whose representatives Drey, Apologetik 1838 S. 204 f. Kuhn, Einl. in die

Dogmatik 1859 S. 9 f. Schanz, Apol. des Christ. II 318 f. etc. [314] under the influence of Schleiermacher, brought inspiration into connection with the whole organism of revelation, and allowed it to extend in different degree to the different parts of Scripture. Most Roman theologians after the Reformation follow a middle way. On the one hand they reject the lax inspiration which would have consisted only in negative assistance or posterior approbation, for then all decisions of the councils, then everything true, would be called inspired. On the other hand they also deny the strict inspiratio verbalis, according to which all matters not only but even all singula verba are dictated and inspired, for many matters and words were known to the writers and therefore did not need to be inspired; the difference in language and style, the use of sources etc. also proves the incorrectness of verbal inspiration. An inspiratio realis is therefore enough, which is sometimes definite revelation, sometimes however assistance. This theory we find in Bellarminus, de Verbo Dei. I c. 14. cf. de Conc. II c. 12.

XII c. 14. C. a Lapide on 2 Tim. 3:16. the Theologia Wirceburgensis, disp. 1 cap. 1. Marchini, de divinitate et canonicitate sacr. Bibl. Pars 1 art. 7.

Liebermann, Instit. theol. ed. 8. 1857 I p. 385 sq. Perrone, Praelect. Theol.

IX 1843 p. 66 sq. Heinrich, Dogm. I 382 f. Franzelin, Tractatus de div.

Script. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit I 50. H. Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der relig. Erk. II 108 f. F. Schmid, de inspirationis Bibl. vi et ratione.

Jansen, Praelect. theol. I 767 sq. See further on these different theories of inspiration Perrone ib. IX 58 sq. Jansen, ib. 762 sq. P. Dansch, Die

Schriftinspiration 1891. S. 145 f. The Vaticanum did indeed not propose a definite theory, but nevertheless decisively condemned that of the inspiratio subsequens and the mera assistentia, and declared, after having repeated the Tridentine decision, that the church recognizes those books as holy and

canonical, not because they sola industria humana concinnati, sua (i.e. of the church) deinde autoritate sint approbati; nor also, because they revelationem sine errore contineant; but for the reason that they Spiritu

Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum habent auctorem, atque ut tales ipsi ecclesiae traditi sunt. In can. 2, 4 the council calls the books once again divinitus inspiratos. In cap. 3 de fide it says, that fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur. This decision leaves nothing [315] to be desired in clarity. The Roman church conceives inspiration as a positive operation of God's Spirit and holds fast to the infallibility of Scripture. And the encyclical of Leo XIII de studiis

Scripturae sacrae 18 Nov. 1893 is written in this same faith.

7. The Reformers accepted Scripture and its theopneustia, as it had been handed down to them by the church. Luther has now and then, from his soteriological standpoint, passed an unfavorable judgment on some books,

Esther, Ezra, Neh., James, Jude, Rev., and conceded smaller inaccuracies, but yet on the other hand maintained inspiration in the strictest sense and extended it even to the letters. Bretschneider, Luther an unsere Zeit 1817.

Schenkel, Das Wesen der Protest. II 56 f. Köstlin, Luthers Theologie II 246 f. W. Rohnert, Was lehrt L. von der Insp. der H. Schrift. Leipzig 1890. Fr.

Pieper, Luthers doctrine of inspiration, Presbyt. and Ref. Rev. April 1893 p.

249-266. The Lutheran symbols have no separate article on Scripture, but presuppose its divine origin and authority everywhere, Conf. Aug. praef. 8. art. 7. Art. Smalc. II art. 2. 15. Form. Conc. Pars I Epit. de comp. regula atque norma 1. The Lutheran dogmaticians, Melanchthon in the praefatio before his loci, Chemniz, Examen Conc. Trid. Loc. 1. Gerhard, Loci Theol. loc. 1. etc. all have the same view. Not first Quenstedt and Calovius, but already Gerhard calls the writers Dei amanuenses, Christi manus et Spiritus

Sancti tabelliones sive notarios, ib. loc. 1. cap. 2 § 18. Later ones only further developed and applied the principle, Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Prot. I. 207-257. Hase Hutt. Rediv. § 38 f. Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. cap. 4. Rohnert, Die Inspiration der H. Schrift 169 f. Koelling, Die

Lehre von der Theopneustie 1891. S. 212 f. Among the Reformed we encounter the same doctrine concerning Scripture. Zwingli often places the outward word behind the inward, concedes historical and chronological inaccuracies, and sometimes extends inspiration to pagan writers, Zeller,

Das theol. System Zwingli's 137 f. Chr. Sigwart, Ulr. Zwingli 45 f. But Calvin holds Scripture, in the full and literal sense, to be the word of God,

Instit. I. c. 7-8, Comm. on 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Petr. 1:20; he does indeed not acknowledge the Epistle to the Hebrews as Pauline but nevertheless [316] as canonical, and assumes an error in Mt. 22:9, 23:25, but not in the autographa, Cramer, De Schriftbeschouwing van Calvijn. Heraut. no. 26 v.

Moore, Calvins doctrine of holy Scripture, Presb. and Ref. Rev. Jan. 1893 p.

49 etc. The Reformed confessions mostly have an article on Holy Scripture and clearly express its divine authority, I Helv. 1-3. II Helv. 1. 2. 13. 18.

Gall. 5. Belg. 3. Angl. 6. Scot. 18 etc.; and the Reformed theologians all without distinction adopt this same standpoint, Ursinus, Tract. theol. 1584 p. 1-33. Zanchius, Op. VIII col. 319-451. Junius, Theses Theol. cap. 2.

Polanus, Synt. Theol. I 15. Synopsis, disp. 2. Voetius, Disp. Sel. I. 30 sq. etc. Cramer, De roomsch-kath. en oudprot. Schriftbeschouwing. Heraut no.

26 v. Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. S. 9 f. On a single occasion a weak attempt at a more organic view is to be perceived. Inspiration did not always consist in revelation, but, when it concerned known matters, in assistentia and directio; the writers were not always passive, but also active, so that they used their own understanding, memory, judgment, style, but in

such a way that they were nevertheless led by the Holy Spirit and preserved from error, Synopsis 3:7. Rivetus, Isag. seu introd. generalis ad Script. V. et

N. T. cap. 2. Heidegger, Corpus Theol. loc. 2. § 33. 34, but even thereby not the least detriment was done to the divinity and infallibility of Scripture.

The writers were no auctores, but scriptores, amanuenses, notarii, manus, calami Dei. Inspiration was not negative but always positive, an impulsus ad scribendum and a suggestio rerum et verborum. It communicated not only unknown but also already known matters and words, for the writers then nevertheless had to know these precisely now and precisely thus, not only materialiter but also formaliter, not only humane but also divine,

Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. 23, 24. Voetius, Disp. I 30. Inspiration extended to all chronol. histor. geogr. matters, to the words, even to vowels and signs. J. Buxtorf, Tract. de punctorum origine, autiquitate et auctoritate

1648. Anticritica 1653. Alsted, Praecognita Theol. p. 276. Polanus, Synt.

Theol. I p. 75. Voetius, Disp. I 34. Cons. Helv. art. 2. Barbarisms and solecisms were not accepted in Holy Scripture. Difference of style was explained from the will of the Holy Spirit, who now and then wished to write otherwise, Quenstedt and Hollaz with Rohnert, Die Inspir. [317] der

H. Schrift 205. 208. Winer, Grammatik des N. T. Sprachidioms, 6e Aufl. 11 f. Voetius ib. Gomarus, Op. 601. Materialiter, as regards letters, syllables, and words, Scripture is e sensu creaturarum, but formaliter, as regards the sensus θεοπνευστον, it is wrongly reckoned among creatures, since it is the mind, counsel, wisdom of God. Hollaz, Exam. ed. Teller p. 992, with Dausch 112. In 1714 Nitzsche in Gotha, according to Tholuck, Vermischte

Schriften II 86, wrote a dissertation on the question whether Holy Scripture itself were God.

8. But when the theory of inspiration, as also among the Jews and the Mohammedans, had drawn its ultimate consequence, opposition arose from every side. Even in earlier times there was no lack of criticism of Scripture.

Jehoiakim burned the scroll of Baruch, Jer. 36. Apion summarized all the accusations which were brought by the Heathen against the Jews concerning circumcision, the prohibition of swine's flesh, the exodus from Egypt, the sojourn in the wilderness, etc. Josephus, contra Apionem, J. G.

Muller, Des Flavius Josephus' Schrift gegen den Apion 1877. The Gnostics, Manichaeans and the sects related to them in the Middle Ages tore the N.

Test. loose from the Old, and ascribed this to a lower god, the demiurge.

Especially Marcion in his Antitheses, and his disciples Apelles and Tatian, proceeding from the Pauline antithesis of righteousness and grace, law and gospel, works and faith, flesh and spirit, directed their attack against the anthropomorphisms, the contradictions, the immorality of the O. T., and said that a God who is wrathful, has regret, takes vengeance, is jealous, commands theft and lying, descends, gives a strict law etc. cannot be the true God. They also pointed with preference to the great difference between Christ, the true Messiah, and the Messiah, as the prophets expected him. Of the N. T. Marcion rejected all writings except those of Luke and Paul, and even corrupted these by abbreviation and interpolation, Tertullianus, adv.

Marcionem. Epiphanius, Haer. 42. Irenaeus, adv. haer. passim. Harnack, Dogmengesch. I 226 f. Celsus continued this struggle in a keen-witted manner and delivered a sharp criticism of the first chapters of Genesis, the days of creation, the creation of man, the temptation, the [318] fall, the flood, the ark, the building of the tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and further of Jonah, Daniel, the supernatural birth of Jesus, baptism, the resurrection, the miracles, and accused Jesus and the apostles,

for lack of a better explanation, of deceit. Porphyrius made a beginning with the historical criticism of the books of the Bible; he contested the allegorical exegesis of the O. T., ascribed the Pentateuch to Ezra, regarded

Daniel as a product from the time of Antiochus, and also subjected many narratives in the Gospels to a sharp criticism. Julian later renewed all these attacks against Scripture once again in his Λογοι κατα χριστιανων. But with that the end of the criticism of that time was reached. Scripture came to general and undisputed dominion; criticism was forgotten. It revived in the Renaissance, but was then still for a time restrained by the Reformation and the Roman counter-reformation. Soon it rose again, in rationalism, deism and French philosophy. At first it directed itself more against the content of Scripture in the rational eighteenth century; thereafter more against the authenticity of the writings in the historically inclined nineteenth century.

Porphyrius replaces Celsus, Renan follows after Voltaire, Paulus of Heidelberg makes way for Strauss and Baur. But the result always remains the same, Scripture is a book full of error and falsehood.

As a result of this criticism many have modified the doctrine of inspiration. At first inspiration is indeed still maintained as a supernatural operation of the H. G. in the writing, but limited to the religious-ethical; in the chronological, historical, etc., it is weakened or denied, so that greater or smaller errors can occur here. The Word of God is to be distinguished from Holy Scripture. Thus the Socinians already taught. The writers of O. and N. T. have indeed written divino spiritu impulsi eoque dictante, but the O. T. has only historical value, only the doctrine is immediately inspired, in the rest a leviter errare is possible, Fock, Der Socin. 326 f. The Remonstrants adopted the same standpoint. They acknowledge inspiration,

Conf. art. 1, but admit that the writers have sometimes expressed

themselves less exacte et praecise, Limborch, Theol. Christ. I c. 4 § 10, or sometimes also have erred in the circumstantiae fidei, Episcopius, Instit.

Theol. IV 1 cap. 4, [319] or more strongly still, that in the historical books they needed no inspiration nor received it, H. Grotius, Votum pro pace ecclesiae, Clericus, in Dr. Cramer, De geschied. van het leerstuk der inspiratie in de laatste twee eeuwen 1887, bl. 24. The same doctrine concerning inspiration we then find with S. J. Baumgarten, J. G. Töllner,

Semler, Michaelis, Reinhard, Dogm. § 19. Vinke, Theol. Christ. Dogm.

Comp. 1853 p. 53-57. Egeling, Weg der Zaligheid, 3e dr. II 612, etc. But this theory nevertheless ran up against many objections. The separation between what is necessary for salvation and the incidental historical is impossible, because doctrine and history in Scripture are wholly interwoven. It does injustice to the consciousness of the writers, who by no means limit their authority to the religious-ethical but extend it to the entire content of their writings. It is in conflict with the use of Scripture by Jesus, the apostles, and the whole Christian church. This dualistic conception therefore made way for another, the dynamic one of Schleiermacher, Christ.

