The Bible understood as the Scriptures of the church

Once again, the effort to take seriously the confession of a canon offers another alternative in respect to the inspiration of Scripture. The doctrine of inspiration is an attempt to deal adequately with the medium of revelation. The mistake of employing such a concept as inerrancy, among other things, was in its defining of the medium apart from its canonical context. In our opinion, the claim for the inspiration of Scripture is the claim for the uniqueness of the canonical context of the church through which the Holy Spirit works. Although there are innumerable other contexts in which to place the Bible—this is part of the humanity of the witness—divine inspiration is a way of claiming a special prerogative for this one context. The Bible, when understood as the Scriptures of the church, functions as the vehicle for God’s special communicating of himself to his church and the world. This understanding of the Scripture’s uniqueness remains a statement of faith. It neither requires a hidden apologetic nor must it be reformulated to accommodate itself to every new phase of the scholarly debate.

Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (p. 104)

The canonical shape of Colossians

Although many critical commentators have correctly seen both the elements of similarity and differences in respect to the undisputed Pauline letters, the canonical implications for understanding the function of Colossians within the Pauline corpus have seldom been addressed. Simply to focus on ideological differences between so-called ‘genuine’ and ‘deutero-Pauline’ letters is to overlook the effect of the New Testament canon. Rather, the shape of the letter to the Colossians provides a Pauline warrant for translating his theology into a different idiom which is faithful to the gospel. The letter establishes the parameters within which the continuing theological task is carried on. The fact that the corpus of Pauline letters contain material whose shape shows evidence of a process of expanding and adapting Paul’s thought to a new and different situation indicates that Paul’s letters were not regarded as a static deposit of unchanging doctrine, but as a living voice of apostolic instruction, supported by the authority of the exalted Christ, which was given to guide the church continually toward the obedient life. The final instruction of the epistle to have the letter read in other churches (4.16) already indicates the beginning of the canonical process at work. The letter functions as authority for Christians who do not share in the original historical situation of those at Colossae, but whose context within the community of faith is nevertheless addressed with a continuing word from God through his apostle.

Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (p. 348)

The destiny of men is in the hands of God

Image: Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

The fact that the destiny of men is in the hands of God (that it is not of him that willeth, or him that runneth,) is not inconsistent with the necessity of the use of means. The fact that the character of the harvest depends on the sovereign pleasure of God, does not render the labor of the husbandman of no account. The same God who says, “I will have mercy on whom I will,” says also, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” The sovereignty of God and the necessity of human efforts are both clearly taught in the Scriptures. At times the former, as in this chapter, at times the latter doctrine is most insisted upon. Neither should be forgotten or neglected, as both combine to produce the right impression on the mind, and to lead us to God in the way of his own appointment, ver. 16.

Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (Chapter 9)

Jewish conceptualizations of inspiration

Image: Genesis 1:1-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot (1517)

 

INSPIRATION:

Of Persons.

The state of being prompted by or filled with the spirit of God. Bezaleel was "filled with the spirit of God" (Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31); that is, he planned the work of the Tabernacle by inspiration. Inspiration is essential to all prophetic utterances; "the Spirit of God came upon Balaam" to make him prophesy (Num. xxiv. 2); upon the seventy men selected by Moses (Num. xi. 17, 25, 26); upon Saul and Saul's messengers (I Sam. x. 6, 10; xi. 6; xix. 20, 23); upon Elisha as heir and successor to Elijah (II Kings ii. 15); upon Amasai (I Chron. xii. 18); upon Jahaziel the Levite (II Chron. xx. 14). Inspiration empowered Micah to "tell Jacob his transgression" (Micah iii. 8). The prophet, therefore, is called "the man of the spirit," that is, the inspired one (Hosea ix. 7 [A. V., incorrectly, "spiritual man"]). All true prophets have their visions by divine inspiration (Isa. xxix. 10, xxx. 1; Zech. vii. 12; Neh. ix. 30).

