2. Connotation of terms. — Both ypa<f>^ and ypapL/xa are derived from the verl) ypdipu, 'draw,' ' inscribe,' or ' write,' and thus suggest; writivcj in the most general sense. Classical Greek shows the transition in eadi case from the ruilimentary concejition of vrittrn rlmrnctcrs, or the art uf alphabetic tcriting, to the liigher thought of real literature. In the NT ypdmia alone shows any such variety of meaning. Here the word is aiiplicd, not merely to the 'letter' of tlie Eaw as contrasted with the living, life-giving spirit (Ro 2="^-, 2 CoS"'-), but in its plural form ypafi/xara to the elements of penmanship (Gal 6"). literature as a subject of study (Jn 7", Ac '26'-^), and documents of various kinds, such as the deIitor.s' bills reduced by the unjust steward (Lk 16'''-), letters of commendation or the reverse (Ac '28'-'), the writings of Moses (Jn 5'"), as well as tlie Sacred Scriptures (in the phrase cited from 2 Ti 3'"). The parallel term ypaipi) is used only in the last sense. The question has been widely canvassed whether the singular ypaipr) applies to the Scriptures as a unified whole, or to some single section or ' passage ' of Scripture. In liis famous note on Gal 3-'- Lightfoot lays down the principle that 'the singular ypa<pr) in the NT always means a particular passage of Scripture,' tliough in a subsequent comment on Ro 4', while insisting that St. Paul's practice ' is absolute and uniform,' he admits a douot as to St. John's usage. On the other hand, Warlield maintains that the prevailing classical application of ypaipri to entire documents, carrying with it 'a general implication of completeness,' extends also to the NT, — that ' in its more common reference ' the term ' designates the OT, to which it is applied in its completeness as a unitary whole' {DCG ii. 586). In tlie present writer's judgment the former contention vindicates itself, even in the Fourth Gospel and in the crucial text Gal 3-- (the Apostle having in mind the pass- ages of Scripture adduced either in 2'* 3'° or in the longer argument of Ro 3''"^). The only clear instances of ypa<p-n applied to the Scriptures as a whole appear to be found in 1 P 2* and 2 P 1-", where the word is already a proper name, the full development of the personifying tendency ob.serv- able in Gal 3*. As regards the significance of the plural ypatpal there is general agreement. 'Where the term is qualified by the adjectives 47101 and irpotp-nriKai (cf. above), the reference is to the character, not the scope, of the Scriptures. In 2 P S"" al Xoiira! ypa<pai are most probably to be under- stood of apostolic writings. But the technical phrase ai ypa(f>ai undoubtedly denotes the body of Scriptural writings as an organic unity, with a spirit and cliaracter of its own.
3. Authority of Scripture.— The peculiar quality of the Scriptures is indicated by the three dehning adjectives, £7101, iepai, and irpoipriTiKal, the notions of 'holiness' and 'sacredness' bringing the Books into direct relationship with God, and that of ' prophecy ' leading forward to the revelation of the mystery of God in Christ. The high Jewish
theory of the inxpiratitm of Scripts accepted in the N'l. The term Btdirve,
ure IS fully jiteil in the i^ t'. llie term UtdirvevaTo^, 'God- inspired' (cf. Heb. Pipn nnj), applied to Scripture in all its parts (iriira ypaipri), is found indeed only in 2 Ti 3"'; but the theory umlerlies the whole attitude of the NT writers to the older revelation. ' No prophecy ever came by the will of man : but men spalic from (iod, being moved bj' the Holy Spirit ' (2 P I'-'). Thus the words of Moses, David, Isaiah, and the other proiihets may be attributed ilirectly to God (Ro 9'-\ He l'^- 5"-), or the Holy Spirit (Ac I'^, He 3'"- lO""-), or God speaking through the Holy Spirit (Ac i^'-. He 4"i'- 8«"), or even the Messiah (He 'J"'- lO^'^-). As the 'living oracles' of God, then, the Scriptures are the final norm alike of faitli and of coinluct. The true ser- vant of God believes 'all things which ari; according to the law, and which are written in the prophets' (Ac '24"), and sets an examjile to others not, even in their estimate of the apostles, to go ' be3'ond the things which are written' (1 Co 4"). The appeal to ' what is written ' (katfiis yiypairran or yeypap-pifov iariv, the Christian rendering of the Rabbinic formula -Q»3a or 3'n:i) is decisive, not merely in clinching a theological argument (esp. in Romans and Galatians), but in interpreting the mission and person of Christ, and the signilicance of His death, resurrection, and a.scension (Ac 2'-"''-, 1 Co 15'', He 2'''^-), with tlie subsequent outpouring of the Sjiirit, the persecution of the Church, the rejection of the Jews and mission to the Gentiles, the resurrection of the body, and the final salvation (.A.c l'""-, Ko oM 8=6 925(r._ 1 Co jisr. i5«ir._ gf,..), and equally as the authoritative guide to Christian conduct (cf. Ac 23=, Ro 12'», 1 Co 9", 2 Co 4'' 6'"- 8", Eph 6='-,
1 P 1'* 3'"'''-) ; for 'whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope ' (Ro lo'), while the very quality of their ' insjiiration' is tested by their helpfulness ' for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for discipline which is in righteousness' (2 Ti 3"). It must be admitted, however, that the new spirit of Christianity can move freely within the limits of the older Scriptures only by a frequent straining, and even 'wresting,' of their natural sense (see art. Old Testament).