Inspiration

INSPIRATION. — From the Latin in-spirare = to breathe into, to infuse the spirit.

SUMMARY:

I. Biblical i

II. Divine i

III. i. in non-Christian religions.

I. BIBLICAL I.

A charismatic, supernatural divine influence granted to writers so that they might compose the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments in such a way that God would be their principal author. Biblical i. is a dogma defined at the First Vatican Council (Const. de fide catholica [24 Apr. 1870], chap. 2: De revelatione (Denz-U, 1787) and can. 4 [ibid., no. 1809]).

The name derives from θεάνηστος (II Tim. 3:16), which the Vulgate rightly translates as divinitus inspirata. The Greeks use θεάνηστος or ἐπίτινος.

I. EXISTENCE

The proofs of the fact of the i. of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are drawn from Jewish and Christian tradition and from Holy Scripture.

1. Jewish tradition

Jewish tradition has left no doctrinal system concerning biblical i., yet it has always professed faith in the divine origin of the canonical books of the Old Testament. The i. of the Pentateuch is a fundamental dogma for the Jews: « Whoever says that the Tôrah does not come from heaven shall have no share in the world to come » (Sanhedhrin, 10, 1).

Although on a lower level, the Jews also consider the Nêbhi'im and the Kêthâbhiim inspired (cf. A. Cohen, Le Talmud, Paris 1933, p. 1713 ff.; J. Bonsirven, Le judaïsme palestinien, I, ibid. 1934, pp. 248-62). The Jewish apocrypha (e.g., Slavonic Enoch 22, 12-23, 6; the Sibylline Books, etc.), the Talmud, Philo, etc., rather exaggerate the contribution of divine influence. Flavius Josephus attests to the canonicity of the books of the Old Testament as a matter of traditional faith, professed by the Jews from childhood; consequently, they believe that these books contain immutable precepts of God and are ready, if necessary, even to die to defend this faith, following the example of not a few martyrs (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 10).

2. Christian tradition

This faith was inherited by Christian tradition through the authority of Jesus and the Apostles, who extended it to the books of the New Testament, elucidating it and bringing it into greater prominence. Consequences of this faith are: a) the concern of the Fathers to seek profound and hidden meanings even in the smallest details of the Bible; b) the martyrdom of not a few Christians, especially under Diocletian (a. 303), who refused to surrender the sacred volumes: e.g., the ss. Saturninus, Dativus, Agape, Chionia and Irene, Euplius, etc.; c) the practice of carrying them on the breast out of devotion, and of using them to heal the sick or free the possessed. Some Fathers and writers explicitly testify in favor of biblical i. in words of profound admiration: e.g., s. Clement of Rome, the Didaché, the Letter of Barnabas, s. Ignatius,

s. Justin, s. Irenaeus, s. Hippolytus of Rome, s. Cyprian, s. Epiphanius, Tertullian (the Catholic), the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools, the ss. Basil, Ephrem, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, etc. The faith of the Church is expressed solemnly as early as in the Nicene Creed and in the Gelasian Decree (492-96).

An examination of the Sacred Books has found nothing in them that conflicts with biblical i.; on the contrary, it has confirmed that, from the religious, moral, literary, etc. point of view, they are worthy of being regarded as a divine work. The objections arising from accounts of immoral acts, from the presumed mercenary character of the Old Testament, and from the legitimization of frauds and lies (cf. those of Abraham with Sara, Jacob with Isaac, Iahel, Iephe, Samson, Judith, etc.) are easily refuted. Indeed, in these very episodes the law of retribution is applied, whereby whoever sins is punished and whoever is faithful to God is rewarded even in the present life.

3. The texts of Holy Scripture

Various texts of Holy Scripture attest to the i. of the books of the Old Testament.