Ezekiel very frequently describes the working of the power of inspiration (Ezek. ii. 2; iii. 12, 24; viii. 3; xi. 1, 24; xxxvi. 1). Therefore he is compared to a man from the country who is demonstrative in his description of the king; whereas Isaiah is compared to a man of the city who is accustomed to seeing the king (Ḥag. 13b). The seer of the Exile also describes the mode of his inspiration (Isa. xlviii. 16, lxi. 1).

In the future all men will come under the influence of inspiration and prophecy, says Joel (ii. 28 et seq., iii. 1 et seq.; comp. Isa. xliv. 3, lix. 19). Daniel also was inspired; "the holy spirit of God was in him" (Dan. iv. 6, 8, 15; v. 11 [A. V. and R. V., incorrectly, "the spirit of the holy gods"]) and enabled him to interpret the dream correctly, as it did Joseph also (Gen. xli. 38). David, too, sang under the power of inspiration (I Sam. xvi. 13; comp. II Sam. xxiii. 2); and the Psalmist prays for inspiration (Ps. li. 12-14 [A. V. 11-13]). Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson judged and led Israel under the power of inspiration (Judges iii. 10, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 23 et seq.). Inspiration was occasionally brought upon the prophet by the power of music (II Kings iv. 15). According to the Book of Jubilees the Patriarchs were inspired when they blessed their children or grandchildren (xxv. 14, xxxi. 12). Ben Sira says of Isaiah that his visions of the future were inspired (Ecclus. xlviii. 24; regarding Daniel, see Susanna 45 [Theodotion] and Ascensio Isaiæ, v. 14). The great festivity of the drawing of water on Sukkot ("Simḥat bet ha-Sho'ebah") brought about the inspiration of the saints and miracle-workers ("ḥasidim we-anshe ma'aseh," Suk. v. 4), and occasioned a pouring out of songs and of other manifestations of spiritual rejoicing (Yer. Suk. v. 55a; Suk. 50-51, "the pouring out of the Holy Spirit," with reference to Isa. xii. 3). Similarly the people of Israel at the Red Sea were inspired when they sang their song, faith having caused the Holy Spirit to rest upon them (Mek., Beshallaḥ; comp. Ps. R. iv. 6).

Inspiration, in rabbinical theology, is the influence of the Holy Spirit which prompted the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and the sacred writers (Sifre, Deut. 176; Tosef., Soṭah, xii. 5, xiii. 2; Seder 'Olam xx.-xxi.), the Holy Spirit and the spirit of prophecy being considered as identical (Yer. Meg. i. 70a; Targ. to Ps. li. 13, Isa. xl. 13, and I Sam. xxiii. 3). Eber was regarded as having been inspired (Gen. x. 25; Gen. R. xxxv.; Seder 'Olam R. i.); so also were Sarah (Meg. 14a; Gen. R. lxxii.), Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. R. lxxv.), Jacob (Gen. R. xcviii.), Joseph (Gen. R. xciii.; Pirḳe R. El. xxxix.), King Solomon (Tan., Ḥuḳḳat, ed. Buber, p. 11), Balaam (Tan., Balaḳ, ed. Buber, pp. 11, 17), and Job and his four friends (B. B. 15b; Lev. R. i.; Seder 'Olam R. xxi.). Often (not always in the later Haggadah, as Zunz contends in "G. V." pp. 2, 188, 191, 255, 260, 266, 275, 277 el seq., 326, 365) the prophetical and hagiographal passages are quoted as having been uttered by the Holy Spirit through Solomon, David, Amos, Ezekiel, Elisha, the sons of Korah, etc. (Pesiḳ. R. vi., vii., x., xi., xx.; Gen. R. xlv., lxxv., cxiii.; Pes. 87b; et al.). The high priest, too, when giving the answer of the Urim and Thummim, was believed to be inspired (Yoma 73b; comp. Josephus, "Ant." iv. 8, § 14, who speaks of the prophet together with the high priest). See Holy Spirit.

Of the Holy Scriptures.