Gl. § 128-132. It consists in this, that the theopneusty is transferred from the intellectual to the ethical domain. Inspiration is not in the first place a property of Scripture but of the writers. These were born again, holy men; they lived in the proximity of Jesus, underwent his influence, moved in the holy circle of revelation and were thus renewed, also in their thinking and speaking. Inspiration is the habitual property of the writers. Here their writings also share; they too bear a new, holy character. But this inspiration of the writers is therefore not essentially, but only gradually distinguished from that of all believers, for all believers are led by the H. Spirit. It also may not be conceived mechanically, as if it was only now and then and with

some subjects the portion of the writers. God's Word is not mechanically contained in Scripture like the painting in the frame, but it penetrates and animates all parts of Scripture, as the soul all the members of the body.

However, not all parts of Scripture partake of this inspiration, this word of God, in equal measure; the closer something lies to the center of revelation, the more it also breathes the Spirit of God. Scripture is therefore at the same time a divine and a human book, on the one hand containing the highest truth and yet at the same time weak, fallible, imperfect; not revelation itself but the document [320] of revelation; not the word of God itself but description of that word; defective in many respects but nevertheless a sufficient instrument for us, in order to arrive at an infallible knowledge of revelation. Finally, it is also not Scripture, but the person of Christ or in general revelation that is the principium of theology. Naturally this theory of inspiration allows very many modifications; the theopneusty can be placed in a more or less intimate connection with revelation, the operation of the H. Spirit can be conceived more or less positively, the possibility of error can be conceded more or less far. But the basic thoughts nevertheless remain the same; inspiration is in the first place a property of the writers and thereafter of their writings, it is not a momentary act or a special gift of the H. Spirit but a habitual property, it works so dynamically that the possibility of error is not excluded in all parts. This theory has almost entirely replaced the old doctrine of inspiration. There are only few theologians any more who have not in the main adopted it. See Rothe, Zur

Dogm. 121 f. Twesten, Vorles. I 401 f. Dorner, Glaub. I 620 f. Lange, Dogm. I § 76 f. Tholuck, art. Inspir. in Herzog1. Cremer, id. in Herzog2.

Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. I 25 f. Id. Schriftbeweis, 2e Aufl. I 670 f. III 98 f.

Beck, Vorles. über christl. Glaub. I 424-530, Einleitung in das System der

christl. Lehre, 2e Aufl. § 82 f. Kahnis, Luth. Dogm. I 254-301. Frank, Syst. der chr. Gewissheit II 57 f. Id. Syst. der chr. Wahrheit, 2e Aufl. II. 409 f.

Gess, Die Inspiration der Helden der Bibel und der Schriften der Bibel, Basel 1892. W. Volck, Zur Lehre von der H. Schrift, Dorpat 1885. Grau,

Bew. d. Glaubens Juni 1890, S. 225 f. Zöckler, Bew. d. Gl. April 1892 S.

150 f. Kähler, Wiss. der chr. Lehre, 1884, S. 388 f. Kübel, Ueber den Unterscheid zw. der posit. u. der liber. Richtung in der mod. Theol. 2e Aufl.

S. 216 f. Pareau et H. de Groot, Comp. dogm. et apol. Christ. 1848 p. 200 sq. H. de Groot, De Gron. Godgel. 1855 bl. 59 v. Saussaye, mijne Theol. van Ch. d. l. S. 49-61. Roozemeyer, Stemmen v. W. en Vr. Juli 1891. Dr. Is. van Dijk, Verkeerd Bijbelgebruik 1891. Daubanton, De theopneustie der H.

Schrift 1882. Oosterzee, Dogmatiek § 35 v. Id. Theopneustie 1882. Doedes, Leer der zaligheid § 1-9. Id. De Ned. Geloofsbel. bl. 11-36. R. F. Horton,

Inspiration and the Bible 4 ed. London [321] 1889. C. Gore, Lux mundi, 13 ed. London 1892, p. 247. Farrar and others, Inspiration, a clerical symposium, 2 ed. Londen 1888. W. Gladden, Who wrote the Bible, Boston,

Houghton 1891. C. A. Briggs, Inspiration and inerrancy, with papers upon biblical scholarship and inspiration by L. J. Evans and H. P. Smiths, and an introduction by A. B. Bruce, London 1891. J. de Witt, Inspiration 1893 etc.

Ritschl and his school may also be mentioned here, insofar as this, over against the theology of consciousness, lays emphasis on the objective revelation in Christ and in connection therewith also seeks to value

Scripture, A. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. II2 9 f. W. Herrmann, Die Bedeutung der Inspirationslehre für die ev. Kirche, Halle 1882. Kaftan, Wesen der christl. Rel. 1881 S. 307 f. Nitzsch, Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. 212-252. E.

Haupt, Die Bedeutung der H. Schrift für den evang. Christen, Gütersloh 1891 etc. But this theory satisfies neither the congregation nor also the so-

called science. The critical objections against Scripture do not concern the periphery but the center itself of revelation. Therefore others have gone still further and have denied all inspiration as a supernatural operation of God's

Spirit. The Bible is an accidental collection of human writings, even if written by men with a deep religious disposition and arising among a people that may preeminently be called the people of religion. Of revelation and inspiration there is then only still in a figurative sense mention. At most a special guidance of God's general providence in the origin and the collection of those writings is to be noted. Inspiration is only gradually different from the religious animation in which all the pious share, Spinoza,

Tract. theol. polit. cap. 12. Wegscheider, Instit. theol. § 13. Strauss, Glaub. I 136 f. Schweizer, Glaub. I 43 f. 179 f. Biedermann, Dogm. § 179-208.

Pfleiderer, Grundriss § 39 f. Lipsius, Dogm. § 179 f. Scholten, L. H. K. I 78 v. Yet it is remarkable that all these men still continue to acknowledge to a certain extent the religious value of Scripture. They see in it not only a source for the knowledge of Israel and of early Christianity, but also still try to maintain it as a means of grace for the cultivation of the religious-ethical life, cf. Bruining, Theol. Tijdschr. Nov. 1894 bl. 587 v. Insofar they distinguish themselves favorably [322] from all radicals, who have completely settled accounts with Scripture, have shaken off all piety for it, and have nothing but mockery and contempt left for it. Of this, in the first centuries Celsus and Lucian were the spokesmen; toward the end of the Middle Ages the blasphemy of the tres impostores found acceptance; in the 18th century expression was given to this hatred against Christianity by Voltaire, who from 1760 on had no other name for Christianity than l'infâme and since 1764 mostly signed his letters with écrasez l'infâme; and

in this century this hostility against Christ and his word has still increased and expanded.

Over against all these more or less negative directions, the inspiration of Scripture in a positive and full sense is still in this century acknowledged and defended, apart from Roman Catholic theologians, by I. da Costa, On the divine inspiration of the H. S., published by Ds. Eggestein, Rott. Bredée

1884. Dr. A. Kuyper, Scripture the word of God, Tiel 1870. Id. The contemporary Scripture criticism, Amst.

1881.

Toorenenbergen, Contributions to the explanation, testing and development of the doctrine of the Herv. Church, 1865, bl. 9 v. L. Gaussen, Theopneustie ou inspiration plénaire des S. Ecritures 1840. Id. Le Canon des S. Ecr. 1860. J. H. Merle d'Aubigné, L'autorité des Ecritures 1850. A. de Gasparin, Les écoles du doute et l'école de la foi 1853. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. 3e Aufl. 1883 I 125 f. Vilmar, Dogm. herausgeg. von Piderit, Gütersloh 1874 I 91 f. W. Rohnert,

Die Inspiration der H. Schrift u. ihre Bestreiter, Leipzig 1889. Koelling, Die Lehre von der Theopneustie, Breslau 1891. Henderson, Divine Inspiration

1836. Rob. Haldane, The verbal inspiration of the old and new test. Edinb.

1830. Th. H. Horne, An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the holy scriptures, 2e ed. London 1821 4 vol. vol. I. Eleazar Lord, The plenary inspiration of the holy Scripture, New-York 1858, '9. W. Lee, The inspiration of holy Scripture, its nature and proof. 3e ed. Dublin 1864.

Hodge, System. Theol. I 151. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I 61 B. Warfield, The real problem of inspiration, Presb. and Ref. Rev. Apr. 1893 p. 177-221. W.

E. Gladstone, The impregnable rock of holy Scripture, 2 ed. London 1892.

[323]

C. Inspiration according to Scripture.

9. The Old Testament supplies for the doctrine of inspiration the following important moments: a) the prophets know themselves, at a definite moment of their life, to have been called by the Lord, Exod. 3; 1 Sam. 3; Isa. 6; Jer.

1; Ezek. 1-3; Am. 3:7, 8, 7:15. The calling often went against their own wish and desire, Ex. 3; Jer. 20:7; Am. 3:8, but Jahveh has been too strong for them. The conviction in Israel was general, that the prophets were messengers of God, Jer. 26:5, 7:15, raised up and sent by Him, Jer. 29:15;

Deut. 18:15; Num. 11:29; 2 Chron. 36:15, his servants, 2 Kings 17:23, 21:10, 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Ps. 105:15 etc., standing before his face, 1 Kings

17:1; 2 Kings 3:14, 5:16. b) They are conscious that Jahveh has spoken to them, and that they have received the revelation from Him. He teaches them what they shall speak, Ex. 2:12; Deut. 18:18, puts the words in their mouth,

Num. 22:38, 23:5; Deut. 18:18, speaks to them, Hos. 1:2; Hab. 2:1; Zech.

1:9, 13, 2:2, 7, 4:1, 4, 11, 5:5, 10, 6:4; Num. 12:2, 8; 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Kings 22:28. Especially the formula is used: thus says the Lord, or: the word of the Lord came to me, or: word, oracle, נאם part. pass, the spoken word of Jahveh. The whole Old Test. Scripture is full of this expression. Time and again the prophetic discourse is introduced by it. Jahveh is even repeatedly introduced as speaking in the first person, Josh. 24:2; Isa. 1:1, 2, 8:1, 11;

Jer. 1 vss. 2, 4, 11, 2:1, 7:1; Ezek. 1:3, 2:1; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Am. 2:1 etc.

Properly it is Jahveh who speaks through them, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2, who speaks through their mouth, Ex. 4:12, 15; Num. 23:5, through their service, Hag.

1:1; 2 Kings 17:13. Their whole word is covered by the authority of Jahveh. c) This consciousness is in the prophets so clear and firm, that they even

indicate the place and the time where Jahveh spoke to them and make a distinction between times in which He did and in which He did not speak to them, Isa. 16:13, 14; Jer. 3:6, 13:3, 26:1, 27:1; 28:1, 33:1, 34:1, 35:1, 36:1,

49:34; Ezek. 3:16, 8:1, 12:8; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 1:1 etc. And with that, this consciousness is so objective, that they clearly distinguish themselves from Jahveh; [324] He speaks to them, Isa. 8:1, 51:16, 59:21; Jer. 1:9, 3:6, 5:14;

Ez. 3:26 etc., and they listen with their ears and see with their eyes, Isa. 5:9,

6:8, 21:3, 10, 22:14, 28:22; Jer. 23:18, 49:14; Ezek. 2:8, 3:10, 17, 33:7, 40:4, 44:5; Hab. 3:2, 16; 2 Sam. 7:27; Job 33:16, 36:10, and take the words of Jahveh into themselves, Jer. 15:16; Ezek. 3:1-3. d) Hence they make a sharp contrast between what God has revealed to them and what arises out of their own heart, Num. 16:28, 24:13; 1 Kings 12:33; Neh. 6:8; Ps. 41:6, 7.

They lay it to the charge of the false prophets precisely that these speak out of their own heart, Ezek. 13:2, 3, 17; Jer. 14:14, 23:16, 26; Isa. 59:13, without being sent, Jer. 14:14, 29:9; Ezek. 13:6, so that they are lying prophets, Jer. 23:32; Isa. 9:14; Jer. 14:14, 20:6, 23:21, 22, 26, 31, 36, 27:14;

Ezek. 13:6 v.; Mic. 2:11; Zeph. 3:4; Zech. 10:2 and diviners, Isa. 3:2; Mic.

3:5 v. Zech. 10:2; Jer. 27:9, 29:8; Ezek. 13:9, 12, 21:26, 28, 34; Isa. 44:25.

König II 163-167. Herzog2 16, 726. e) The prophets are finally conscious, speaking or writing, of proclaiming not their own word but the word of the Lord. Besides, the word was not revealed to them for themselves, but for others. They had no freedom to conceal it. They must speak, Jer. 20:7, 9;

Exod. 3, 4; Ezek. 3; Amos 3:8; Jonah, and therefore do not speak according to human favor or calculation, Isa. 56:10; Mic. 3:5, 11. Therefore they are precisely prophets, speakers in Jahveh's name and of his word. And with that they then know that they must give all that they have received, Deut.

4:2, 12:32; Jer. 1:7, 17, 26:2, 42:4; Ezek. 3:10. And from the same impulse

the writing of the prophets may and must also be derived. The literal texts where a command to write is given are few, Ex. 17:14, 24:3, 4, 34:27; Num.