They in fact report or presuppose the various elements showing that the sacred writer is a « prophet » (Mt. 26, 56; Lc. 18, 31; 24, 25; Rom. 16, 26; Hebr. 1, 1-2, etc.), who writes under the influence of God, who fills him with the Holy Spirit (Os. 9, 7; Mich. 3, 8; Ez. 2, 2; 3, 12; 8, 13; 11, 5, 24; Zach. 7, 12; II Sam. 23, 2; Eccl. 39, 8; 48, 27; II Esdr. 14, 21, 25, 40-44); who commands him to speak or to write (Ex. 17, 14; 34, 27; Deut. 31, 19; Is. 8, 1; 30, 8; Hab. 2, 2; Dan. 8, 26; 12, 4; Ez. 24, 2; especially Ier. 36) and to set forth only what God wills (Deut. 18, 15-22; Ier. 23, 16; 20, 7-9, 15, 19; 14, 14; Ez. 13, 3-17; Mich. 3, 5-8; Zach. 7, 12; cf. II Sam. 7, 1 ff.); he declares divine (Os. 4, 1; Ioel. 1, 1; Am. 1, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2, 1 etc.; Abd. 1; Ion. 1, 1; 3, 1; Mich. 1, 1; 3, 5; 6, 1; Nah. 1, 12; Soph. 1, 1; Agg. 1, 1; 2, 1, 11, 21; Zach. 1, 1; 7, 1 ff.) what he has written; he reports supernatural visions, revelations, or dreams (Num. 12, 6 ff.; Is. 6, 20; Ier. 1, 11-16; Ez. 4, 1-5, 4; Ier. 4, 20 ff.; Is. 5, 9; 22, 14; Ez. 9, 1; Ier. 20, 7-12; 23, 28; Mich. 3, 8; Is. 6, 6-9; Ier. 1, 17-19; Ez. 3, 8-9). The hagiographer, or biblical writer, is therefore the intermediary through whom God speaks or writes (Os. 1, 1-2; Agg. 1, 7; Mal. 1, 1); he is the mouth of God (Ier. 15, 19; Is. 30, 2, in accordance with Ex. 4, 15 ff.; 7, 1). Certain symbolic actions describe in a vivid manner the divine influence upon the prophet-writer; for example, Ezechiel must devour the book containing the object of his preaching (Ez. 2, 8-3, 3); Isaiah and Jeremiah have their lips purified so that they may be made fit for their ministry. God places the words in their mouths (Ier. 1, 9; Is. 6, 6); he orders Jeremiah to write down all the prophecies delivered from the beginning of his ministry until the fourth year of Ioakim, and to write them again after the volume has been burned by the King (Ier. 36). Another proof of the i. of the Old Testament is provided by the titles by which the books are designated, namely, « holy », « sacred » (II Mach. 12, 9; II Mach. 8, 23), « book of the Lord » (Is. 34, 16), or simply « book » or « Scripture » (Dan. 9, 2; Ex. 17, 14 etc.).

The New Testament offers much more explicit texts. Some allow us to glimpse a special origin of the books of the Old Testament, since, citing them simply with the formulas « Scripture » (ἡ γραφή), « it is written » (γέγραπται: Io. 10, 34 ff.; Mt. 4, 4, etc.) in order to settle every question, it regards them as possessing an authority that is unquestioned and superior to every other, precisely insofar as they are « the Writing », « Scripture » par excellence. Since the Jews possessed other books of distinction, this authority cannot be explained by supposing that these were the only books in their literature. Nor is it justified by the prestige of their authors, even in the case of Moses, since not all the books of such authors were raised to the rank of divinely inspired Scriptures. Their origin is therefore connected with a divine intervention that renders it superior to every objection and to every human book.

Other passages call the Old Testament writings τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (= « oracles of God »: Rom. 3, 2); λόγια ζῶντα (= « oracles of life »: Act. 7, 38); λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (= « word of God »: Mc. 7, 13), etc. The biblical Books are designated as « holy » (Rom. 1, 2) and « sacred » (II Tim. 3, 15), that is, as being of divine origin.

Still other passages affirm the infallibility and the ineluctable necessity of the fulfillment of what « is written » (cf., e.g., Lc. 18, 31; Mt. 5, 18; Act. 1, 16; 3, 8, 21); they proclaim its supreme and uncontested authority for settling all questions touching faith and morals, an authority recognized by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jews. Christ affirms that Scripture cannot be destroyed (λυθήναι: cf. Io. 10, 35; Rom. 1, 17; Gal. 3, 1 ff.; I Cor. 9, 9, etc.). Such authority presupposes an obligation to receive it that can derive only from an external disposition superior to human authorities, and it includes a dignity superior to that of all other books. Only because they were divine could the Sacred Books rise to the eminence of being the norm in matters of faith and morals (cf. Rom. 15, 4; I Cor. 9, 10).

