ISPIRAZIONE

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

OUTLINE:

I. Biblical inspiration

II. Divine inspiration

I. BIBLICAL INSPIRATION

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

The term is derived from *θεόπνευστος* (II Tim. 3:16), which the Vulgate correctly renders as *divinitus inspirata*. The Greeks use *θεόπνευστος* or *ἐπίπνευστος*.

1. EXISTENCE

a) Jewish tradition. – Jewish tradition has not left a systematic doctrine on biblical inspiration, yet it has always professed faith in the divine origin of the canonical books of the Old Testament. The inspiration of the Pentateuch is a fundamental dogma for the Jews: “Whosoever says that the Torah is not from heaven has no share in the world to come” (Sanhedrin, 10:1).

Although in a secondary sense, the Jews also consider the *Nebi’im* and the *Ketubim* inspired (cf. A. Cohen, *Le Talmud*, Paris 1933, pp. 1713 ff.; J. Bonsirven, *Le judaisme palestinien*, I, ibid. 1934, pp. 248–63). The Jewish apocrypha (e.g., Slavonic Enoch 22:12–23:6; the Sibylline Books, etc.), the Talmud, Philo, and others rather exaggerate the extent 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, so that they believe them to contain immutable precepts of God and are ready, if necessary, even to die for them, following the example of many martyrs (in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, III, 10).

b) Christian tradition. – This faith passed into Christian tradition through the authority of Jesus and the Apostles, who extended it to the books of the New Testament, clarifying and emphasizing II. 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 many Christians, especially under Diocletian (A.D. 303), for refusing to surrender the sacred volumes; e.g., SS. Saturninus, Dativus, Agape, Chionia and Irene, Eupilus, etc.; c) the custom of carrying them devoutly on the breast, of using them to heal the sick or to free the possessed. Some Fathers and writers explicitly testify in favor of biblical inspiration with words of profound admiration: e.g., St. Clement of Rome, the *Didachē*, the Epistle of Barnabas, St. Ignatius, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, St. Epiphanius, Tertullian (Catholic), the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools, SS. Basil, Ephrem, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, etc. The faith of the Church is solemnly expressed already in the Nicene Creed and in the Gelasian Decree (492–96).

Examination of the Sacred Books has revealed nothing repugnant to biblical inspiration; rather, it has confirmed that, in religious, moral, and literary aspects, they are worthy of being considered divine works. Objections arising from narratives of immoral deeds, from the alleged mercenary character of the Old Testament, or from the legitimization of frauds and lies (cf. Abraham with Sarah, Jacob with Isaac, Jael, Jephthah, Samson, Judith, etc.) are easily refuted. Indeed, in these very episodes the law of retribution is applied, whereby the sinner is punished and the faithful servant of God is rewarded even in this life.

c) Texts of Sacred Scripture. – Various texts of Sacred Scripture attest to the inspiration of the books of the Old Testament.

They either report or presuppose the various elements from which it follows that the sacred writer is a “prophet” (Mt. 26:56; Lk. 18:31; 24:25; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 1:1–2, etc.), who writes under the influence of God, who fills him with the Holy Spirit (Hos. 9:7; Mic. 3:8; Ezek. 2:2; 3:12; 8:13; 11:5–4; Zech. 7:12; II Sam. 23:2; Ecclus. 39:8; 48:27; II Esd. 14:21, 25–40–44); who commands him to speak or to write (Ecclus. 17:14; 34:27; Deut. 31:19; Is. 8:1; 30:8; Hab. 2:2; Dan. 8:26; 12:4; Ezek. 24:2; especially Jer. 36) and to set forth only what God wills (Deut. 18:15–22; Jer. 23:16; 20:7–9, 15, 19; 14:14; Ezek. 13:3–17; Mic. 3:5–8; Zech. 7:12; cf. II Sam. 7:1 ff.), declares divine (Hos. 4:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 1:6, 9–11, 13; 2:1 ff.; Obad. 1; Jon. 1:1; 3:1; Mic. 1:1; 3:5; 6:1; Nah. 1:12; Zeph. 1:1; Hag. 1:1; 2:1; 11:21; Zech. 1:1; 7:1 ff.) what he has written; reports supernatural visions, revelations, or dreams (Num. 12:6 ff.; Is. 6:20; Jer. 1:11–16; Ezek. 4:1–5, 4; Jer. 4:20 ff.; Is. 5:9; 22:4; Ezek. 9:1; Jer. 20:7–12; 23:28; Mic. 3:8; Is. 6:6–9; Jer. 1:17–19; Ezek. 3:8–9). The hagiographer or biblical writer is therefore the intermediary through whom God speaks or writes (Hos. 1:1–2; Hag. 1:7; Mal. 1:1), is the mouth of God (Jer. 15:19; Is. 30:2, in accordance with Ex. 4:15 ff.; 7:1). Some symbolic actions vividly depict the influence upon the prophet-writer, e.g., Ezekiel is commanded to eat the scroll that contains the subject of his preaching (Ezek. 2:8–3:3); Isaiah and Jeremiah have their lips purified so that they may be fit for their ministry. God places the words in their mouth (Jer. 1:9; Is. 6:6); He commands Jeremiah to write down all the prophecies from the beginning of his ministry until the fourth year of Jehoiakim and to rewrite them after the scroll had been burned by the king (Jer. 36). Another proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament is furnished by the titles by which the books are designated, namely, “holy,” “sacred” (I Macc. 12:9; II Macc. 8:23), “book of the Lord” (Is. 3:4, 16), or simply “book” or “Scripture” (Dan. 9:2; Ex. 17:14, etc.).