33:2; Deut. 4:2, 12:32, 31:19; Isa. 8:1, 30:8; Jer. 25:13, 30:1, 36:2, 24, 2732; Ezek. 24:1; Dan. 12:4; Hab. 2:2 and refer only to a very small portion of the O. T. Scripture. But the written recording is indeed a later, but nevertheless necessary stage in the history of prophetism. Many prophecies were certainly never spoken but were indeed intended to be read and pondered. Most are worked with care, even with art, and already by their form show [325] that they are intended for writing. The recording of the oracles was guided by the thought that Israel was no longer to be saved by deeds, that now and in far generations the service of Jahveh had to find entrance by word and reasonable conviction, Kuenen, Prof. I 74, II 345 v.

They went to writing because they wished to address others than only those who could hear them. f) Between the received and the spoken or written word there is difference. There would be nothing degrading for the prophets in it, if they had recorded the received word as literally as possible. But the revelation continued also in the moment of theopneusty and modified and completed the earlier revelation, and this was thus freely reproduced. But precisely for that reason the prophets claim for their written word the same authority as for the spoken word. Even the interposed remarks of the prophets between the actual words of Jahveh, e.g. Isa. 6, 10:24-12:6, 31:13, 32, or the elaboration of a word of Jahveh by the prophet, 52:7-12, 63:1564:12, make no exception to that. The transition from the word of Jahveh into the word of the prophet and conversely is often so sudden, and both are so interwoven e.g. Jer. 13:18 v., that separation is not possible. They have the same authority, Jer. 36:10, 11, 25:3. Isaiah in 34:16 calls his own recorded prophecies the Book of Jahveh. g) The prophets do not derive their

revelation from the law. Although from their writings the extent of the thora cannot be determined, yet prophecy presupposes a thora. All prophets stand on the foundation of a law, they place themselves with their opponents on a common basis. They all presuppose a covenant concluded by God with Israel, a gracious election of Israel, Hos. 1:1-3, 6:7, 8:3; Jerem. 11:6 v.,

14:21, 22:9, 31:31 v.; Ezek. 16:8 v.; Isa. 54:10, 56:4, 6, 59:21. The prophets have not been the creators of a new religion, of an ethical monotheism,

Kuenen, Prof. II 335 v. The relation of Jahveh to Israel was never like that of Chemosh to Moab, Kuenen, Godsd. van Israel I 222. The prophets never speak of such an opposition between their religion and that of the people.

They acknowledge that the people through almost all centuries have made themselves guilty of idolatry; but they always and uniformly regard that as unfaithfulness and apostasy, they proceed from the fact that the people knew better. They connect themselves with the people to the same revelation, to the same history. They speak from the conviction that they with the people have the same service of God in common, that Jahveh has chosen and called them to his service. Therein they find their strength, and therefore they test the people by the relationship existing by right between them and Jahveh, Hos. 12:14; Mic. 6:4, 8; Isa. 63:11; Jer. 7:25 etc., König,

Die Hauptprobleme der altisr. Religionsgeschichte 1884 S. 15 f. 38 f. The thora denotes not only instruction of God in general, but is often also the name for the already existing, objective revelation of Jahveh, Isa. 2:3; Mic.

4:2; Am. 2:4; Hos. 8:1, 4:6; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; Zeph. 3:4. The covenant of God with Israel, on whose foundation the prophets stand with the whole people, naturally also includes all kinds of statutes and rights, and the prophets therefore repeatedly speak of commandments, Isa. 48:18; Jer. 8:13, statutes Isa. 24:5; Jer. 44:10, 23; Ezek. 5:6, 7, 11:12, 20, 18:9, 17, 20:11 v.,

36:27, 37:24; Am. 2:4; Zech. 1:6; Mal. 3:7, 4:4; rights, Ezek. 5:7, 11:12 etc.

This thora must have contained the doctrine of the unity of Jahveh, of his creation and government of all things, the prohibition of idolatry, and other religious and moral commandments, and further also all kinds of ceremonial (sabbath, sacrifice, purity etc.) and historical (creation, exodus from Egypt, covenant-making etc.) components. Concerning the extent of the thora before prophetism there may be difference, the relation of law and prophets cannot be reversed without coming into conflict with the whole history of Israel and the essence of prophetism. The prophet in Israel was, as it were, die lebendige Stimme des Gesetzes und der Vermittler seiner

Erfüllung (Staudenmaier). The most negative criticism sees itself compelled to accept the personality of Moses and his monotheism, the sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan etc. still as historical, although with their criticism of the Pentateuch all ground for that is lacking, cf. e.g.

Smend, Lehrb. der altt. Rel. S. 13 f. h) It is a priori probable that with a people, already so long acquainted with the art of writing, Herzog2 13, 689 f. the law will also already long have existed in written form. In Hos. 8:12 this seems also to be expressed, Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Proph. 21 f.

König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff II 333 f. [327] This thora had from the beginning authority in Israel. Of doubt or contestation nothing is known.

Moses occupied among all prophets an entirely unique place, Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 18:18; Ps. 103:7, 106:23; Isa. 63:11; Jer. 15:1 etc. He stood to Jahveh in a special relation; the Lord spoke with him as a friend with his friend. He was the Mediator of the O. Testament. Everywhere the law ascribes to itself a divine origin. It is Jahveh who through Moses has given the thora to Israel. Not only the ten words Ex. 20 and the Book of the Covenant Ex. 21-23; but also all other laws are derived from a speaking of

God to Moses. At every moment in the laws of the Pentateuch the formula occurs: the Lord said or spoke to Moses. Almost every chapter begins with it, Ex. 25:1, 30:11, 17, 22, 31:1, 32:9 etc.; Lev. 1:1, 4:1, 6:1 etc.; Num. 1:1,

2:1, 3:44, 4:1 etc. And Deuteronomy wishes to give nothing but what Moses spoke to the children of Israel, Deut. 1:6, 2:1, 2, 17, 3:2, 5:2, 6:1 etc. i) The historical books of the O. T. are all written by prophets and in a prophetic spirit, 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29, 20:34 etc. The prophets in their speeches and writings not only refer repeatedly to Israel's history, but they are also the ones who have preserved, edited, and delivered it to us. But they by no means intend thereby to provide us with a faithful and connected narrative of the fortunes of the Israelite people, as other historians aim at.

The prophets also in the historical books of the O. T. place themselves on the foundation of the thora and consider and describe from its standpoint the history of Israel, Judg. 2:6-3:6; 2 Kings 17:7-23, 34-41. The historical books are the commentary in facts of the covenant of God with Israel. They are not history in our sense but prophecy, and wish to be judged by another standard than the history books of the other peoples. It is not their concern that we should obtain accurate knowledge of Israel's history, but that we should understand in the history of Israel the revelation of God, his thought and his counsel. The prophets are always proclaimers of the word of Jahveh, both where they look backward into history and when they look forward into the future. j) As regards finally the poetic books in the narrower sense, which are included in the [328] canon, these all, like the other O. T. writings, bear a religious-ethical character. They presuppose the revelation of God as their objective foundation and show the effect and application of that revelation in the different states and relations of human life. Ecclesiastes sketches the vanity of the world without and over against

the fear of the Lord. Job occupies itself with the problem of the righteousness of God and the suffering of the pious. Proverbs depict for us true wisdom in its application to rich human life. The Song of Songs sings of the intimacy and the power of love. And the Psalms show us, in the mirror of the experiences of the pious of God, manifold grace. Lyric and didactic poetry enters in Israel into the service of the revelation of God.

According to 2 Sam. 23:1-3 David, the sweet in songs of Israel, spoke by the Spirit of Jahveh and his word was on his tongue. k) In proportion as the various writings of the O. T. arose and became known, they were also recognized as authoritative. The laws of Jahveh were laid in the sanctuary,

Ex. 25:22, 38:21, 40:20; Deut. 31:9, 26; Josh. 24:25 v.; 1 Sam. 10:25. The poetic productions were preserved, Deut. 31:19; Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18; the Psalms were already early collected for the benefit of the cultus, Ps.

72:20; of the Proverbs the men of Hezekiah already made a second collection, Prov. 25:1. The prophecies were much read, Ezekiel knows

Isaiah and Jeremiah, later prophets appeal to the preceding. Daniel, cap. 9:2 already knows a collection of prophetic writings, to which Jeremiah also belonged. In the post-exilic community the authority of law and prophecies stands firm, as clearly appears from Ezra, Haggai and Zechariah. Jesus ben

Sirach sets law and prophets very high, cap. 15:1-8, 24:23, 39:1 v.; cap. 4449. In the preface his grandson makes mention of three parts into which Scripture is divided. The LXX contains various apocryphal writings, but these themselves testify to the authority of the canonical books, 1 Macc.

2:50; 2 Macc. 6:23; Wisd. 11:1, 18:4; Baruch 2:28; Tob. 1:6, 14:7; Jesus Sir.

1:5, 17:12, 24:23, 39:1, 46:15, 48:25 etc. Philo cites only canonical books.

The fourth book of Ezra cap. 14:18-47 knows the division into 24 books.

Josephus, c. Ap. 1, 8, counts 22 books in three parts. Omnium consensu was

[329] the Old Testament canon of Philo and Josephus like ours, G.

Wildeboer, Het ontstaan van den Kanon des O. V. 1889 bl. 126 v. 134.

Strack in Herzog2 7, 429.

10. This canon of the Old Testament possessed, for Jesus and the apostles, as well as for their contemporaries, divine authority. This is clearly evident from the following data: a) the formula with which the O. T. is cited in the N. is different, but always proves that the O. T. for the writers of the N. T. is of divine origin and bears a divine authority. Jesus sometimes cites a passage from the O. T. with the name of the writer, e.g. of Moses, Mt. 8:4,

19:8; Mk. 7:10; Joh. 5:45, 7:22; Isaiah, Mt. 15:7; Mk. 13:14; David, Mt.

22:43; Daniel, Mt. 24:15, but he also very often cites with the formula: it is written, Mt. 4:4 v., 11:10; Luk. 10 vs. 26; Joh. 6:45, 8:47, or: Scripture says,

Mt. 21:42; Luk. 4:21; Joh. 7:38, 10:35, or also according to the auctor primarius, i.e. God or the H. Spirit, Mt. 15:4, 22:43, 45, 24:15; Mk. 12:26.

The Evangelists often employ the expression: that which was spoken by the prophet, Mt. 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 3:3 etc. or by the Lord or by the H. Spirit,

Mt. 1 vs. 22, 2:15; Luk. 1:70; Hd. 1:16, 3:18, 4:25, 28:25. John usually cites with the auctor secundarius, cap. 1:23, 46, 12:38. Paul always speaks of Scripture, Rom. 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2; Gal. 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18 etc., which is sometimes even presented entirely personally, Gal. 3:8, 22, 4:30; Rom.

9:17. The Epistle to the Hebrews most often names God or the H. Spirit as auctor primarius, 1:5 v., 3:7, 4:3, 5, 5:6, 7:21, 8:5, 8, 10:16, 30, 12:26, 13:5.

This manner of citing teaches clearly and distinctly that the Scripture of the O. V. for Jesus and the apostles, though composed of different parts and originating from different writers, nevertheless formed one organic whole, which had God himself as author. b) More than once this divine authority of the O. T. Scripture is also decisively expressed and taught by Jesus and the

apostles, Mt. 5:17; Luk. 16:17, 29; Joh. 10:35; Rom. 15:4; 1 Petr. 1:10-12; 2 Petr. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16. Scripture is a unity, which can be broken and destroyed neither in its entirety nor in its parts. In the last-cited text [330] the translation: every theopneuste Scripture is also useful, is pressed by the objection that then after ὠφελιμος the predicate ἐστιν could not have been lacking, Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. I 43. The translation: every writing, quite in general, is theopneust and useful, is excluded by the nature of the case.

Thus there remains only a choice between the two translations: the whole Scripture, or: every Scripture, namely that which is included in τα ἱερα γραμματα, vs. 15, is theopneust. In substance this yields no difference, and with a view to passages such as Mt. 2:3; Hd. 2:36; 2 Cor. 12 vs. 12; Ef. 1:8,

2:21, 3:15; Col. 4:12; 1 Petr. 1:15; Jak. 1:2 πας without the article nevertheless also seems indeed to be able to mean the whole. c) Never do

Jesus or the apostles stand critically over against the content of the O. T., but they accept it wholly and without reservation. In all parts, not only in the religious-ethical utterances or in those places in which God himself speaks, but also in its historical constituents, the Scripture of the O. T. is unconditionally recognized by them as true and divine. Jesus holds, e.g.,

Isa. 54 to be originating from Isaiah, Mt. 13:14, Ps. 110 from David, Mt.