Other passages highlight the part played by God and the contribution of man: God as the principal author, man as the instrument. For example, in Mt. 1:22 God, “through” (βίᾳ) the prophet Isaiah (8:8; cf. Mt. 2:15), foretells the Virgin who is to give birth; in Lk. 1:70 he speaks “by the mouth (βίᾳ στόματος) of the holy prophets”; in Mt. 22:43 David composed Ps. 110:1 “in the Spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι); in Acts 1:16 the Holy Spirit foretold “by the mouth” (βίᾳ στόματος) of David the “Scripture” of Ps. 41:10; in Acts 4:25, on the other hand, it is stated that God speaks Ps. 2:1 through the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David (cf. F. J. F. Jackson-K. Lake, The beginnings of christianity, IV, London 1933, pp. 46–47. It may be translated: “who through the Spirit of the holy mouth of David, your servant...”). According to Paul, the Holy Spirit spoke to the Fathers through Isaiah (Acts 28:26–27 = Is. 6:9–10). In other texts the Old Testament is cited under the sole name of the Holy Spirit, so that the human author passes into the background (e.g., Hebr. 2:4; 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). In addition to this series of texts, the New Testament presents two others that may be defined as classical, namely: II Tim. 3:16 and II Pt. 1:20.

The fundamental text is II Tim. 3:16: “Every Scripture (is) divinely inspired (and) also useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for providing that education which is in righteousness.” The verb “is” seems to have to be supplied immediately after the subject (ἡ γραφή), because this is required by the και without a verb before “useful” (ὠρήλιος), as well as by the context, since in V. 16 Paul wishes to demonstrate why Timothy can be instructed in wisdom and salvation through the study of Sacred Scripture, namely, because it “is divinely inspired and (therefore) useful....” The “Scripture” is that of the Old Testament, because the term γραφή is used in this sense in the New Testament and because the context concerns the Scripture that Timothy learned from his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois, who were Jewish.

The expression πᾶσα γραφή may be understood in a distributive sense: “Everything that comes under the name of Scripture” (therefore every book and every passage of the Old Testament); or in a collective sense (as a proper name): “all Scripture.” The adjective θεόπνευστος (θεός-πνέω) should be taken in the passive sense, “divinely inspired,” in accordance with adjectives ending in στος and with the common interpretation of the Fathers and Greek writers. Thus it is affirmed that the Old Testament comes from God through inspiration, that is, through a communication made intellectually to the writer. The active sense is less probable, although profound: “every Scripture that radiates God,” or “from which God transpires.”

In another passage (II Pt. 1:20 ff.), St. Peter affirms (1:12–20) that the reality of the dynamis and of the Parousia of Jesus is demonstrated not only by his own personal experience of it in the Transfiguration, but also by the (written) word of the Prophets (προφητικὴ λάγος). He therefore exhorts the faithful to pay attention to it, that is, to follow it as one fixes one’s eyes on a lamp shining at night in a dark place, until the desired day of the Parousia dawns, when the morning star will shine in their hearts. They must bear in mind as an important point that “no prophecy of Scripture becomes (ὁν γίνεται) a matter of private interpretation. For no prophecy was ever uttered by the will of man, but (holy) men spoke from God, being carried (γεφόμενοι) by the Holy Spirit.”

By “prophecy of the (contained in the) Scripture,” Peter means the Old Testament, whose predictions concerning the Messiah are regarded as a living and continuous teaching authority (cf. Rom. 16:26). “It is not of private interpretation” may be understood as referring to its objective origin, that is: the Old Testament “is not the result of the private speculation of the Prophets,” as the pseudo-teachers maintained. Yet, even while retaining the common interpretation (the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not left to each person’s arbitrary judgment), one has indirect proof of the i. of the Old Testament; it is not left to the arbitrary interpretation of each individual precisely because it has a meaning established by God. According to Peter, therefore, “the prophecy” (the Old Testament) is willed by the divine will, not by human initiative or caprice; for this purpose God raised up holy men to whom he communicated an influence by which they were, as it were, carried (φερόμενοι) by the Holy Spirit in writing it, not in their own name, but as representatives of God (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ).