The New Testament offers far more explicit texts. Some of these suggest a special origin of the books of the Old Testament, since, when they are cited merely with the formulas “Scripture” (ἡ γραφή), “it is written” (γέγραπται: Jn. 10:34 ff.; Mt. 4:4; etc.), to settle every question, they are regarded as possessing an authority that is unquestioned and superior to all others, precisely because they are “the Writing,” “the Scripture” par excellence. Since the Jews possessed other books of esteem, such authority cannot be explained by supposing that they were the only books of their literature. Nor is it justified by the prestige of their authors, even of Moses, because not all the books of such authors have been elevated to the rank of divinely inspired Scriptures. Their origin is therefore connected with a divine intervention that renders them superior to every exception and to every human book.

Other passages call the Old Testament writings “τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ” (“oracles of God”: Rom. 3:2); “τὰ λόγια τὰ ζῶντα” (“oracles of life”: Acts 7:38); “τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ” (“the word of God”: Mk. 7:13), etc. The biblical books are designated as “holy” (Rom. 1:2) and “sacred” (II Tim. 3:15), i.e., of divine origin.

Still others affirm the infallibility and an ineluctable necessity for the fulfillment of what “is written” (cf., e.g., Lk. 18:31; Mt. 5:18; Acts 1:16; 3:18, 21); they proclaim its supreme and uncontested authority to settle all questions touching faith and morals, recognized by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jews. Christ affirms that Scripture cannot be destroyed (τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ: Jn. 10:35; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:1 ff.; I Cor. 9:9, etc.). Such authority presupposes an obligation to receive it that can come only from an external disposition, superior to human authorities, and includes a dignity superior to all other books. Only because they are divine could the Sacred Books attain the eminence of a norm in matters of faith and morals (cf. Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 9:10).

Other passages emphasize the role of God and the contribution of man; of God as the principal author, and of man as the instrument. For example, in Mt. 1:22 God “through” (διά) the prophet Isaiah (8:8; cf. Mt. 2:13) foretells the Virgin who is to give birth; in Lk. 1:70 He speaks “through the mouth” (διά στόματος) of the holy prophets; in Mt. 22:43 David “in the Spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι) composes Ps. 110:1; in Acts 1:16 the Holy Spirit foretells “through the mouth” (διά στόματος) of David the “Scripture” of Ps. 41:10; in Acts 4:25 it is affirmed that God says Ps. 2:1 through the Holy Spirit, through 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 with the sole mention of the Holy Spirit, so that the human author recedes into the background (e.g., Heb. 2:4; 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). Besides this series of texts, the New Testament presents two that may be called classic, namely: 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pt. 1:20.

The principal text is 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture (is) inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” The verb “is” seems to be supplied immediately after the subject (ἡ γραφή), as required by the preceding verb before “profitable” (ἀρίστη) and by the context, since Paul in V. 16 wishes to show why Timothy can be instructed in wisdom and salvation by the study of Holy Scripture, namely because “it is inspired by God and (therefore) profitable...”. The “Scripture” is that of the Old Testament, since the term γραφή is used in this sense in the New Testament and because the context refers to that which Timothy learned from his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois, Jews.