Whatever book has been included in the Bible canon must necessarily have been inspired or written by the Holy Spirit (Meg. 7a; Tosef., Yad. ii. 14). Often the words of Scripture are taken to be exclamations of the Holy Spirit intercepting the speaker, and, therefore, also the work of inspiration (Soṭah ix. 7; Tosef., Soṭah, ix. 2-9; Ab. R. N. 14; Pes. 117a; Gen. R. lxiii., lxxxv.; Num. R. xvii.; Deut. R. xi.). According to IV Esd. xiv. 38, Ezra and his coworkers reproduced from memory the lost twenty-four holy books, as well as the seventy apocryphal books, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The prevailing opinion is that with the last of the Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, inspiration ceased (Tosef., Soṭah, xiii. 2; Seder 'Olam R. xx.; Sanh. 11a; I Mace. iv. 46).

The Targum, as the recognized traditional interpretation of the Prophets, was regarded as having been written by Jonathan ben Uzziel under the inspiration of the last prophets (Meg. 3a). Similarly the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch was regarded as the work of the Holy Spirit, or as having been inspired (Philo, "Vita Moysis," ii. 7; comp. Masseket Soferim i. 8; Aristeas Letter, §§ 305-317). Necessarily, inspiration was claimed for the translation of Holy Scripture as well as for the original text; while the Essenes made the same claim for their apocryphal writings (Wisdom vii. 27; IV. Esd. xiv. 38; see Eschatology; Essenes). It appears from Tosef., Shab. xiii. 1; Shab. 115a; and Masseket Soferim i. 7 that the earlier view regarding the inspired character of the Targum and the Septuagint was later discarded by the Rabbis, though it was maintained in Alexandria, where the apocryphal writings ranked with the canonical literature.

Traditional View.

The traditional view is that the Pentateuch in its entirety emanated from God, every verse and letter being consequently inspired; hence the tannaiticstatement that "he who says the Torah is not from Heaven is a heretic, a despiser of the Word of God, one who has no share in the world to come" (Sanh. xi. 1; ib. Gemara, 99a) is expressly explained to include any one that says the whole Torah emanates from God with the exception of one verse, which Moses added on his own responsibility, or any one that finds verses like Gen. xxxvi. 12 and 22 too trivial to assign to them a divine origin (Shab. 99a, b). The Pentateuch passages are quoted in the schools as the sayings of God ("amar Raḥmana" = "the Merciful One has said," B. M. 3b, and often). Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch at God's dictation, even, according to R. Simeon, the last eight verses, relating to his own death (B. B. 14b). On the other hand, some held that the curses in Lev. xxvi. were pronounced by "the mouth of the Divine Power," whereas those in Deut. xxviii., by Moses, were of his own prompting (Meg. 31b; but see Tosafot, "this does not exclude divine inspiration"). Every letter of the Torah was fixed by the Masorah and counted by the Soferim (Ḳid. 30a), and on each particle, such as "et," "we," "gam," "af" ("and" or "also"), were based important laws (Pes. 22b; Sanh. 70a); even the Masoretic signs formed the basis for halakic or haggadic interpretations in Akiba's system (see Akiba). The division of the Pentateuch into verses was ascribed to Moses (Meg. 22a). The final letters, also (), were fixed by the Prophets, and were therefore inspired (Shab. 104a; Yer. Meg. i. 71d; Gen. R. i.). R. Ishmael said to R. Meïr while the latter was occupied with the professional work of a scribe, "Be on thy guard concerning thy sacred task, for if thou omittest or addest one single letter to the Law thou destroyest the whole world" ('Er. 12b). This whole view of plenary inspiration was in the main (though the passage regarding the counting of the letters by the Soferim, Ḳid. 30a, includes the Prophets and Hagiographa) strictly held only in regard to the five books of Moses—the Torah. Upon the absolute completeness of the Torah rested the fundamental rabbinical principle, "No prophet after Moses was allowed to change anything in the Law" (Shab. 104a; Yoma 80a; Meg. 2b; based upon Lev. xxvii. 34 or Num. xxxvi. 13). Whatever is written in the other holy writings must therefore, somewhere or somehow, have been alluded to in the Torah (Ta'an. 9a). To the Pentateuch or Torah a higher degree of divine inspiration is accordingly ascribed than to the Prophets and Hagiographa, which are often called "dibre ḳabbalah" = "words of tradition" (see Zunz, "G. V." p. 44), or simply "sefarim" = "books" (Meg. i. 8, iii. 1), or "ketubim" (see Bible Canon). All the canonical books are "kitbe ḳodesh" = holy writings" (Shab. xvi. 1), and were read at divine the service as the divinely inspired Word ("Miḳra" = "the recited Word of God"). The prophetical and hagiographic books are implicitly included in the Torah (Tan., Re'ch, ed. Buber, p. 1), but the Torah is the standard by which their value or holiness is judged and gaged (see Shab. 13b, 30b; Meg. 7a; Ab. R. N. i.; Tos. Meg. iv. 19; Yer. Meg. iv. 73d). The final composition as well as the writing of the Hagiographa was ascribed to the "men of the Great Synagogue." who also were regarded as working under the influence of the Holy, or prophetic, Spirit, having among them the last of the Prophets (B. B. 15a; see Synagogue, Great).