Paul’s and Peter’s texts complement each other. Peter attributes to God the initiative in composing the Old Testament and in communicating the power that makes the hagiographer capable of writing it as God’s representative; Paul asserts that the Old Testament comes from God through a direct communication to the intellect of the hagiographer.

The i. of the books of the New Testament, moreover, is demonstrated by tradition, as is evident from the history of the Canon and from their having been placed, in fact and in theory, on an equal footing with the books of the Old Testament. There are, furthermore, various indications of the divine origin of individual apostolic books.

St. John often declares that he must write the Apocalypse at God’s command (Apoc. 1:11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 19:9), and he calls his book a “prophecy,” to which nothing may be added or taken away by divine disposition (ibid. 22:9, 10, 18–19). In I Tim. 5:18 Paul seems to cite Lk. 1:9, 7, placing it on an equal footing with Deut. 25:4. Peter places Paul’s letters on the same level as the “other Scriptures,” that is, those of the Old Testament (II Pt. 3:16), and declares that Paul wrote them according to “the wisdom that was given to him” (cf. I Cor. 2:13), that is, by the Holy Spirit. Thus, according to Peter, the Corpus Paulinum known to him was composed under a special influence of the Holy Spirit. It must have enjoyed great importance in the Church, if the false interpretation given to it caused such a commotion. It was probably already regarded as normative in matters of faith and morals. It may therefore be deduced that, from the time of the Apostles, a special intervention by God was discerned in the composition of the writings of the New Testament.

Insofar as it is a dogma, biblical i. must be accepted by all and therefore requires a criterion by which it can be easily recognized. For this purpose Protestants establish various criteria that are either too subjective or too scientific, and in any case insufficient. J. D. Michaelis regarded i. as a charism required by the apostolic (and prophetic) ministry; hence he supposed that the apostolic (and prophetic) origin of the books was the criterion of their i. (“criterium muneris apostolatus”).

The Fathers relied on tradition to distinguish the inspired books: that is, they affirmed that they accepted them precisely because they had inherited them from the ancients and from their forebears, with the obligation of receiving them as such. They sought this tradition in the various Churches, deriving it in particular from the liturgical reading (e.g., Serapion, bishop of Antioch, d. ca. 190, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 12, 3, etc.) and connecting it with a primitive revelation, explicit or implicit, of the Apostles. Therefore, the complete and decisive criterion of i. is the attestation made by the Apostles implicitly (e.g., by approving the books for liturgical reading) or explicitly, transmitted, interpreted, and authentically proposed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The criterion of apostolic origin had a practical and non-exclusive value, insofar as the Church accepted as divine only books written in apostolic times and transmitted by the Apostles.

II. NATURE

The Bible and tradition present God as the “author” of Sacred Scripture, who, in composing it, makes use of man as a rational instrument and “dictates” it; moreover, they designate it as θεόπνευστος. Yet the hagiographer is always regarded as the true author of the sacred book; he wills it, conceives it, develops it, publishes it, and attributes it to himself by affixing his own name to II. Every hagiographer is distinguished by his own stylistic-literary characteristics.

The first Christian writers treat of inspiration together with the gift of prophecy. A few Fathers and writers compare the inspired person to a musical instrument (lyre, cithara, harp, flute, organ) in the hands of the divine artist. Among those who attempted a speculative explanation are Origen, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Jerome. According to Origen, the Holy Spirit dwelt in a special way in the sacred authors and moved them (κινεί) to prophesy, employing them as free and rational instruments (C. Celsum, III, 3: PG 11, 925, etc.). The divine influence on the intellect produced “an illumination and an illustration,” which brought about “greater clarity and perspicuity”; then it moved the will and strengthened the memory. The hagiographers, “in a divine manner,” drew upon the divine meaning and “in a divine manner” saw, heard, and wrote or spoke. Chrysostom also speaks of the illumination and illustration of the intellect and emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s adaptation to the limitations of the human instrument in the well-known theory of “condescension” (συντακτάβασις). The cooperation of the hagiographer is emphasized in the Expositio in Ps. 48, 2 (PG 55, 225).