The expression πᾶσα γραφή may be understood in a distributive sense: “every writing that comes under the name of Scripture (thus 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) is to be taken in a passive sense, “inspired by God,” in accordance with adjectives in -τος and the common interpretation of the Greek Fathers and writers. Thus it is affirmed that the Old Testament proceeds from God through inspiration, that is, through an intellectual communication made to the writer. Less probable, though profound, is the active sense: “every Scripture that radiates God,” “from which God breathes forth.”

In another passage (2 Pt. 1:20 ff.), St. Peter affirms (1:12-20) that the reality of the power and the Parousia of Jesus, besides being demonstrated by his own personal experience of it in the Transfiguration, is also demonstrated by the written word of the Prophets (προφητευκός λόγος). Therefore he exhorts the faithful to pay attention to it, that is, to follow it as one fixes his eyes on a lamp shining in the night in a dark place, until the desired day of the Parousia dawns, in which the morning star will shine in their hearts, bearing in mind as an important point that no prophecy of Scripture is (οὐ γίνεται) a matter of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

By “prophecy of (contained in) Scripture,” Peter means the Old Testament, whose predictions concerning the Messiah are considered as a living and continuous teaching (cf. Rom. 16:26). “It is not a matter of private interpretation” may be understood of its objective origin, namely: the Old Testament “is not the result of private meditation by the Prophets,” as the pseudo-teachers taught. However, even if one accepts the common interpretation (that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is not left to the arbitrary judgment of each individual), one has indirect proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament; it is not left to arbitrary interpretation precisely because it has a meaning established by God. According to Peter, therefore, “prophecy” (the Old Testament) is willed by the divine will, not by the initiative or caprice of man; God, for this purpose, raised up holy men to whom He communicated an influence by which they were borne along (προφητευκον) by the Holy Spirit to write it, not in their own name, but as representatives of God (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ).

The texts of Paul and Peter complement each other. Peter attributes to God the initiative in the composition of the Old Testament and the communication of the energy that renders the sacred writer capable of writing it as God’s representative; Paul asserts that the Old Testament proceeds from God through a direct communication to the intellect of the sacred writer.

The inspiration of the books of the New Testament, then, is demonstrated by tradition, as is evident from the history of the Canon and from their being equated, in fact and in theory, with the books of the Old Testament. There are, moreover, various indications of the divine origin of individual apostolic books.

St. John often declares that he must write the Apocalypse by the command of God (Rev. 1:11, 19; 2:1, 8; 12, 18; 3:1, 7; 14:19; 9) and calls his book “prophecy,” to which nothing is to be added or taken away, by divine disposition (ibid. 22:9, 10; 18-19). In 1 Tim. 5:18 it seems that Paul cites Lk. 10:7, equating it with Deut. 25:4. Peter places the letters of Paul on the same level as the other Scriptures, that is, those of the Old Testament (2 Pt. 3:16), and declares that Paul wrote them according to “the wisdom given him” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13), that is, by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to Peter, the Pauline corpus known to him was composed under a special influence of the Holy Spirit. It must have enjoyed great authority in the Church, if the false interpretation given to it caused such a stir. It was probably already regarded as normative in matters of faith and morals. One may therefore deduce that even from the time of the Apostles, in the composition of the writings of the New Testament, a special intervention of God was recognized.

As a dogma, biblical inspiration must be accepted by all and therefore requires a criterion by which it can be easily recognized. Protestants have established various criteria, either too subjective or too scientific, in any case insufficient. J. D. Michaelis considered inspiration as a charism required by the apostolic (and prophetic) ministry, whence he supposed that the apostolic (and prophetic) origin of the books was the criterion of their inspiration (“criterium muneris apostolatus”).