22:43, the prophecy cited in Mt. 24:15 from Daniel, and ascribes the law to Moses, Joh. 5:46. The historical narratives of the O. T. are repeatedly cited and unconditionally believed, e.g. the creation of man, Mt. 19:4, 5; Abel's murder, Mt. 22 vs. 35; the flood, Mt. 24:37-39; the history of the patriarchs,

Mt. 22:32, Joh. 8:56; the destruction of Sodom, Mt. 11:23, Luk. 17:28-33; the burning bush, Luk. 20:37; the serpent in the wilderness, Joh. 3:14; the manna, Joh. 6:32; the history of Elijah, Luk. 4:25, 26; Naaman, ib., Jonah,

Mt. 12:39-41 etc. d) Dogmatically the O. T. is for Jesus and the apostles

sedes doctrinae, fons solutionum, πασης ἀντιλογιας περας. The O. T. is fulfilled in the New. It is more than once presented as though everything has happened with the purpose of fulfilling Holy Scripture, ἱνα πληρωθῃ το ρηθεν, Mt. 1:22 and passim, Mk. 14:49, 15:28; Luk. 4:2, 24:44; Joh. 13:18,

17:12, 19:24, 36; Hd. 1:16; Jak. 2:23 etc. Down to small details that fulfillment is observed, Mt. 21:16; Luk. 4:21, 22:37; Joh. 15:25, 17:12,

19:28 etc.; all that happened to Jesus was previously described in the O. T., Luk. 18:31-33. Jesus and the apostles justify [331] their conduct and prove their doctrine repeatedly with an appeal to the O. Test., Mt. 12:3, 22:32;

Joh. 10:34; Rom. 4; Gal. 3; 1 Cor. 15 etc. And this divine authority of Scripture extends so far for them that even a single word, indeed a tittle and iota, is thereby covered, Math. 5:17, 22:45; Luk. 16:17; Joh. 10:35; Gal.

3:16. e) Nevertheless the O. T. in the N. T. is generally cited according to the Greek translation of the LXX. The writers of the N. T., writing in Greek and for Greek readers, commonly used the translation that was known to these and accessible for them. The citations can be divided into three groups according to their relation to the Hebr. text and to the Greek translation. In some texts there is deviation from the LXX and agreement with the Hebr. text, e.g. Mt. 2:15, 18, 8:17, 12:18-21, 27:46; Joh. 19:37; Rom. 10:15, 16,

11:9; 1 Cor. 3:19, 15:54. In others there is conversely agreement with the LXX and deviation from the Hebr., e.g. Mt. 15:8, 9; Hd. 7:14, 15:16, 17; Ef.

4:8; Hebr. 10:5, 11:21, 12:6. In a third group of citations there is more or less important deviation from both LXX and Hebr. text, e.g. Mt. 2:6, 3:3,

26:31; Joh. 12:15, 13:18; Rom. 10:6-9; 1 Cor. 2:9. It also deserves remark that some books of the O. T., namely Ezra, Neh., Ob., Nah., Zef., Esth.,

Pred. and Hoogl. are never cited in the N. T.; that indeed no apocryphal books are cited but nevertheless in 2 Tim. 3:8; Hebr. 11:34 v.; Judas 9 v. 14

v., names and facts are mentioned that do not occur in the O. T.; and that a few times Greek classics are also cited, Hd. 17:18; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12. f). As regards finally the material use of the O. T. in the N. T., in this too there is great difference. Sometimes the citations serve for proof and confirmation of some truth, e.g. Mt. 4:4, 7, 10, 9:13, 19:5, 22:32; Joh.

10:34; Hd. 15:16, 23:5; Rom. 1:17, 3:10 v., 4:3, 7, 9:7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 4:30; 1 Cor. 9:9, 10:26; 2 Cor. 6:17. Very often the O. T. is cited as proof that it had to be fulfilled in the N. T. and has been fulfilled; whether in a literal sense, Mt. 1:23, 3:3, 4:15, 16, 8:17, 12:18, 13:14, 15,

21:42, 27:46; Mk. 15:28; Luk. 4:17 v.; Joh. 12:38; Hd. 2:17, 3:22, 7:37, 8:32, etc., or in a typical sense, Mt. 11:14, 12:39 v., 17:11; [332] Luk. 1:17;

Joh. 3:14, 19:36; 1 Cor. 5:7, 10:4; 2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 3:13, 4:21; Hebr. 2:6-8, 7:1-10, etc. More than once the citations from the O. T. serve simply for elucidation, explanation, admonition, consolation, etc., e.g. Luk. 2:23; Joh.

7:38; Hd. 7:3, 42; Rom. 8:36; 1 Cor. 2:16, 10:7; 2 Cor. 4:13, 8:15, 13:1; Hebr. 12:5, 13:15; 1 Petr. 1:16, 24, 25, 2:9. In that use we are often surprised by the sense that the N. T. writers find in the text of the O. T.; thus especially in Mt. 2:15, 18, 23, 21:5, 22:32, 26:31, 27:9, 10, 35; Joh. 19:37;

Hd. 1:20, 2:31; 1 Cor. 9:9; Gal. 3:16, 4:22 v.; Ef. 4:8 v.; Hebr. 2:6-8, 10:5.

This exegesis of the O. in the N. T. presupposes in Jesus and the apostles the thought that a word or sentence can have a much deeper meaning and a much wider scope than the writer suspected with it or laid into it. This is also more than once the case with classical writers. No one will think that Goethe, in writing down his classical poetry, had before his mind all that is now found in it. Hamerling has expressed this clearly in his Epilog an die

Kritiker, Poet. Werke, Tiel Campagne I 142 f. With Scripture this is the case in a much stronger degree, because, according to the conviction of Jesus

and his apostles, it has the H. Spirit as auctor primarius and bears a teleological character, cf. also Valeton, Theol. Stud. 1887 aflev. 6.

Theremin, Die Beredsamkeit eine Tugend S. 236. Not only in those few places mentioned above, but in the whole conception and interpretation of the O. Test., the N. Test. is borne by the thought that the Israelite has its fulfillment in the Christian. The entire economy of the O. V. with all its institutions and rights and in its whole history points onward to the dispensation of the N. Covenant. Not Talmudism, but Christianity is the rightful heir of the treasures of salvation, promised to Abraham and his seed. Literature on the O. T. in the N. T., Glassius, Philologia Sacra, ed. 6a

1691. Surenhusius, Βιβλος καταλλαγης, in quo sec. vet. theol. hebr. formulas allegandi et modos interpretandi conciliantur loca V. T. in N. T. allegata, Amst. 1713. J. Hoffmann, Demonstr. evang. per ipsum scripturarum consensum in oraculis ex V. T. in N. allegatis, Tub. 1773-81.

Th. Randolph, The prophecies and other texts cited in the New Test. [333] compared with the Hebr. Original and with the Sept. version, Oxf. 1782. Dr.

H. Owen, The modes of quotation used by the evangelical writers explained and vindicated, Lond. 1789. F. H. Horne, An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the holy Script. 4 vol. Lond. 1821 II 356-463. C.

Sepp, The doctrine of the N. T. concerning the H. Scripture of the O. V.

1849. Tholuck, Das A. T. im N. 6e Aufl. 1877. Rothe, Zur Dogm. 184 f.

Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung im alt. u. n. Test. 1841. E. Haupt, Die altt. Citate in den vier Evang. 1871. Kautzsch, De V. T. locis a Paulo allegatis, 1869. E. Böhl, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu

1873. Id. Die altt. Citate im N. T. 1878. K. Walz, Die Lehre der Kirche von der Schrift nach der Schrift selbst geprüft, Leiden 1884. Kuenen, De

Profeten II 199 v. Caven, Our Lords testimony to the Old Test. Presb. and

Ref. Rev. July 1892. A. Clemen, Der Gebrauch des A. T. im N. 1893.

Kuyper, Encycl. II 378 v. Hans Vollmer, Die altt. Citate bei Paulus usw.

Freiburg 1895.

11. For the inspiration of the N. T. we find in the writings of the apostles the following data: a) Jesus' testimony is valid throughout the whole N. T. as divine, true, infallible. He is the Logos, who declares the Father, Joh.

1:18, 17:6; ὁ μαρτυς ὁ πιστος και ἀληθινος, Op. 1:5, 3:14; cf. Jes. 55:4, the Amen, in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen, Op. 3:14; 2 Cor.

1:20. There has been no deceit, δολος, in his mouth, 1 Petr. 2:22. He is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Hebr. 3:1; 1 Tim. 6:13. He does not speak ἐκ των ἰδιων, like Satan who is a liar, Joh. 8:44. But God speaks through Him, Hebr. 5:1. Jesus is sent by God, Joh. 8:42 and speaks nothing but what He has seen and heard, Joh. 3:32. He speaks the words of God,

Joh. 3:34, 17:8 and bears witness only to the truth, 5:33, 18:37. Therefore his testimony is true, Joh. 8:14, 14:6, confirmed by the testimony of God himself, 5:32, 37, 8:18. Not only is Jesus in an ethical sense holy and without sin, Joh. 8:46, but He is also intellectually without error, lie, or deceit. It is perfectly true that Jesus in a narrower sense did not move in the field of science. He came to earth to declare the Father to us and to accomplish his work. But [334] the inspiration of Scripture, about which Jesus speaks, is not a scientific problem but a religious truth. If He has erred in this, He has been mistaken on a point that is most closely connected with the religious life, and He can also in religion and theology no longer be acknowledged as our highest prophet. The doctrine of the divine authority of Holy Scripture forms an important constituent in the words of God which Jesus proclaimed. This infallibility was with Jesus, however, no extraordinary, supernatural gift; no donum gratiae and no actus transiens;

but habitus, nature. If Jesus had written something, He would thereby have had no need of any special assistance of the H. G. He did not need inspiration as an extraordinary gift, because He received the Spirit not by measure, Joh. 3:34, was the Logos, Joh. 1:1 and the fullness of God dwelt bodily in Him, Col. 1:19, 2:9. b) Jesus, however, has left us nothing in writing, and He himself has departed. Thus He had to take care that his true testimony was handed over to humanity unadulterated and pure. To that end

He chooses the apostles. The apostleship is an extraordinary office and a wholly special service in Jesus' church. The apostles are specifically given to Him by the Father, Joh. 17:6, chosen by Himself, Joh. 6:70, 13:18, 15:16,

19 and in all manner of ways prepared and qualified by Him for their future task. That task consisted in this, that they, soon after Jesus' departure, had to appear as witnesses, Luk. 24:48; Joh. 15:27. They had been earand eyewitnesses of Jesus' words and works; they had beheld the word of life with the eyes and touched it with the hands, 1 Joh. 1:1, and now had to bring this testimony concerning Jesus to Israel and to the whole world, Mt.

28:19; Joh. 15:27, 17:20; Hd. 1:8. But every man is false, God alone is true, Rom. 3:4. The apostles too were unfit for this task of witnessing. They were therefore not the actual witnesses. Jesus makes use of them only as instruments. The actual witness, who is faithful and true as He himself, is the H. Spirit. He is the Spirit of truth, and will bear witness of Jesus, Joh.

15:26, and the apostles can first appear as witnesses after and through Him, Joh. 15:27. That Spirit is therefore in a special sense promised and bestowed upon the apostles, [335] Mt. 10:20; Joh. 14:26, 15:26, 16:7,

20:22. Especially Joh. 14:26 teaches that clearly. The H. Spirit ὑπομνησει ὑμας παντα ἁ εἰπον ὑμιν. He will take the disciples with their persons and gifts, with their memory and judgment etc. into his service. He will add

materially nothing new to the revelation, which is not already contained in Christ's person, word and work, for He takes everything from Christ and in so far only brings the apostles to remembrance and in that way leads them into all the truth, Joh. 14:26, 16:13, 14. And this testimony of the H. Spirit through the mouth of the apostles is the glorification of Jesus, Joh. 16:14, just as Jesus' testimony was a glorification of the Father, 17:4. c) Equipped with that Spirit in a special sense, Joh. 20:22; Hd. 1:8; Ef. 3:5, the apostles after the day of Pentecost also openly appear as witnesses, Hd. 1:8, 21, 22,

2:14, 32, 3:15, 4:8, 20, 33, 5:32, 10:39, 51, 13:31. In bearing witness to what they have seen and heard lies the significance of the apostleship. To that they are called and qualified. From that they derive their authority. To that they appeal over against contestation and opposition. And God in turn affixes to their testimony his seal by signs and wonders, and spiritual blessing, Mt. 10:1, 9; Mk. 16:15 v.; Hd. 2:43, 3:2, 5:12-16, 6:8, 8:6 v.,

10:44, 11:21, 14:3, 15:8, etc. The apostles are from the outset, jure suo, the leaders of the Jerusalem church, they have oversight over the believers in Samaria, Hd. 8:14, visit the churches, Hd. 9:32, 11:22, take decisions in the H. Spirit, Hd. 15:22, 28, and enjoy a generally recognized authority. They speak and act by virtue of the authority of Christ. And although Jesus nowhere gave an express command also to record his words and deeds in writing —only in the Revelation is there repeatedly mention of a command to write, 1:11, 19, etc.— the apostles speak in their writing with the same authority; writing is a special form of witnessing. Also in writing, they are witnesses of Christ, Luk. 1:2; Joh. 1:14, 19:35, 20:31, 21:24; 1 Joh. 1:1-4; 1

Petr. 1:12, 5:1; 2 Petr. 1:16; Hebr. 2:3; Op. 1:3, 22:18, 19. Their testimony is faithful and true, Joh. 19:35; 3 Joh. 12. d) Among the apostles Paul again stands by himself. He sees himself called to defend his apostleship against

the Judaizers, Gal. 1-2; 1 Cor. 1:10-4:21; [336] 2 Cor. 10-13. Over against that contestation he maintains that he was set apart from his mother's womb, Gal. 1:14; was called to be an apostle by Jesus himself, Gal. 1:1; has personally seen Jesus himself, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8; was deemed worthy of revelations and visions, 2 Cor. 12; Hd. 26:16; has received his Gospel from Jesus himself, Gal. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:12; Ef. 3:2-8, and thus just as well as the other apostles is an independent and reliable witness, especially among the Gentiles, Hd. 26:16; his apostleship too has been confirmed with wonders and signs, 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; Rom. 12:4-8, 15:18, 19; 2 Cor. 11:23 v.; Gal.