St. Augustine (De Gen. ad litteram, XII, 6-27: PL 34, 459-79) illustrates the three kinds of visions (corporeal, spiritual, intellectual) and brings out how God “alium sic, alium vero sic narrationem suam ordinare permitit” among the hagiographers. St. Jerome justifies the literary characteristics of the hagiographers by their cultural formation and by the environment from which they come. Cassiodorus (Exposit. in Psalt., Praef.: PL 70, 9 ff.) gives the definition of prophecy adopted by the Scholastics.

The Arab philosophers (Avicenna, 980-1037; Algazel, 1059-1111) treat of it from a philosophical standpoint. Medieval rabbis attempt to explain inspiration, and the contribution of Maimonides (1130-1204) is of particular importance. Many Scholastics raise the question of how the Prophets receive divine communications and resolve it by saying that they see “in speculo aeternitatis,” that is, in the divine essence insofar as it is the image of all things (William of Auxerre, between 1231 and 1236; William of Auvergne, d. 1249; Philip Crevius, d. 1236), or “insofar as it is an illumination proceeding from the divine essence” (Alexander of Hales, d. 1245), or insofar as it is something created through which the act of the intellect is elevated (St. Albert the Great, d. 1280). St. Bonaventure (1221-74) does not treat biblical inspiration ex professo, but speaks of it on several occasions, and Van den Borne derives from him the definition: “Divine instigation and direction in the service of the charism of doctor, prophet, or evangelist.” St. Thomas developed masterfully what had been written in previous centuries also by the Arab writers and by Maimonides, providing a systematic exposition of the nature of prophecy, which still serves as the basis for studies on biblical inspiration (Sum. Theol., 2ᵃ-2ᵃᵉ, qq. 171-74). For Duns Scotus, cf. B. Innocenti, Il b. Giovanni Duns Scoto e la Bibbia, Arezzo 1922.

The nature of biblical inspiration has been earnestly investigated during the last century. It was preceded by insufficient hypotheses: 1) L. Lessius (1623) held that it might be reduced to a simple divine approval of a book written “humana industria sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti”; perhaps the II Mach. was composed in this way. After three of his propositions were condemned by the Academy of Louvain, he admitted the necessity that the hagiographer write “ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti.” A similar hypothesis was also advanced by J. Bonfrère and D. Hansberg. 2) A. Calmet, Chrismann, and J. Jahn (Bonferius) reduced biblical inspiration to divine assistance given to the hagiographer to protect him from every error. 3) For others, biblical inspiration is a moral intervention resembling a directive, an initial impulse to write. All these hypotheses were regarded as insufficient.

Catholic doctrine on biblical inspiration is set forth in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), and in Divino afflante Spiritu (1943), which attributes the progress of studies on biblical inspiration to the application of the philosophical notion of instrumental causality, recognizing in the sacred author “an organ, that is, an instrument of the Holy Spirit, living and endowed with reason.” Man is considered capable of composing Sacred Scripture, as a book, by his own simple powers as well. Yet the intervention of a special divine influence is established, whereby the faculties of the sacred author that contribute to the composition of a book are placed at God’s service in composing it, so that the book may also be attributed to God, and to him principally. The encyclical Providentissimus describes the various aspects of the divine influence: “Nam supernaturali Ipse virtute ita eos ad scribendum excitavit et movit, ita scribentibus adstitit, ut ea omnia eaque sola, quae ipse iuberet et recte mente conciperent et fideliter conscribere vellent, et apté infallibili veritate exprimerent; secus non Ipse esset auctor S. Scripturae universae”. According to Spiritus Paraclitus, biblical inspiration is a divine grace by which God communicates to the writer’s mind a light enabling him to proclaim to men “ex persona Dei” the truth, moves the will, impels him to write, and assists him in a particular and continual manner until the book has been composed.

The inspirational influence therefore differs from all graces and from God’s ordinary concurrence with creatures: it is gratis datum, not gratum faciens, although it is ordinarily granted to pious persons; it is given for the duration of the book’s composition; its characteristic is that it takes possession of man’s rational faculties in order to render them capable of writing God’s book. Its first result, therefore, is to elevate, arouse, move, and sustain the human faculties, each according to its own nature.