The Fathers based themselves on tradition to distinguish the inspired books: they affirmed that they accepted them precisely because they had inherited them from the ancients and the elders with the obligation to receive them as such. They sought this tradition in the various Churches, particularly deducing it from the liturgical reading (e.g., Serapion, bishop of Antioch, d. c. 109, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI, 12, 3, etc.) and linking it to a primitive revelation, explicit or implicit, of the Apostles. Therefore the complete and decisive criterion of inspiration is the attestation made by the Apostles, implicitly (e.g., by approving the books for liturgical reading) or explicitly, transmitted, interpreted, and proposed authentically by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The criterion of apostolic origin had a practical and not an exclusive value, inasmuch as only books written in the apostolic age and transmitted by the Apostles were accepted by the Church as divine.

II. NATURE

Bible and tradition present God as the “author” of Sacred Scripture, using man as a rational instrument and “dictating” it; they also designate it as θεόπνευστος. Yet the hagiographer is always considered the true author of the sacred book: he wills it, conceives it, composes it, publishes it, and attributes it to himself by affixing his own name. Each hagiographer is distinguished by his own stylistic and literary characteristics.

The first Christian writers treat 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) under 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 (κύριε) to prophesy, using them as free and rational instruments (Contra 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” grasped 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 adaptation of the Holy Spirit to the limited capacity of the human instrument in the well-known theory of “condescension” (συγκατάβασις). The cooperation of the hagiographer is underscored 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 emphasizes how God allowed the hagiographers “alium sic, alium vero sic narrationem suam ordinare permisit.” St. Jerome justifies the literary characteristics of the hagiographers by their cultural formation and the environment from which they came. Cassiodorus (Expositio in Psalt., Praef.: PL 70, 9 ff.) gives the definition of prophecy that was adopted by the scholastics.

Arab philosophers (Avicenna, 980-1037; Algazel, 1059-1111) treat it from a philosophical standpoint. Medieval rabbis attempt to explain inspiration, and of particular importance is the contribution of Maimonides (1130-1204). Many scholastics raise the question of how the prophets receive divine communications and resolve it by saying that they see “in speculo aeternitatis,” i.e., in the divine essence as the image of all things (William of Auxerre, between 1231 and 1236; William of Auvergne, d. 1240; Philip the Chancellor, d. 1236), or “inasmuch as it is an illumination proceeding from the divine essence” (Alexander of Hales, d. 1245), or as something created by 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 he speaks of it repeatedly, and Van den Borne derives from him the definition: “Divine instigation and direction in service of the charism of doctor, prophet, or evangelist.” St. Thomas developed in a masterly way what had been written in previous centuries, including by Arab writers and Maimonides, giving a systematic exposition of the nature of prophecy that still serves as the basis for studies on biblical inspiration (Summa Theologiae, II-II, 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 explored with diligence in the past century. Preceding hypotheses were insufficient: 1) L. Lessius (1623) thought it could be reduced to a mere divine approval of a book written “humana industria sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti”; perhaps 2 Maccabees was composed thus. After three of his propositions were condemned by the Academy of Louvain, he admitted the necessity that the hagiographer write “ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti.” Similar hypotheses were advanced by J. Bonfrère and H. Haneberg. 2) A. Calmet, Chrisman, J. Jahn (Bonfrère) reduced biblical inspiration to a divine assistance to the hagiographer to preserve him from every error. 3) For others, biblical inspiration is a moral intervention similar to a directive or an initial impulse to write. All these hypotheses were deemed insufficient.

The Catholic doctrine on biblical inspiration is set forth in the encyclicals *Providentissimus Deus* (1893), *Spiritus Paraclitus* (1920), and *Divino afflante Spiritu* (1943), the latter attributing 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 even by his own natural powers. Yet a special divine influence is posited, whereby the faculties of the sacred author that concur in composing a book are placed at the service of God in composing it, so that the book may be attributed to God and, in the principal sense, to Him. The encyclical *Providentissimus* describes the various aspects of the divine influence: “For by His supernatural power He so stirred them to write and so assisted them as they wrote, that the things He ordered and they rightly understood, willed faithfully to write, and aptly expressed in words, were those and only those which He Himself had decreed. Otherwise He Himself would not be the author of the entire Sacred Scripture.” According to *Spiritus Paraclitus*, biblical inspiration is a divine grace by which God communicates to the mind of the writer a light to proclaim to men “in the person of God” the truth, moves the will, impels to write, and assists in a special and continuous way until the book is completed.