Degrees of Inspiration.

As to the distinction between the plenary inspiration of the Pentateuch and the more general inspiration of the other sacred writings, a definite statement is nowhere to be found in Talmudic literature. Judah ha-Levi, in the "Cuzari" (iii. 32-39), distinguishes the books of Moses and of the other prophets from those that were only influenced by the divine power, claiming divine origin for every vowel or sign of the Pentateuch as having been given to Moses on Sinai; on the other hand, he places the inspired man, whether prophet, "nazir" like Samson, high priest, or king, above the category of common men, seeing in him one lifted to the rank of angels (iv. 15). The latter view is shared by Maimonides ("Yad," Yesode ha-Torah. vii. 1-6; "Moreh," ii. 32-35; see Prophecy). How far the view that certain passages, in the Pentateuch are emendations of the scribes ("tiḳḳune soferim," Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 6; comp. with Tan., Yelammedenu, Beshallaḥ; Gen. R. xlix.; Lev.; R. xi.; Num. R. iii.) is compatible with the idea of plenary inspiration is discussed by Albo ("'Iḳḳarim," iii. 22). In fact, the expression in Mek. l.c., "kinnah ha-katub" (Holy Writ has used a euphemistic form), is such as does not impugn the divine character of any part of the book (see I. H. Weiss in note i. 47 of his Mekilta edition, and Geiger, "Urschrift," pp. 308 et seq.).

According to Philo, whose idea of inspiration was more or less influenced by the Platonic conception of the ecstatic or God-intoxicated seer, the prophet spoke and wrote in an ecstatic state ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," §§ 51-52). Josephus ("Contra Ap." i., § 7) writes: "The Prophets have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God Himself by inspiration." This view regarding the inspiration of the Bible as a whole is expressed also in II Tim. iii. 16: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (Φεόπνευστος, "given by the spirit of God," the same as the Hebrew "beruaḥ ha-ḳodesh"). Maimonides ("Moreh," ii. 45), enumerating the various degrees of prophecy, ascribes different degrees of inspiration to the Pentateuch, to the Prophets, and to the writers of the third class of Scripture—the Hagiographa. The view regarding the plenary inspiration of the Pentateuch maintained by the Rabbis and the philosophers of the Middle Ages, such as Saadia, Maimonides, and others, did not prevent them from resorting to allegorical interpretation when the literal meaning seemed opposed to human reason (Saadia, "Emunot we-De'ot," ii. 44, ix. 133; Maimonides, "Moreh," ii. 29, 47).



Modern Views.