The influence on the intellect is an illumination that induces one to see and judge as God wills. It is therefore an illuminating and motivating influence. What are its limits? It is not necessary to extend it to the so-called collection of literary material (research, consultations, gathering of information, etc.), since this is not essentially required by the notion of authorship. But it must intervene in the judgment concerning the material, which may be speculative (regarding the truth of the information) or practical (regarding the appropriateness of committing it to writing). There is no doubt that it extends to the practical judgment, and probably also to the speculative; since the two are psychologically united and one rests upon the other, their separation would be unnatural and violent and contrary to the notion of instrumental causality. Nor would God prove to be the author of the sacred book if he did not make its contents his own, expressing his own judgment through the hagiographer. According to some, the influence intrinsically strengthens the intellect and illuminates the things to be written with a brighter light; probably, however, it is sufficient to limit it to a subordination of the intellect, so that it judges as God wills: for if it can judge by its own powers, it is required only that it judge while moved and directed by God; this is sufficient for its judgment to be said to be brought about or willed by God.

Properly speaking, revelation is not to be confused with inspiration, which is an impulse to write both things already known and things revealed. In general, the Bible contains things already known to the hagiographer before inspiration. Revelation occurs only in a few cases. Since inspiration does not annul but rather supports man’s rational nature, it is not necessary for the hagiographer to be conscious of his inspiration, unlike the prophet, who must speak in the name and with the authority of God. It nevertheless illuminates and activates the intellect, and thus excludes the frenzy and manic exaltation characteristic of pagan seers; nor does it, as such, entail ecstasy.

The influence upon the will is the communication of an energy that shakes, awakens, and impels the will to write what, by practical judgment, has been judged ought to be put into writing. God acts mysteriously, safeguarding human freedom.

The influence upon the executive faculties (memory, recollection, imagination; brain, nerves, muscles) must also be examined. Since these faculties play a large part in the vividness of images, the accuracy and clarity of details, etc., and hence in the composition of the book, at least divine assistance is necessary to prevent errors and to render the judgments of the intellect with infallible fidelity.

The inspirational influence upon collaborators, secretaries, copyists, glossators, etc., is confined to the scope and nature of their collaboration in the composition of Sacred Scripture.

Inspiration is an exclusive characteristic of the books of the Old and New Testaments and has nothing to do with the inspiration attributed to poets, men of letters, artists, seers, the books of pagan religions, the sibyls, etc., nor with the private inspiration sometimes granted to certain saints.

III. EXTENT

Catholic doctrine, based on II Tim. 3:16, on tradition, on the notion of God as author of Holy Scripture, on its dignity, etc., holds all parts of the Bible, without exception or distinction, to be divinely inspired; and the encyclical Providentissimus has condemned those opinions which limit inspiration to matters of religion or morality, denying it to those biblical passages containing historical, secular, natural-scientific, etc. information (Holden, in 1662; F. Lenormant [v.]; S. Di Bartolo [v.], with regard to the obiter dicta, incidental particulars such as, for example, II Tim. 4:13; Tob. 11:9, etc. [Cardinal Newman]), and which therefore have no connection with the attainment of the ultimate end (G. Semeria).

The theory of the early Protestants, according to which God would have materially dictated the words through the imagination or intelligence of the hagiographer, is now obsolete, because it is contrary to the dignity of human nature and because it is incapable of explaining stylistic differences, the literary labour of the hagiographers, etc. All Catholics require in the hagiographer at least a special assistance, by which he is enabled to choose words suited faithfully to render the concepts to be expressed. They dispute only whether the choice of individual words (in the “individual”) is wholly entrusted to the hagiographer (J. B. Franzelin), or whether it is made by him instrumentally (psychological verbal inspiration). There are arguments in favour of both opinions. Those for the first, however, are valid chiefly against the mechanical verbal inspiration of the Protestants. The difference between the two opinions is not great: in the first, God influences the hagiographer so that he may choose the appropriate word, leaving him free to prefer one or another among the suitable ones; in the second, instead, He determines him to choose even the individual words, that is, one suitable word among suitable alternatives. The latter seems more probable, because it is more in conformity with the notion of instrumental causality, with the inseparability of words from ideas, with tradition, with the notion of the Bible as Verbum Dei, etc. The diversity of style would derive from the diversity of the instruments (hagiographers) employed by God, who adapts Himself to their character and dignity.

