There are also expressions in the NT which seem, at first sight, to countenance such a theory. In Mt 5'^ our Lord is reported as saying : ' Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all things be accomplished.' But, as the context shows, that which our Lord intimates in these words is that it was in Himself the Law and the Prophets were to find their fulfilment. Immediately upon giving utterance to this saying He Himself proceeds to repeal commandments of the Law, substituting for them His own better principles, and thus showing that what He had in view was not Scripture as Scripture. Another passage which to the super- ficial reader might seem to countenance this theory is that in which St. Paul contrasts the wisdom of God with the wisdom of men (1 Co 2'-i«). After speaking of the things revealed by the Spirit of God, he says, ' which things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth ' (v.^^). But a consideration of the passage makes it apparent that what he means is that he had arrived at the conclusion that his style of address should be in keeping with his subject, and that ' the mystery of God ' did not require the garnishing of meretricious ornament or anything which the world might esteem as 'excellency of wisdom,' but such simplicity and directness as the Holy Spirit prompted. He is contrasting two metliods, two styles, the worldly and the spiritual, and he is justifying tlie style he himself adopted. To conclude from this that St. Paul considered that every word he spoke was dictated by infallible wisdom is quite illegitimate.
This mechanical theory is beset by grave diffi- culties, (rt) Inspiration and dictation are, as has more than once been pointed out, two different, even mutually exclusive, operations. Dictation precludes inspiration, leaving no room for any spiritual influence. Inspiration precludes dicta- tion, making the prompting of words unnecessary by the communication of the right spirit.
(b) It is irreconcilable with the phenomena pre- sented in Scripture. The authors, instead of being passive recipients of information and ideas and
834
INSPIEATION
INSPIRATION
feelings, represent themselves as active, deliberat- ing, laborious, intensely interested. The material used by the historical writers has been derived from written sources, or, as in the case of the Third Gospel, from careful critical inquiry at the most reliable witnesses. They do not tell us that their knowledge of events had been supernaturally imparted, but either that they themselves had seen what they relate, or that they had it from trustworthy sources. The A])Ostles were inspired witnesses of Christ, and proclaimed what they had seen and heard. But if supernatural information was even more trustworthy, why should they have been chosen only from those who had been with our Lord during His ministry? 'If they did not really remember those facts or discourses when they asserted their reality, they are found false witnesses of God. If they were the mere dictation of the Spirit to their minds, St. Peter's declaration which he made to the Jewish Council, " AVe cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard," would have to be corrected into, "We cannot but speak the things which the Spirit has introduced into our minds'" (Row, Itisp. p. 154). Similarly, if the intense emotions expressed in the Psalms or in the Epp. of St. Paul are not the out- pouring of human sorrow and human experience, they at once become artificial and false. When St. Paul in 2 Co 11" says, 'That which I speak, I s]ieak not after the Lord, but as in foolishness, in tliis confidence of boasting,' it is intelligible to say that an inspired man is speaking, it is not in- tellijjible to say that this is God speaking. The mind of God is discernible through the words, but it is not the mind of God we are directly in con- tact with.
(c) Another class of phenomena presented by Scripture is inconsistent with this theoiy. For if God be the sole Author, then it is impossible to account for errors in grammar, imperfections of style, discrepancies between one part and another. But such errors, imperfections, and discrepancies exist. The sayings of our Lord are variously re- ]iorted in the several Gospels. Even in reporting the Lord's Prayer the Evangelists differ. It is impossible to remove from the Book of Acts all disagreement with the Pauline Epistles. And in the disagreement between Peter and Paul at Antioch, we see how possible it was that men equally inspired should hold divergent and even antagonistic opinions upon matters essential to the well-being of the Church. In the face of these discrepancies, it is impossible to suppose that in- spiration carries with it literal accuracj' of ex- pression.
(rf) The manner in which the KT writers quote the OT books proves that while they believed these books to be authoritative and their writers inspired, they did not consider that their ins])ira- tion rendered every word they uttered infallible. Taking 275 quotations from the OT in the NT, it has been found that there are only 5,3 in which the Hebrew, the LXX, and the NT writer agree: while there are 99 passages in which the NT quotation differs both from the Hebrew and from the LXX, which also differ from one another, and 76 in which the correct rendering of file LXX has been enoneously altered.* No doubt when the correct citation of a single word serves the writer's puriiose, as in the insistence by St. Paul on the singular instead of the plural (Gal ,"'"), there stress is laid upon the very word ; but in the face of the general style of quotation above indi- _ 'These statistics are taken from D. M'Calman Turpie's OT in r/i'- N /', 1 - • '11.; Ill I.. .,iiMtation3 than those