Modern Jewish theology of the Reform school, after making full allowance for the human origin of the Holy Scriptures, and recognizing that the matter recorded is sometimes in contradiction to the proved results of modern historical, physical, and psychological research, arrives at the following conclusion: While the ancient view of a literal dictationby God must be surrendered, and while the seers and writers of Judea must be regarded as men with human failings, each with his own peculiarity of style and sentiment, the Spirit of God was nevertheless manifested in them. The Holy Scriptures still have the power of inspiration for each devout soul that reads or hears them. They speak to each generation with a divine authority such as no other book or literature possesses. The inspiration of the Bible is different from the inspiration under which the great literary and artistic master-works of later eras were produced. The religious enthusiasm of the Jewish genius leavens the whole, and the truth uttered therein, whatever be the form it is clothed in, seizes men now as it did when prophet, psalmist, or lawgiver first uttered it, themselves carried away by the power of the Divine Spirit. This view of modern theology, compatible with Biblical science and modern research, which analyzes the thoughts and the forms of Scripture and traces them to their various sources, finds that prophet and sacred writer were under the influence of the Divine Spirit while revealing, by word or pen, new religious ideas. But the human element in them was not extinguished, and consequently, in regard to their statements, their knowledge, and the form of their communication, they could only have acted as children of their age.

Bibliography:

Hauck's Real Encylopädie, s.v.;
Bacher, Die Aelteste Terminologie, der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung, 1899, pp. 88-93, 117, 154, 168, 180.

Source: 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8126-inspiration

Bruce Metzger on the longer ending of Mark

“Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.”

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (pp.269-270)

The Canonical Significance of the Longer Ending of Mark

Image: Complutensian Polyglot (1514) Mark 16:1-13

There is one concluding problem of canonical shaping to address. The original ending of the Gospel of Mark—whether originally by intent or by design is now irrelevant—has been expanded. At least by the middle of the second century two additional endings were attached to the end of 16.8. First, a shorter ending which in the major textual traditions always preceded the longer ending. Secondly, a longer ending which displaced the shorter ending to become the accepted reading of the Byzantine (koine) text.

The significance of the expanded ending has usually been disregarded by modern critical scholarship, but it is wide-ranging in effect. Mark’s Gospel received its canonical shape by the addition of an ending which clearly does not stem from the original author. Yet the addition is not simply a pious gloss attached to one late textual tradition, but rather an early expansion which helped form the dominant canonical tradition. Moreover, the longer ending consists of a catena of passages taken from the other three canonical Gospels in addition to other sources. This evidence supports the conclusion that the expanded ending to Mark entered the text during the process of forming a fourfold Gospel collection. If from an historical perspective Mark’s Gospel provided the primary source for Matthew and Luke, there is at least one highly important example within the canonical process of the reverse influence at work.

What is the canonical effect of the longer ending on the reading of Mark’s Gospel? First, the addressee of the Gospel has not been altered. The message is still directed primarily to those within the Christian church. However, for this next generation of post-resurrection Christians, knowledge of the resurrection appearances by means of oral tradition can no longer be assumed. The grounds for Christian belief must now be set forth in written form. Moreover, the vehicle for the resurrection tradition has now become the other written Gospels. For Mark to function within the fourfold collection his gospel has been brought into conformity with the other three. That is to say, the oral tradition which undergirded Mark’s final chapter has now been spelled out and shaped in accordance with the tradition provided by the larger collection. The canonical Mark has thus been fashioned in such a way as to harmonize with the other three. The hermeneutical implications of this canonical shape would provide a strong warrant for resisting theories of interpretation which would read Mark as an idiosyncratic witness in open conflict with the other three.      

Secondly, the same theological point made by the original ending of Mark (16.8) has been retained, but extended. The emphasis of the longer ending falls fully on the disciples’ unbelief even in the face of the resurrection (vv. 11, 12, 14, 16). The longer ending, in addition, functions as a commentary on the first eight verses and plainly rules out interpreting the astonishment and awe of the women in a positive fashion. Their unbelief is upbraided by the resurrected Christ, who equates belief and unbelief with salvation and judgement (v. 16).

Finally, the function of the Gospel of Mark in its larger canonical shape has now been expanded beyond the role of calling the disciples to remember the nature of their discipleship to the crucified and rejected Messiah. The disciples are now commissioned to evangelize the world, much in the style of Matthew’s commission. Mark’s original “anamnetic” focus has been made to serve a new role, in conformity with the other Gospels, which addresses those both inside and outside the fellowship of believers.

Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (pp. 94-5)