IV. EFFETTI

Il primo risultato dell'i. è che il libro sacro si deve attribuire a Dio come ad autore principale, acquistando quindi un'autorità divina. Persitro non risulta tutto divino allo stesso modo. Ma è divino in sé ciò che proviene da Dio, dagli angeli e santi parlanti a nome di Dio, o dall'agiografo in veste di agiografo. È divino solo in forza dell'i. ciò che riferisce come storico senza pronunziarsi sulla sua bontà, la quale pertanto non muta per il fatto che è riferito nella Bibbia. Ciò che afferma, approva, riprova, narra ecc. è affermato, approvato, riprovato, narrato ecc. da Dio con quella modalità in cui è espresso dall'agiografo. L'approvazione di una persona non si estende a tutte e singole le sue gesta. I consigli dati dall'agiografo non come tale, non diventano consigli di Dio, ma rimangono consigli di persona prudente (p. es., I Tim. 3, 23; II Tim. 4, 13, 21). I fatti turpi sono sempre implicitamente riprovati, i virtuosi approvati nei limiti della morale professata. Quando l'agiografo cita fonti letterarie si deve supporre che in linea di massima le approvi (p. es., I Reg. 11, 41; 14, 29; 15, 31 ecc.). Dal contesto si può desumere nei singoli casi in qual misura non le approvi (v. CITAZIONI IMPLICITE, TEORIA DELLE).

Altro effetto importantissimo dell'i. è l'immunità da errori, che compete alla Bibbia, per la quale V. INERRANZA.

Bonaventurae de Inspiratione et Inerrantia S. Scripturae, in Antonianum, 1 (1926), pp. 309-26; G. Mortari, La nozione di causa strumentale e le sue applicazioni alla questione dell'i. verbale, Verona 1928; H. Höpfl, Tractatus de Inspiratione S. Scripturae, Roma 1929; L. Billon, De Inspiratione S. Scripturae, 4ª ed., ivi 1929; H. Dieckmann, De essentia Inspirationis quid Concilium Vaticanum definierit et docuerit, in Gregorianum, 10 (1929), pp. 72-84; A. Bes, De Inspiratione Scripturae Sacrae, Roma 1930; e s.V. in DBS, IV, 482-559; A. Colunga, La Inspiracion divina de la S. Escritura, in Ciencia Tomista, 42 (1930), pp. 58-77; H. Lusseau, Essai sur la nature de l'inspiration scripturaire, Parigi 1930; S. Zarb, De criterio Inspirationis et canoniciatis SS. Librorum, in Divus Thomas (Piacenza), 34 (1931), pp. 147-86; J.-M. Vosté, De divina Inspiratione et veritate S. Scripturae, Roma 1932; G. M. Perrella, De apostolico et prophetico munere ut Inspirationis et canoniciatis criterio altero pro Novo altero pro Vet. Test., in Divus Thomas (Piacenza), 35 (1932), pp. 49-92, 143-76; S. Tromp, De S. Scripturae Inspiratione, Roma 1932; F. Fabbri, La « condiscendenza » divina nella i. biblica secondo s. G. Grisostomo, in Biblica, 14 (1933), pp. 334-47; F. S. Porporato, Affetti dell'agiografo e i., in Civ. Catt., 1935, iv, pp. 279-288, 301-403; id., Miti e i., Chieri 1944; id., La S. Scriptura e le scienze, ivi 1948; R. F. E. Steinmüller, Some problems of the Old Testament, Nuova York 1936; E. Antoniadis, Εὐλογία προελληνικας τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης τῆς Α.Γ., Atene 1938; B. Decker, Die Entwicklung der Lehre von der prophetischen Offenbarung, Breslavia 1940; C. L. Daniel, The Bible's seeming contradictions, Grand Rapids 1942; E. Florit, I. e inerrantia biblica, Roma 1943; J. Enrico Viana, El modo de la Inspiracion profetica segun et testimonio de los mismos profetas, in Estud. bibl., 6 (1947), p. 447; Criadotomo de Pamplona, Alcunas cuestiones relacionadas con la naturaleza del influjo inspirativo, in Est. Franc., 49 (1948), pp. 36-55; B. K., Das christliche Verständnis der Offenbarung. Eine Vorlesung (Theologische Existenz heute, nuova serie, 12), Münster in V. 1948; G. M. Perrella, Introduzione generale alla S. Bibbia, Torino 1948; A. Van Rooy, De Inerrantia S. Scripturae, in Collectanea Mechlinensis, 33 (1948), pp. 158-60; A. Albanese, Le questioni bibliche alla luce della esegeti tradizionale, Palermo 1949.