3:5; Hebr. 2:4; and with spiritual blessing, 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 11:5, etc. He is therefore conscious that there is no other gospel than his, Gal. 1:7; that he is faithful, 1 Cor. 7:25; has the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 7:40; that Christ speaks through him, 2 Cor. 13:3; 1 Cor. 2:10, 16; 2 Cor. 2:17, 5:23; that he proclaims God's word, 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; even down to the expressions and words, 1 Cor. 2:4, 10-13; and not only when he speaks but also when he writes, 1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:14. Like the other apostles Paul appears more than once with apostolic authority, 1 Cor.

5; 2 Cor. 2:9, and gives binding commands, 1 Cor. 7:40; 1 Thess. 4:2, 11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14. And indeed he appeals a single time to the judgment of the church, 1 Cor. 10:15, but not in order to subject his pronouncement to its approval or disapproval, but on the contrary to be justified by the conscience and the judgment of the church, which after all also has the Spirit of God and the anointing of the Holy One, 1 Joh. 2:20. So little does

Paul thereby make himself dependent on the judgment of the church, that he says in 1 Cor. 14:37, that, if anyone thinks to be a prophet and to have the Spirit, this will then precisely come out in his acknowledgment that what

Paul writes are the Lord's commandments. e) These writings of the apostles

had from the outset authority in the churches where they were known. They were soon disseminated and thereby received ever more extensive authority,

Hd. 15:22 v.; Col. 4:16. The Synoptic Gospels show so great an affinity, that the one must have been known in whole or in part to the other. Jude is known to Peter, and 2 Petr. 3:16 already knows many letters of Paul and places them on one line with the other Scriptures. Gradually there came translations of N. T. writings for reading aloud in the church, Just. M. Apol.

1:67. In the first half of the second century these must already have existed, Papias in Euseb. H. E. 3:39. Just. M. Apol. 1:66, 67. A dogmatic use is already made of them by Athenagoras, de resurr. c. 16, who there proves his reasoning with 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 5:10. And Theophilus, ad Autol. 3:4 cites texts from Paul with the formula, διδασκει, κελευει ὁ θειος λογος.

Irenaeus adv. haer. 3, 11, Tert. ad Prax. 15 and others, the Peschitto and the fragment of Muratori place it beyond all doubt, that in the 2nd half of the 2nd century most writings of the N. T. had canonical authority and enjoyed an equal dignity with the books of the O. T. Concerning some books, Jak.,

Jud., 2 Petr., 2 and 3 Joh. there remained difference, Euseb. H. E. 3:25. But the objections against these antilegomena became ever fewer in the 3rd century. And the Synod of Laodicea in 360, of Hippo Regius in 393, and of Carthage in 397 could also include these antilegomena and close the canon.

These decisions of the church were no arbitrary and authoritarian act, but only codification and registration of the right, which with respect to these writings had long already existed in the churches. The canon is not formed by a decision of councils. Canon non uno quod dicunt actu ab hominibus, sed paulatim a Deo animorum temporumque rectore, productus est,

Loescher bij Herzog2 7, 424. In the important dispute of Harnack and Zahn over the history of the N. T. canon Harnack undoubtedly lays too one-sided

an emphasis on the concepts, Divinity, infallibility, inspiration, canon, on the formal establishment of the dogma of the N. T. Scripture. Long before this took place in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, the N. T. writings had through the authority of the apostles, the reading aloud in the church, etc. come to generally recognized authority. To this inner process Zahn very rightly draws attention. Cf. concerning this dispute Köppel, Stud. u. Krit.

1891, 1es Heft, and Barth, Neue Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1893, 1es Heft. f.) Which principles led the church, both under the Old and New Testament, in this recognition of the canonicity of the O. and N. T. writings, cannot be determined with certainty. Apostolic origin cannot have given the [338] decisive factor, for Mark, Luke and Hebr. are also included. Nor does the recognition of canonicity have its ground in the fact that no other writings concerning Christ existed, for Luk. 1:1 makes mention of many others, and according to Irenaeus adv. haer. 1:20 there was ἀμυθητον πληθος ἀποκρυφων και νοθων γραφων. The principle of canon formation also cannot lie in size and importance, for 2 and 3 Joh. are very small: nor in the acquaintance of the writers, Mark, Luke, with the apostles, for letters of Clement and Barnabas were not included; and also not in originality, for Matthew, Mark and Luke; Ephesus and Colossae; Jude and 2 Petr. are dependent the one on the other. Nothing else can be said of it than that the recognition of these writings took place of itself in all churches without any agreement. With a few exceptions, the O. and the N. T. writings were immediately, from their origin onward, in their entirety, without a word of doubt or protest accepted as holy, divine writings. The place and the time where authority was first ascribed to them cannot be indicated. The canonicity of the Bible books is rooted in their existence. They have authority of themselves, jure suo, because they are there. It is the Spirit of

the Lord, who led in the writing and who brought them to recognition in the church. Harnack, D. G. I 304 f. 318 f. Wildeboer, Het ontstaan v. d. Kanon des O. V. 107 v. Reuss, Gesch. des N. T. § 298 f. Herzog2 art. Kanon. W.

Lee, The Inspiration of holy Scripture, 3e ed. Dublin 1864 p. 43.

12. The result of this investigation into the doctrine of Scripture concerning itself can be summarized in this, that it maintains and presents itself as the word of God. The expression word of God or word of the Lord has in Scripture various meanings. Often it denotes thereby the power of God, by which He creates and sustains all things, Gen. 1:3; Ps. 33:6,

147:17, 18, 148:18; Rom. 4:17; Hebr. 1:3, 11:3. Next, the special revelation is so called, by which God makes something known to the prophets. In the O. T. the expression in this sense occurs on almost every page; time and again it is said there: the word of the Lord came to pass. In the N. T. we find it in this sense only, Joh. 10:35; the word [339] now no longer comes to pass and does not come a single time from above and from without to the prophets, it has come to pass in Christ and remains. Further, word of God means the content of revelation; then there is mention of word or words of God, alongside rights, laws, commandments, statutes, which have been given to Israel, Ex. 9:20, 21; Richt. 3:20; Ps. 33:4, 119:9, 16, 17 etc. Jes.

40:8; Rom. 3:2 etc. In the N. Test. the Gospel is so called, which has been revealed by God in Christ and was proclaimed by the apostles, Luk. 5:1;

Joh. 3:34, 5:24, 6:63, 17:8, 14, 17; Hd. 8:25, 13:7; 1 Thess. 2:13 etc. It is not improbable that the name word of God is then further used in Scripture a single time, in order thereby also to denote the written law, thus a portion of Scripture, Ps. 119:11, 105. Schultz, Grundriss der ev. Dogm. 4 f. In the N. T. such a passage cannot be indicated. Also in Hebr. 4:12 word of God is not the same as Scripture. But nevertheless the N. T. in fact sees in the

books of the O. V. nothing other than the word of God. God, or the H. Spirit is the auctor primarius, who spoke in Scripture through, δια c. gen., the prophets, Hd. 1:16, 28:25. Scripture is then so called both on account of its origin and on account of its content. The formal and material meaning of the expression is in Scripture most closely connected. And finally the name word of God is used for Christ himself. He is the Logos in an entirely unique sense, revelator and revelatio at the same time. All revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under O. and N. T. have in Him their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun, the other words of God are His rays. The word of God in nature, under Israel, in the N. Test., in Scripture may not for a moment be detached from Him and conceived apart from Him. There is revelation of God only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi, in a general sense of all science, in a special sense, as Λογος ἐνσαρκος, of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology, Mt. 11:27.

D. Concept of inspiration.

13. Holy Scripture nowhere offers us a clearly formulated dogma concerning inspiration, but it gives the matter, the fact of theopneusty and all the moments that are necessary for the construction of [340] the dogma.

It teaches the theopneusty of Scripture in the same sense and in the same way, just as clearly and just as distinctly, but also just as little formulated in abstract concepts, as the dogma of the Trinity, of the incarnation, of the satisfaction, etc. This has repeatedly been denied. Every sectarian and heretical tendency almost begins with an appeal to Scripture against the

confession, and tries to make its deviation appear as commanded by Scripture. But in most cases deeper investigation leads to the acknowledgment that orthodoxy has the testimony of Scripture on its side.

The moderns now in general readily concede that Jesus and the apostles accepted the O. T. Scripture as God's word, Lipsius, Dogm. § 185 S. 141,

Strauss I 79, Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, 2e Aufl. Leipz. 1890 S. 87 f.

Rothe, Zur Dogm. 178 f. also acknowledges this with respect to the apostles, but thinks that ecclesiastical dogmatics cannot appeal to Jesus for its doctrine of inspiration. This opinion, however, stands fairly much by itself and is shared by few. Jesus' positive statements about the O. T.

Scripture, Mt. 5:8; Luk. 16:17; Joh. 10:35, his citation and use, Mt. 19:4, 5, 22:43 etc. speak too strongly to that end, and are in no way freer than those of the apostles. But this contrast, which Rothe makes between the teaching of Jesus and that of the apostles, does not elevate but in fact undermines the authority of Jesus himself. For of Jesus we know nothing except through the apostles; whoever therefore discredits the apostles and presents them as unreliable witnesses of the truth, immediately contradicts Jesus himself, who has appointed his apostles as completely reliable witnesses and by his

Spirit would lead them into all the truth. And to that certainly also belongs the truth concerning Holy Scripture. The slogan: back to Christ is deceptive and false, if it stands in contrast with the testimony of the apostles.

Very common is also another antithesis, which is made in order to be freed from the self-testimony of Scripture. Scripture, so one then says, may here and there teach inspiration; but in order to build up the doctrine of Scripture concerning Scripture, the facts must also be taken into account, which Scripture in its origin, formation, history, composition and content makes known to us. Only such a theory of inspiration is therefore true and

good, which is compatible with the phenomena of Scripture [341] and is derived from these themselves. Very often one then makes it appear in this connection that the opposing party imposes its own, a priori opinion upon Scripture, and presses it into the straitjacket of scholasticism. And one appeals to the fact that, over against all those theories and systems, one precisely wants to let Scripture itself speak and wants to let it testify only of itself. Orthodoxy is precisely lacking in reverence for Scripture. It does violence to the text, the facts of Holy Scripture, Dr. G. Wildeboer, Letterk. des O. V. bl. V. This representation sounds fine and plausible at first hearing, but upon closer consideration nevertheless proves untenable. The antithesis is in the first place not that between some or other theory of inspiration and the self-testimony of Scripture. Inspiration is a fact, taught by Holy Scripture itself. Jesus and the apostles have given a testimony concerning Scripture. Scripture contains a doctrine also about itself. Apart from all dogmatic or scholastic development of this doctrine, the question is simply this, whether Scripture in this its self-testimony deserves faith, or not. There can be difference over the question whether Scripture teaches such a theopneusty of itself; but if yes, then it ought also to be believed in that, just as well as in its statements about God, Christ, salvation, etc. The so-called phenomena of Scripture cannot overthrow that self-testimony of Scripture and may not even be summoned against it as a party. For whoever makes his doctrine of Scripture dependent on the historical investigation into its formation and structure, already begins by rejecting the selftestimony of Holy Scripture and thus no longer stands in faith in that Scripture. He thinks to be able to build up the doctrine of Scripture better from his own investigation than to derive it in faith from Scripture; he sets his own thoughts in place of and above those of Scripture. Furthermore, the

self-testimony of Scripture is clear, plain and even by the opponents acknowledged as such, but the consideration of the phenomena of Scripture is the result of prolonged historical-critical investigation and changes itself in all kinds of forms according to the different standpoint of the critics; the theologian who wants to come from such investigations to a doctrine about Scripture in fact sets his scientific insight over against the doctrine of Scripture concerning itself. But along that road one also never comes to a doctrine about Scripture; [342] historical-critical investigation can give a clear insight into the origin, the history, the structure of Scripture but never leads to a doctrine, to a dogma de S. Scriptura. This can of course only be built on a testimony of Scripture concerning itself. No one thinks of calling a history about the origin and the constituent parts of the Iliad a doctrine.