The inspirative influence therefore is distinct from all graces and from the ordinary concurrence of God with creatures: “gratis datum, non gratum faciens,” and is given for the duration of the composition of the book; its characteristic is to invest the rational faculties of man to render them capable of writing the book of God. The first result, therefore, is to elevate, excite, 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 can be speculative (on the truth of the information) and practical (on the suitability of putting it in writing). There is no doubt that it extends to the practical, and probably also to the speculative; since they are psychologically united and one is based on the other, their separation would be unnatural and forced and contrary to the notion of instrumental causality; nor would God be the author of the sacred book if He did not make His own the things it contains, 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; yet it is probably sufficient to limit it to a subordination of the intellect so that it judges as God wills: indeed, if it can judge by its own powers, it is only required that it judge moved and directed by God; this is sufficient to say that its judgment is provoked and willed by God.

Properly speaking, revelation is not to be confused with inspiration, which is an impulse to write things that are either already known or 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 assists the rational nature of man, it is not necessary for the hagiographer to be aware of it, unlike the prophet, who must speak in the name and with the authority of God. Moreover, inspiration enlightens and activates the intellect, thus excluding the frenzy and manic exaltation characteristic of pagan seers, and does not, as such, involve ecstasy.

The influence on the will is the communication of an energy that shakes, awakens, and impels the will to write what practical judgment has deemed necessary to put into writing. God acts in a mysterious way, safeguarding human freedom.

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

The inspirational influence on collaborators, secretaries, scribes, glossators, etc., is limited 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, writers, artists, seers, the books of pagan religions, the sibyls, or even with private inspiration sometimes granted to certain saints.

III. EXTENT

The theory of the older Protestants, according to which God dictated the words materially through the imagination or intellect of the hagiographer, is now outdated because it is contrary to the dignity of human nature and incapable of explaining the stylistic differences and the literary effort of the hagiographers. All Catholics require at least a special assistance for the hagiographer, enabling him to choose words suited to faithfully convey the concepts to be expressed. They dispute only whether the choice of individual words (in the "individual" sense) is entirely left to the hagiographer (J. B. Franzelin) or is done instrumentally by him (i.e., psychological verbal inspiration). There are arguments in favor of both opinions. However, those of the first tend rather to oppose the mechanical verbal inspiration of the Protestants. The difference between the two opinions is not great: in the first, God influences the hagiographer to choose the appropriate word, leaving him free to prefer one suitable word over another; in the second, God determines him even to choose individual words, i.e., one suitable word among suitable ones. The latter seems more probable because it is more consistent with the notion of instrumental cause, the inseparability of words from ideas, tradition, and the notion of the Bible as the *Verbum Dei*. The diversity of style would stem from the diversity of the instruments (hagiographers) used by God, who adapts Himself to their nature and dignity.

IV. EFFECTS

Another most important effect of inspiration is the immunity from error that pertains to the Bible, for which V. INERRANCY.

Before any internal or external action, there must be a special motion of the Holy Spirit; otherwise, the act would proceed from self-love. The Church has condemned such errors (J. De Guibert, *Documenta*, 213, 406, 438–48, 461).

II. 1. 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 coming from a deity or another supernatural source. When inspiration occurs through the supposed possession, following preliminary excitement, in which a spirit takes hold of an individual, causing him to speak and act at its will, this is shamanism (v.).

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

Individual inspiration is considered to occur through visions, hallucinations, dreams (v. INCUBATION), regarded by popular mentality as manifestations of a higher world.

The historical religions that arose later, as a reaction or integration of natural religions, through the work of a founder or reformer, almost all possess a canon of sacred writings, deemed to come from the deity itself through the revelation given to the reformer or prophet. The Avesta of the Mazdeans, inspired by Ahura Mazda for Zarathustra, the Koran, existing ab aeterno in heaven and revealed by Allah to Muhammad through the ministry of the archangel Gabriel, are two typical cases of inspiration which the faithful believe to have come directly from God.

Some religions, though not claiming this direct inspiration, possess sacred writings containing the tradition of the land, to which a normative value is attributed for religious and moral life; such are the Vedas of India, the *King* of Confucian China, the *Tao-tsang* of the Taoists, whose central core is the *Tao Te Ching* of Lao-tzu, the *Tripitaka* (Pali *Tipiṭaka*) of Buddhism, the *Siddhānta* of Jainism, and the *Granth* of the Sikhs. The Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Bábís, and Bahá'ís also have their sacred books.