II. I. DIVINA.

Illustrazioni e influssi soprannaturali con cui Dio muove le anime, e a cui la teologia spirituale dà anche il nome di « istinto » divino, riferendole spesso allo Spirito Santo, perché le opere di santificazione gli si attribuiscono per appropriazione. Le i. appartengono all'ordine delle Grazie attuali.

Non vanno confuse con le rivelazioni e locuzioni interne, le quali comunicano nuove idee per influoso straordinario divino-angelico. Sono semplici illustrazioni intellettuali che fanno meglio conoscere quel che già si possiede, o particolari mozioni nella volontà e nel sentimento, che incitano a meglio compiere determinate azioni intese da Dio. Anche gli intereduli ed i peccatori possono ricevere i. (Leone XIII, encic. De Spiritu Sancto, 1897). È importante esservi docili, poiché Dio conduce sempre alla perfezione e alla salvezza l'anima che ne segue gli inviti e l'iniziativa (Io. 6, 44; cf. Ps. 20, 4); ordinariamente, in proporzione della fedeltà nel seguire le piccole i., Iddio dispone l'anima a riceverne delle maggiori.

Inspirations are not necessarily perceived; God's action most often escapes consciousness. Consequently, ascetic theology recommends being careful to act in all things according to the lights of reason and faith, paying particular attention to those impulses and affections that are felt to arise in the soul on the occasion of pious practices, readings, and at the sight of good examples or while listening to the divine word, since God very often makes use of such means to arouse his inspirations. Yet man may also deceive himself and, since he may be subject to the impulses of both good and evil angels, he must diligently examine inspirations (I Io. 4, 6). Generally, those proceed from the good spirit which strengthen one in goodness, humility, obedience to authority, charity, etc. In doubtful cases it is prudent to seek the advice of a good spiritual director. Famous rules for discerning interior impulses were written by s. Ignazio di Loyola in the Esercici spirituali (Regulae ad spiritus dignascendas, I et II hebd.)

The alumbrados and other pseudo-mystics erred in setting the inspirations and guidance of the Holy Spirit against the external precepts of ecclesiastical authority; as did the quietists (v.), whose general principle was that one should await,

before any internal or external action, a special impulse of the Holy Spirit; otherwise the act would proceed from self-love. Such errors were condemned by the Church (J. De Guibert, Documenta, 213, 406, 438-48, 461).

III. INSPIRATION IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS.

In non-Christian religions, inspiration belongs to that type of divination which does not depend on external signs, but on a suggestion proceeding from a divinity or from another supernatural source. When inspiration occurs through the supposed possession which, following preliminary excitation, a spirit takes of an individual, making him speak and act at its pleasure, shamanism (v.).

When inspiration occurs in a particularly sacred place, and through a person assisted by a trained priesthood, oracle (v.).

Individual inspiration is that which occurs through visions, hallucinations, dreams (v. INCUBAZIONE), regarded by the popular mentality as manifestations of a higher world.

The historical religions that arose at a later time, as a reaction to or completion of the natural religions, through the work of a founder or reformer, almost all possess a canon of sacred writings, held to proceed from the divinity itself through the revelation of the reformer or prophet. The Avesta of the Mazdeans, inspired by Ahura Mazda in Zarathustra, and the Qur'an, existing ab aeterno in heaven and revealed by Allāh to Maometto through the ministry of the archangel Gabriele, are the two typical cases of inspiration which the faithful consider to have come directly from God.

Some religions, although not claiming this direct inspiration, possess sacred writings containing the tradition of the country, to which normative value is attributed for religious and moral life; such are the Vedas of India, the King of Confucian China, the Taotsang of the Taoists, whose central nucleus is constituted by the Tao te King of Laotse, the Tripitaka (Tipitaka in Pali) of Buddhism, the Siddhanta of Jainism, and the Granth of the Sikhs. The Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Bābīs, and Bahā'ists also have their sacred books.