With this method, therefore, not only some or other theory about inspiration falls, but this itself as fact and testimony of Scripture. Inspiration, if one still retains that word, then becomes nothing but the short summary of what the Bible is, or rather of what one thinks that the Bible is, and can then be in direct conflict with what the Bible itself claims to be, and for which it gives and presents itself. The method that one follows is in essence no other than that whereby the doctrine of creation, of man, of sin, etc. is not built up from the testimony of Scripture concerning it, but from the independent study of those facta. In both cases it is a correcting of the doctrine of the Bible by one's own scientific investigation, a making dependent of the testimony of Scripture on human judgment. The facts and phenomena of Scripture, the results of scientific investigation may serve for explanation, elucidation, etc. of the doctrine of Scripture concerning itself, but can never nullify the fact of inspiration, of which it testifies. While on the one hand it is thus asserted that only such an inspiration is acceptable as agrees with the

phenomena of Scripture, it is on the other hand the principle that the phenomena of Scripture, not as criticism sees them, but as they are in themselves, are compatible with its self-testimony.

14. Usually what Scripture teaches concerning itself is summarized in the word theopneusty or inspiration. The word θεοπνευστος 2 Tim. 3:16 does not occur earlier and is therefore perhaps first used by Paul. Etymologically it can have both an active and a passive meaning, and thus be translated both as: breathing God, and as: breathed by God. But the passive meaning has the preference, because it is most supported by the passages where the word occurs outside the N. T. and is recommended by the doctrine of Scripture of the N. T., 2 Petr. 1:21. In the Vulgate it is rendered by [343] divinitus inspirata. The word inspiration originally has a much broader sense. The Greeks and Romans ascribed to all who brought something great and good to completion an afflatus or instinctus divinus. Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit, Cic. de Nat. D. 2, 66. Est deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo, Ovid. Fasti 6, 5. The inspiration of poets, artists, vates, etc. can also indeed serve to elucidate the inspiration of which the H. S. speaks. Almost all great men have expressed that their most beautiful thoughts suddenly and unconsciously rose up in their soul and were for themselves a surprise. One testimony may suffice. Goethe once wrote to Ekkermann, cited by Hoekstra, Godg. Bijdr. 1864, bl. 27, 28. Jede

Produktivität höchster Art, jedes bedeutendes Aperçue, jede Erfindung, jeder grosse Gedanke der Früchte 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 Fällen ist der Mensch als das Werkzeug einer höhern

Weltregierung zu betrachten, als ein würdig befundenes Gefäss zur Aufnahme eines göttlichen Einflusses. Carlyle, On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history, 4th ed. London 1854, has therefore pointed to the heroes or geniuses as the core of the history of humanity. In their turn these geniuses, in every domain, again inspired the mass. Luther, Baco,

Napoleon, Hegel have transformed the thoughts of millions and changed consciousness. This fact already teaches us that an influence of the one spirit upon the other is possible. The manner thereof is different, whether the one man speaks to the other, whether the orator animates the crowd by his word, whether the hypnotist transplants his thought into the magnetized person, etc., but always there is suggestion of thoughts, inspiration in a broader sense. Now Scripture teaches us that the world is not independent and does not exist and live out of itself, but that the Spirit of God is immanent in all that is created. The immanence of God is the basis for all inspiration and theopneusty, Ps. 104:30, 139:7; Job 33:4. Being and life are inspired into every creature from moment to moment by the Spirit. Still more specifically, that Spirit of the Lord is the principle [344] of all understanding and wisdom, Job 32:8; Jes. 11:2, so that all knowledge and art, all talent and genius proceeds from Him. In the congregation He is the Spirit of regeneration and renewal, Ps. 51:13; Ezech. 36:26, 27; Joh. 3:3; the distributor of the gifts, 1 Cor. 12:4-6. In the prophets He is the Spirit of prediction, Num. 11:25, 24:2, 3; Jes. 11:2. 42:1; Micha 3:8, etc. And so also, in the composition of Scripture, He is the Spirit of inspiration. This latter activity of the H. G. therefore does not stand by itself; it stands in connection with his entire immanent activity in the world and in the congregation. It is the crown and the apex of everything. The inspiration of the writers in the production of the Bible books is built upon all those other

activities of the H. Spirit. It presupposes a work of the Father, by which the organs of revelation long beforehand from birth onward, yes even before birth in their lineage, environment, upbringing, development, etc. were prepared for that task to which they would later be specially called, Ex. 3-4;

Jer. 1:5; Hd. 7:22; Gal. 1:15, etc. Inspiration therefore may not, as the moderns do, be identified with heroic, poetic, religious animation; it is not a work of the providentia Dei generalis, not an influence of God's Spirit in equal measure and in the same manner as in the heroes and artists, even though it is also the case that this influence of God's Spirit is more than once presupposed in the prophets and Bible writers. The Spirit in creation prepares the Spirit in re-creation. Further, in proper inspiration there is also presupposed a preceding work of the Son. The gift of theopneusty is bestowed only within the circle of revelation. Theophany, prophecy and miracle precede proper inspiration. Revelation and inspiration are distinct; the former is a work of the Son, of the Logos, the latter of the H. Spirit.

There is therefore truth in the thought of Schleiermacher, that the holy writers stood 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 bl. 300). It is rooted in it, but it rises above it. Finally, inspiration presupposes usually, although not always, also a work of the H. Spirit himself in regeneration, faith and conversion. The prophets and apostles were mostly holy men, [345] children of God. This thought of ethical theology also therefore contains elements of truth. But nevertheless inspiration is not identical with regeneration. Regeneration encompasses the whole man, inspiration is an operation in consciousness.

The former sanctifies and renews, the latter illumines and instructs. The former does not of itself bring inspiration with it, and inspiration is possible

without regeneration, Num. 23:5; Joh. 11:51; cf. Num. 22:28; 1 Sam. 19:24; Hebr. 6:4. Regeneration is a habitus permanens, inspiration is an actus transiens. With all these mentioned activities of God, therefore, inspiration stands in the closest connection. It may not be isolated from them. It is taken up into all those influences of God in all that is created. But here too the evolution-theory must be combated, as though the higher would arise only by immanent development out of the lower. The operation of God's

Spirit in nature, in humanity, in the congregation, in the prophets, in the Bible writers is related and analogous, but not identical. There is harmony, no sameness.

15. In what, then, does it itself consist? Scripture sheds light on this, when it repeatedly says that the Lord speaks through the prophets or through the mouth of his prophets. With respect to God the preposition ὑπο is used; He is the one speaking, He is the proper subject; but the prophets are his speaking or writing organs, with respect to them the preposition δια c. gen. is always used and never ὑπο, Mt. 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 3:3, 4:14, etc.; Luk.

1:70; Hd. 1:16, 3:18, 4:25, 28:25. God, or the H. Spirit is the proper speaker, the spokesman, the auctor primarius, and the writers are the organs through whom God speaks, the auctores secundarii, the scriptores or scribae. Further clarification is also given by 2 Petr. 1:19-21, where the origin of prophecy is not sought in the will of man, but in the driving of God's Spirit. The φερεσθαι, cf. Hd. 27:15, 17 where the ship is driven by the wind, is essentially distinguished from the ἀγεσθαι of the children of God, Rom. 8:14; the prophets are borne, driven by the H. Spirit and consequently spoke. And likewise the proclamation of the apostles is called a speaking (ἐν) πνευματι ἁγιῳ, Mt. 10:20; Joh. 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 thus

θεοφορουμενοι; it is God, [346] who speaks in and through them. But Scripture itself leads us to conceive this speaking of God through the mouth of the prophets as organically as possible. There is here a distinction between the prophets and the apostles, and again among both mutually.

Moses stands at the top among the prophets; God spoke with him as a friend with his friend. With Isaiah the driving of the Spirit bears a different character than with Ezekiel; Jeremiah's prophecies distinguish themselves by their simplicity and naturalness from those with Zechariah and Daniel.

With all the prophets of the O. T. the driving of the Spirit is more or less transcendent; it comes from above and from outside to them, falls upon them and works momentarily. With the apostles, on the other hand, the H.

Spirit dwells immanently in the hearts, leads and drives, illumines and instructs them. There is thus very great difference also in the organic character of inspiration. But nevertheless all of Scripture commands us to think inspiration not mechanically but organically. Not, however, because a mechanical inspiration would in itself be impossible and impermissible and in conflict with the dignity of man. If it is not unworthy for a child to believe his parents and teachers on authority and simply to learn from them what it does not know; if it is not unworthy for a servant to receive commands from his lord, which he does not understand and only has to carry out, what unworthy thing would there then lie in it for man, to stand in such a relation to the Lord his God? But God has not taken this way; He has descended to man in revelation and inspiration and has joined himself to the peculiarities and even to the weaknesses of his human nature. That too has been a grace of the ἐνσαρκωσις. Just as the Logos did not overwhelm a man and unite himself with him but entered into the human nature and prepared and formed this itself through the Spirit, by whom it was

conceived, so the Spirit of the Lord has also acted in inspiration. He has entered into the prophets and apostles themselves and has thus taken them into service and brought it about that they themselves investigated and thought, spoke and wrote. He is the one who speaks through them; but they themselves are at the same time the ones who speak and write. They were driven by the Spirit, but they nevertheless spoke themselves, ἐλαλησαν, 2

Petr. 1:20. Often the O. T. Scripture is cited in the N. T. with the auctor primarius, Luk. 1:70; Hd. 1:16, [347] 3:18, 4:25, 28:25 and always in Hebr.

1:5 f., 4:3, 5 etc., but just as often with the auctores secundarii, Moses, David, Isaiah etc., Mt. 13:14, 22:43; Joh. 1:23, 46, 5:46, 12:38. The moments of inspiration are not each to be considered separately on their own, but stand in connection with all that precedes: the prophets and apostles are from youth on prepared and made capable for their task; their character, nature, inclination, intellect, development etc. is not suppressed, but, as itself already formed by the Spirit of the Lord, is now also taken into service and used by that same Spirit; their whole person with all gifts and powers is made serviceable to the calling to which they are called.

Investigation, Luk. 1:1, reflection and remembrance, Joh. 14:26, use of sources etc., is therefore not excluded by inspiration, but is included in it.

Almost all books of O. and N. T. are therefore in a certain sense also occasional writings. Of a direct command to write there is mention only in a few texts; they by no means cover the whole content of Scripture. But those occasions too, which pressed toward writing, belong to the leading of the Spirit; precisely through these He drove on to writing. The calling to prophet and apostle did indeed of itself and naturally include that to speak and to testify, Ex. 3; Ez. 3; Am. 3:8; Hd. 1:8 etc., but not that of writing. For many prophets and apostles did not write. From Mt. 28:19 a special

command to write is not to be derived. Among the charismata, 1 Cor. 12, writing is not mentioned, Bellarm., de verbo Dei IV cap. 3-4. But the H.

Spirit has so guided the history of the church under Israel and in the N. T., that the deed had to pass over into the word and the word into the writing.

From this guidance, with prophets and apostles the calling to write, the impulsus ad scribendum, was born. And that writing is the highest, the mightiest, the most general testimony, which does not vanish on the breath of the wind but manet in aeternum. And precisely because the writings of the prophets and apostles did not arise outside but out of and in history, therefore there is a science in theology which investigates and makes known all those occasions and circumstances under which the Bible books arose. When then the prophets and apostles thus bear witness in writing, 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 is not to be explained from this, that the H. Spirit according to mere arbitrariness now once and then thus wanted to write; but entering into the writers, He also entered into their style and language, into their character and peculiarity, which He himself had already prepared and formed. To that also belongs that He in the O. T. chooses

Hebrew, in the N. T. Hellenistic Greek, as vehicle of the divine thoughts. In this too there was no arbitrariness. Purism defended in an awkward manner a precious truth. Measured by the Greek of Plato and Demosthenes, the N.

T. is full of barbarisms and solecisms; but the marriage, which in Hellenistic Greek was concluded between pure Hebrew and pure Attic, between the Eastern and Western spirit, was in the domain of language the realization of the divine thought, that salvation is from the Jews, but is destined for all humanity. The language of the N. T. is not the most beautiful,

grammatically and linguistically considered, but it is indeed the most suitable for communication of the thoughts of God. The word has also in this respect become truly and universally human. And finally, when the prophets and apostles wrote, then their own experience and history more than once supplied the material for their writing. In the psalms it is the pious singer, who alternately laments and rejoices, sits downcast in sorrow or exults with joy. In Rom. 7 Paul depicts for us his own life-experience, and through the whole of Scripture it is time and again the persons of the writers themselves, whose life and experience, whose hope and fear, whose faith and trust, whose complaint and misery is described and portrayed.

That rich life, that deep experience, of a David e.g. has by the Spirit of the Lord been so formed and guided, that it, taken up into Scripture, would be for instruction to the following generations, in order that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures might have hope, Rom. 15:4.

Organic inspiration alone does justice to Scripture. It is in the doctrine of Scripture the effect and application of the central fact of revelation, the incarnation of the word. The Λογος has become σαρξ, and the word has become Scripture; they are two facts which run parallel not only, but are also most intimately connected. Christ has become flesh, a servant, without form or glory, the most despised among men; He has [349] descended into the lowest parts of the earth, has become obedient unto the death of the cross. And so also the word, the revelation of God, has entered into the creaturely, into the life and history of men and peoples, into all human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, even to the humanly weak and despised and ignoble; the word has become writing, and as writing has subjected itself to the lot of all writing. All this has happened, in order that the excellency of the power, also of the power of Scripture,

may be God's and not from us. Just as every human thought and action is fruit wholly of the action of God in whom we live and are, and at the same time wholly fruit of the activity of man, so also Scripture is product wholly and entirely of the Spirit of God, who speaks through the prophets and apostles, and at the same time wholly product of the activity of the writers.

16. This organic view has, however, repeatedly been used in order precisely to detract from the first point, from the authorship of the Holy

Spirit. The incarnation of Christ demands that one trace it out into the depth of its humiliation, in all its weakness and disgrace. The description of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognize also in Scripture that weak and humble element, that form of a servant. But just as the human in Christ, however weak and humble, nevertheless remained free from the sinful, so also is Scripture sine labe concepta. Human wholly and in all its parts, but also likewise θεια παντα. Yet in many ways this divine character of Scripture has been done short. The history of inspiration teaches us that this was first, up to into the 17th century, extended further and further, down to the vowels and points (inspiratio punctualis), and subsequently that it has gradually more and more been contracted and limited, from the points to the words (insp. verbalis), from the singula verba to the word, the thought

(Wort instead of Wörterinspiration with Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. I3, 252), from the word as thought to the things (insp. realis), from the things to the religious-ethical content, to that which in the proper sense has been revealed, to the word of God sensu stricto, to the special object of saving faith (insp. fundamentalis, religiosa), from [350] these things again to the persons (insp. personalis), and from these finally to denial of all inspiration as a supernatural gift. Now it is gratifying that even the most negative

direction still wants to assure Scripture a place and ascribe to it some value in the religious life and thinking of Christendom. The doctrine of Holy

Scripture is not an opinion of this or that school, no dogma of a particular church or sect, but an articulus fundamentalis, an article of faith of the one holy catholic Christian church. Its significance for the whole of Christianity is being seen better and better; its unbreakable connection with Christian faith and life is being recognized ever better. For a time in dogmatics referred to the media gratiae, it has regained with honor its place in the introduction to dogmatics, Nitzsch, Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. 212. The whole

Roman and Greek church still stands unweakened in the confession of the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. Many Protestant churches and directions have up to now withstood all violence to dislodge it from this foundation. The congregation continues, through preaching and instruction, through reading and investigation, to live mediately or directly from Scripture and to nourish itself with Scripture. Even he who in theory denies inspiration speaks and acts in the practice of life many times as if he fully accepts it. The dualism of believing and knowing, in which according to many a conception orthodoxy finds itself with the doctrine of Scripture, does not come into comparison with the twofold position of the Vermittelungstheologie, which in the lecture hall denies inspiration and in the pulpit in fact confesses it. Radicalism comes more and more to the recognition that the inspiration of Scripture is taught by Scripture itself and must be accepted or rejected with it. All this shows that life is stronger than doctrine and that Scripture itself always reacts again against every naturalistic explanation. It itself claims to have proceeded from the Spirit of God and maintains this claim over against all criticism. Every attempt to strip it of the mysterious character of its origin, content, and power has thus

far ended with giving it up and leaving Scripture to be Scripture. An inspiration is therefore no explanation of Scripture, and thus properly also no theory; but it is and ought to be a believing confession of what Scripture testifies concerning itself [351] in spite of the appearance that is against it.

Inspiration is a dogma like the Trinity, the incarnation, etc., which the Christian accepts, not because he sees its truth, but because God testifies it thus. It is no scientific pronouncement but a confession of faith. With inspiration as with every other dogma, it is not in the first place the question: how much can and may I confess without coming into conflict with science, but what is the testimony of God and what is accordingly the pronouncement of the Christian faith? And then only one answer is possible, that Scripture presents itself as the word of God and the church of God in all ages has recognized it as such. Inspiration rests on the authority of Scripture and has obtained testimony from the church of all ages.

With this dogmatic and religious character of the doctrine of inspiration, the inspiratio personalis and fundamentalis is in conflict. Yet there is also in these conceptions a good thought. For it has certainly been the persons who, with all their gifts and powers, were taken into service in the inspiration by the H. Spirit; and those persons were holy men, men of God, suitably equipped for this work. Also, in Scripture there is without doubt a distinction between more and less important parts; not all books of the Bible have equal value. But both representations of inspiration weaken the testimony which Scripture gives of itself, and are not born from the plerophoria of faith but from transaction with science. Moreover, the inspiratio personalis still runs up against these objections, that it effaces the distinction between inspiration and illumination (regeneration), between the intellectual and the ethical life, between the φερεσθαι of the prophets, 2

Petr. 1:21 and the ἀγεσθαι of the children of God, Rom. 8:14, between the H. Scripture and edifying reading. Further, with Rome it reverses the relation of Scripture and church into its opposite, deprives the congregation of the firmness which it needs and makes it dependent on science, which must decide what in Scripture is or is not the word of God. Indeed many advocates of this theory of inspiration try to escape these objections by appealing to the person of Christ as source and authority of dogmatics, but this does not help for that reason, since there is precisely difference over the question who [352] Christ is and what He has taught and done. If the apostolic testimony concerning Christ is not reliable, no knowledge of Christ is possible. Added to that is that, if Christ is authority, He is that also in the doctrine concerning Scripture; the inspiration must then precisely be accepted on his authority. The above-mentioned theory comes into conflict with the authority of Christ himself. The inspiratio fundamentalis differs from the inspiratio personalis in that it still assumes a special activity of the Spirit in the writing, but only with some parts of Scripture. This representation, however, is so deistic and dualistic that it is already for that reason unacceptable. Besides, word and fact, the religious and the historical, what is spoken by God and by men in Scripture are so interwoven and interlaced that separation is impossible. The history in Scripture too is a revelation of God. And finally these two theories nevertheless do not meet the objections which are raised from the side of science against Scripture and its inspiration. For these by no means concern only some subordinate points in the periphery of revelation, but touch its heart and center itself. The inspiratio personalis and fundamentalis is by no means more scientific and more rational than the strictest inspiratio verbalis.

The other theories of inspiration, inspiratio punctualis, verbalis, realis and also the word-inspiration of Philippi, differ little among themselves. The activity of the H. Spirit in the writing has nevertheless consisted in this, that He, after having prepared the human consciousness of the scriptores in all manner of ways, through birth, upbringing, natural gifts, investigation, remembrance, reflection, life-experience, revelation, etc., now in and under and with the writing itself caused to arise in that consciousness those thoughts and words, that language and style, which could interpret the divine thought in the best way for men of every rank and station and people and century. In the thoughts the words and in the words the vowels are included. But from that it does not follow that the vowel-signs in our Hebr. manuscripts would have originated from the writers themselves. From that it also does not follow that everything is full of divine wisdom, that every iota and every tittle has an infinite content. Everything has its sense and its meaning very certainly, but there in that place and in the context in which it

[353] occurs. Not atomistically may Scripture be regarded, as if each word and each letter separately in itself and isolated, as such, would have been inspired by God, with an own intention, with an own and thus divine, infinite content. That leads to the foolish hermeneutical rules of the Jewish scribes and does not honor but dishonors the H. Scripture. But organically must the inspiration be conceived, so that also the least has its place and meaning and at the same time nevertheless lies at a much further distance from the center than other parts. In the human organism nothing is accidental, neither the length, nor the breadth, nor the color, nor the tint; but for that reason not everything stands in the same close connection with the life-center. Head and heart take a much more important place in the body than hand and foot, and these again stand in value far above nails and hairs.

Also in Scripture not everything lies equally closely gathered around the center; there is a periphery, which moves widely around the midpoint, but it too belongs to the circle of the thoughts of God. Kinds and degrees in the inspiration itself therefore are not there. The hair of the head partakes of the same life as heart and hand. It is one anima, which tota est in toto corpore et in omnibus partibus. It is one Spirit, from which the whole of Scripture has proceeded through the consciousness of the writers. But indeed there is difference in the manner in which the same life is immanent and active in the different parts of the body. There is diversity of gifts, also in Scripture, but it is the same Spirit.

E. Objections against inspiration.

17. Against this inspiration of Scripture many and very serious objections are raised. They are derived from historical criticism, which contests the authenticity and credibility of many books of the Bible; from the internal contradictions, which occur repeatedly in Scripture; from the manner in which the Old Test. is cited and explained in the New; from profane history, with which the narratives of Scripture are often not to be reconciled; from nature, which both in its origin and in its existence contradicts Scripture with its creation and its miracles; from religion and morality, which often pass a [354] disapproving judgment on the faith and life of the persons of the Bible; from the present form of Scripture, which, as textual criticism shows, has been lost in its autographa, is corrupt in its apographa and defective in its translations, etc. It is a vain attempt to explain away these objections and to act as if they do not exist. But yet in the first place

attention must be drawn to the ethical significance of the struggle which in all centuries has been waged against Scripture. If Scripture is the word of God, that struggle is not accidental but necessary and also perfectly explicable. Because it is the description of the revelation of God in Christ, it must call forth the same resistance as Christ himself. He has come into the world for a κρισις and has been set for a fall and a rising again for many. He brings separation between light and darkness and makes the thoughts out of many a heart manifest. And likewise Scripture is a living and powerful word, a judge of the thoughts and the deliberations of the heart. It was not only inspired, it is still theopneust. Just as much precedes the act of inspiration, the whole activity of the H. Spirit in nature, history, revelation, regeneration, so also much follows. Inspiration does not stand by itself. The H. Spirit does not withdraw, after the act of inspiration, from Holy Scripture and does not abandon it to its fate, but He bears and animates it, and brings its content in all manner of form to humanity, to its heart and conscience.

Through Scripture as the word of God the H. Spirit binds a continual struggle against the thoughts and deliberations of the ψυχικος ἀνθρωπος. In itself, therefore, it need not cause the least astonishment that Scripture at all times has encountered contradiction and opposition. Christ has borne a cross, and a servant is not greater than his lord. Scripture is the handmaid of Christ. It shares in his reproach. It calls forth the enmity of sinful man.

From that, now, not all opposition to Scripture is indeed to be explained.

But still the attacks to which Scripture in this century is exposed are not to be regarded in themselves. They undoubtedly hang together with the entire direction of mind of this century. Concerning persons and intentions, judgment does not belong to us; but it would be superficial to assert that the struggle against Scripture in this century stood wholly on its own, was

governed by wholly [355] other and much purer motives than in earlier centuries, that now only the head would speak along and the heart would remain entirely outside of it. Every believer has the experience that he, in the best moments of his life, also stands the strongest in faith in Scripture; his trust in Scripture increases with his faith in Christ, and conversely ignoratio Scripturarum is of itself and in that same measure also an ignoratio Christi (Hieronymus). The connection of sin and error often lies deep beneath the surface of conscious life. In another it is almost never to be pointed out, but sometimes it is discovered to one's own eye of the soul.

The struggle against Scripture is in the first place a revelation of the enmity of the human heart. But that enmity can express itself in different ways. It by no means comes out only and perhaps not even the strongest in the criticism to which Scripture in our time is subjected. Scripture as the word of God meets resistance and unbelief with every psychical man. In the days of dead orthodoxy, in principle unbelief in Scripture was just as powerful as in our historical and critical century. The forms change, but the essence remains one. Whether the enmity against Scripture expresses itself in a criticism like that of Celsus and Porphyrius, or whether it reveals itself in a dead faith, the enmity is in principle the same. For not the hearers, but the doers of the word are pronounced blessed. The servant who has known the will of his lord and has not made himself ready nor done according to his will, he shall be beaten with many stripes.

Therefore it remains a duty for every human being, first of all, to lay aside this enmity against the word of God and to lead all thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. Scripture itself everywhere comes forward with this demand. Only the pure in heart shall see God. Regeneration causes the kingdom of God to be beheld. Self-denial is the condition for being Jesus'

disciple. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. Scripture assumes, over against every human being, so lofty a position that, instead of submitting to his criticism, it rather judges him in all his thoughts and desires. And this has been the standpoint of the Christian church over against Scripture at all times. Humility was according to Chrysostom the foundation [356] of philosophy. Augustine said: quemadmodum rhetor ille rogatus, quid primum esset in eloquentiae praeceptis, respondit: pronuntiationem; quid secundum, pronuntiationem; quid tertium, pronuntiationem; ita si me interroges de religionis Christianae, primo, secundo et tertio semper respondere liberet: humilitatem. Calvin, Inst. II 2,

11, cites this with approval. And Pascal, Pensées, Art. 8, cries it out to man: humiliez-vous, raison impuissante, taisez-vous, nature imbécile..... écoutez

Dieu! Thus the church has stood over against Scripture in all ages. And the Christian dogmatician may assume no other position. For a dogma does not rest on the results of any historical-critical investigation, but rests only on the testimony of God, on the self-testimony of Holy Scripture. A Christian does not believe because everything reveals God's love, but in spite of everything that awakens doubt. Also in Scripture much remains that awakens doubt. All believers know how to speak of that from experience.

The men of Scripture criticism often represent it as though the simple congregation knew nothing of the objections that are brought against Scripture and felt nothing of the difficulty of continuing to believe in Scripture. But that is an impure representation. Certainly, simple Christians do not know the obstacles which scholarship places in the way of faith in Scripture. But they nevertheless know, in greater or lesser measure, the struggle that is waged in both head and heart against Scripture. There is not a single believer who has not in his own way learned to know the antithesis

between the σοφια του κοσμου and the μωρια του θεου. It is one and the same and it is an always continuing struggle, which must be fought by all

Christians, learned or unlearned, to keep the thoughts captive under the obedience of Christ. No one overcomes that struggle here on earth. Over the whole inheritance of faith there remain cruces that must be overcome. There is no faith without struggle. Believing is struggling, struggling against the appearance of things. As long as someone still believes something, his faith is contested from all sides. The modern believer is not delivered from that either. Concessions only weaken but do not set free. Thus there remain still objections enough, also for him who submits childlike to Scripture. These need not be glossed over. There are cruces in Scripture that are not to be explained away [357] and that probably also will never be resolved. But these difficulties, which Holy Scripture itself offers us over against its inspiration, have for a great part not been newly discovered in this century; they have been noticed at all times, and nevertheless Jesus and the apostles,

Athanasius and Augustine, Thomas and Bonaventura, Luther and Calvin, have all Christians of all churches and through all centuries confessed and acknowledged Scripture as the word of God. Whoever wants to wait with faith in Scripture until all objections have been removed out of the way and all contradictions have been reconciled, never comes to faith. What someone sees, why would he also hope for it? Jesus pronounces blessed those who have not seen and yet will have believed. But moreover, objections and difficulties exist in every science. Whoever does not want to begin with believing, never comes to knowing. The Erkenntnisstheorie is the principle of philosophy; but it is mystery from the beginning to the end.

Whoever does not want to proceed to scientific investigation before he sees the path paved along which we come to knowledge, never begins with it.

Whoever does not want to eat before he understands the whole process by which the food comes to him, dies of hunger; and whoever does not want to believe the word of God before he sees all difficulties solved, perishes of spiritual lack. With understanding it will not do, seize the uncomprehended

(Beets). Nature, history, and every science offers as many cruces as Holy Scripture. Nature contains so many riddles that it can often make us doubt the existence of a wise and righteous God. There are ἐναντιοφανη in abundance on every page of the book of nature. There is an inexplicable remainder (Schelling), which mocks all explanation. Who therefore gives up faith in the Providence of God, which extends over all things?

Mohammedanism, the life and the destiny of life of the uncivilized peoples is a crux in the history of humanity, just as great and just as difficult as the composition of the Pentateuch and the Synoptici. Who therefore doubts that God also writes that book of nature and of history with his almighty hand?

Naturally one can here and thus also with Scripture throw oneself into the arms of agnosticism and of pessimism. But despair is a salto mortale also in the scientific domain. With unbelief the mysteries of being do not decrease but increase. And the discontent of the heart becomes greater.

18. But furthermore the organic conception of inspiration provides many means to meet the objections raised against it. For it implies that the Holy

Spirit, in the writing of the word of God, has disdained nothing human in order to serve as an organ of the divine. The revelation of God is not abstractly supranatural, but has entered into the human, into persons and circumstances, into forms and customs, into history and life. It does not remain hovering high above us, but has descended into our condition; it is flesh and blood and has become like us in all things except sin. It now constitutes an ineradicable component of this cosmos in which we live, and

continues its renewing and restoring operation therein. The human has become the organ of the divine, the natural the revelation of the supernatural, the visible sign and seal of the invisible. In inspiration use has been made of all gifts and powers that lie in human nature. Thereby, in the first place, the difference in language and style, in character and individuality, that is to be noticed in the books of the Bible is completely explicable. Formerly this difference was explained from the will of the Holy

Spirit, and a deeper consideration was lacking. But with organic inspiration this difference is completely natural. Also the use of sources, the writers' familiarity with earlier writings, personal investigation, memory, reflection, and life experience is not excluded by the organic conception but included.

The Holy Spirit himself has in that way prepared his scriptores; he did not descend upon them all at once from above, but made use of their whole personality as his instrument. Here too the word applies, that gratia non tollit sed perficit naturam. The personality of the writers has not been erased but maintained and sanctified. Inspiration therefore in no way requires that we, literarily or aesthetically, equate the style of Amos with that of Isaiah, or that we would deny all barbarisms and solecisms in the language of the N. T. In the second place, the organic conception of revelation and inspiration brings with it that ordinary human and natural life is not [359] excluded but has also been made serviceable to the thoughts of God.

Scripture is the word of God; it not only contains it but it is it. But the formal and material element may not be separated from one another in this expression. Inspiration alone and by itself would not yet make a writing the word of God in the scriptural sense. Even if a book on geography, for example, were wholly and entirely inspired and in the most literal sense dictated word for word, thereby it would still not be theopneust in the sense

of 2 Tim. 3:16. Scripture is the word of God, because the Holy Spirit testifies in it of Christ, because it has the Λογος ἐνσαρκος as subject matter and content. Form and content penetrate one another, and are not to be separated. But in order to portray this image of Christ to us full-length as before our eyes, for that it is necessary that human sin and the satanic lie also be depicted in all their horror. In the painting the shadow is necessary, in order to make the light stand out more clearly. Sin must also in Bible saints be called sin, and error may also in them not be excused. And while the revelation of God in Christ thus takes unrighteousness up into itself as antithesis, it also does not disdain the human-weak and natural. Christ has considered nothing human foreign to himself, and Scripture also does not forget the smallest cares of daily life, 2 Tim. 4:13. The Christian does not stand antithetically over against the human; it is its restoration and renewal.

In the third place, with the content the intention and the destination of Scripture also most closely cohere. All that was written beforehand was written for our instruction. It serves for instruction, refutation, improvement, instruction that is in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be perfect, fully equipped for every good work. It serves to make us wise unto salvation. Holy Scripture has a thoroughly religious-ethical destination. It does not wish to be a handbook for the various sciences. It is principium only of theology and demands that we shall read and investigate it theologically. In all the disciplines that group themselves around

Scripture, it must be our concern to obtain the saving knowledge of God.

For that Scripture offers us all the data. In that sense it is completely sufficient and perfect. Whoever, however, wishes to derive from Scripture a history of Israel, a biography of Jesus, [360] a history of Israel's or of earlyChristian literature, etc., finds himself repeatedly disappointed. Then there

are gaps, which cannot be filled except by conjectures. Historical criticism has entirely forgotten this destination of Scripture. It attempts to deliver a history of Israel's people and religion and literature, and comes a priori with demands to Scripture, which it cannot satisfy. It runs up against contradictions that cannot be resolved, sifts sources and books endlessly, arranges and orders them quite differently, with the sole result that a hopeless confusion arises. From the four Gospels no life of Jesus is to be constructed and from the Old Testament no history of Israel. The Holy

Spirit has not intended that. Notarial recording has not been the inspiration.

The harmonistics of the evangelical narratives has failed, cf. Dieckhoff, Die Inspiration und Irrthumslosigkeit der H. Schrift, Leipzig 1891. Id. Noch einmal über die Insp. u. Irrth. der H. S. Rostock 1893. Herzog2 art.

Evangelienharmonien en Synopse. To exact knowledge, such as we demand in mathesis, astronomy, chemistry, etc., Scripture does not correspond. Such a standard may not be applied to it. Therefore the autographa have also been lost. Therefore the text, however slight the degree, is corrupt; therefore the congregation and truly the laypeople not only possess Scripture only in an imperfect and fallible translation. Those are facts that cannot be denied.

And they teach us that Scripture has its own standard, is of its own interpretation, and has its own destination. That destination is none other than that it would make us wise unto salvation. The Old Testament is not a source for a history of Israel's people and religion but indeed for a historia revelationis. The Gospels are not a source for a life of Jesus but indeed for a dogmatic knowledge of his person and work. Scripture is the book for the Christian religion and for Christian theology. For that it has been given. For that it is suited. And therefore it is the word of God, bestowed upon us by the Holy Spirit.

19. From this the relation finally becomes clear in which Scripture stands to the other sciences. Much misuse has been made of the word of Baronius:

Scripture does not say, [361] how the heaven goes but how we go to heaven. Precisely as book of the knowledge of God Scripture has much to say, also to the other sciences. It is a light on the path and a lamp for the foot, also of science and art. It lays claim to authority in every domain of life. Christ has all power in heaven and on earth. Objectively the limitation of inspiration to the religious-ethical part of Scripture is untenable, and subjectively the separation between the religious and the rest of the life of man is not to be maintained. Inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture, and religion is a matter of the whole man. Very much of what is mentioned in Scripture is also of principial significance for the other sciences. The creation and fall of man, the unity of the human race, the flood, the origin of peoples and languages, etc. are facts also for the other sciences of the highest importance. At every moment science and art come into contact with Scripture, the principia for the whole of life are given in Scripture.

Nothing may be detracted from this. But yet on the other hand there also lies a great truth in the word of Cardinal Baronius. Also all those facts are communicated in Scripture not in and for themselves, but with a theological purpose, in order that we should know God unto salvation. Scripture never intentionally concerns itself with science as such. Christ himself, although free from all error and sin, nevertheless never moved in a narrower sense in the domain of science and art, of commerce and industry, of jurisprudence and politics. His was another greatness; the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But precisely thereby He has been a blessing also for science and art, for society and state. Jesus is Saviour, that alone, but that also wholly. He did not come only to restore the religious-

ethical life of man and to leave all the rest untouched, as if this were not corrupted by sin and had no need of restoration. No, as far as sin extends, so also the grace of Christ extends. And likewise it is with Scripture. It too is through and through religious, the word of God unto salvation, but for that very reason also precisely a word for family and society, for science and art.

Scripture is a [362] book for the whole of humanity, in all its ranks and estates, in all its generations and peoples. But for that very reason it is not a scientific book in a narrower sense. Wisdom, not learnedness is what speaks in it. It does not speak the exact language of science and of the school, but that of observation and of daily life. It does not judge and describe things according to the results of scientific investigation, but according to intuition, according to the first, living impression that the phenomena make on man. Therefore it speaks of the drawing near of the land, of the rising and standing still of the sun, of the blood as the soul of the animal, of the kidneys as seat of the affections, of the heart as source of thoughts, etc. and in doing so does not concern itself at all with the scientifically-precise language of astronomy, physiology, psychology, etc. It speaks of the earth as the centre of God's creation and chooses no party between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican world-view. It does not decide between Neptunism and Plutonism, nor also between allopathy and homoeopathy. The scriptores of Holy Scripture probably knew in all these sciences, geology, zoology, physiology, medicines, etc. nothing more than all their contemporaries. Nor was it necessary. For Holy Scripture employs the language of daily experience, which is always true and always remains. If Scripture instead of that had used the language of the school and had spoken scientificallyexactly, it would have stood in the way of its own authority. If it had decided for the Ptolemaic world-view, it would be unbelievable in an age

that honoured the Copernican system. It also would not have been able to be a book for life, for humanity. But now it speaks in general-human language, intelligible for the simplest, clear for learned and unlearned both.

It employs the language of observation, which will always continue to exist alongside that of science and of the school. Therefore it can also endure until the end of the ages. Therefore it is old, without ever becoming antiquated. It is always young and fresh; it is the speech of life. Verbum Dei manet in aeternum. [363]

↑ Back to top