Inspiration...Object and Extent

As usual, theology class left me a bit confused as I thought through old ideas in new ways. The subject was inspiration. The question, whether the Bible on our desk was inspired. According to the doctrine of inspiration, after the author of 1 John penned the words “Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς” [“Jesus is the Christ”; let’s assume this, for sake of discussion, to be a complete, indicative sentence], he, while staring at fresh ink, is staring at inspired words. However, what if his buddy Jim walked up, peered over John’s shoulder, and perfectly copied those words—Would Jim be staring at inspired words? According to the doctrine (as relayed by Dr. Gentry), no. Inspiration is an attribute predicated to the process of writing the original manuscripts of scripture, not to the actual original manuscripts themselves. Inspiration is a non-transferable attribute. If one photocopied the original manuscript, the photocopy would not be inspired, because it was produced by a photocopier which was not governed by God’s special working, rather than by the special guidance and intention of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, I have understood it, recent Christians have gone about affirming that “the original manuscripts of scripture are (were) inspired by God,” obviously thinking that “inspired” is an attribute of the manuscript. So, while inspiration may properly be a quality of an action—namely, the penning [verb] of the Biblical texts—there is another sense in which it is a quality of the text. In the first, inspiration refers to the Holy Spirit’s influence (“super-intention”) upon the writing subject; in the second, inspiration refers to the fact that the words of the original manuscript were intended and given to man by the Holy Spirit. Let’s think about this second kind of inspiration. Imagine that John were to rewrite, perfectly, without deviation, a second copy of his first epistle. Doesn’t it seem reasonable (thought paradoxical) to say that John, after such a rewriting, would have just produced an inspired text, even though he did so without being inspired? Because John was inspired (in the first sense) in the writing of 1 John, the text of 1 John is inspired (in the second sense). But then, 1 John is an inspired book. And if doesn’t matter which copy you pick up—if it is exactly the same as the one John first wrote, it is inspired.

Or, have I made an assumption? I think I have. There is a difference between saying “’That leather skin [or piece of papyri] with ink lines on it,’ (which is the original copy of 1 John), is inspired” and saying “1 John is inspired.” One refers to a particular (i.e. the original) copy being inspired; the other, to the text, to the abstract nature of the text, being inspired. So, can we say that “the text” in the second, abstract sense, is inspired, or that it being inspired follows from John being inspired while writing the identity-making copy of it? Assuming we can say this, is that “inspiredness” transferable to an English copy? I suppose that depends on whether the language of a text is an accidental or essential property of “a text” (in the abstract, nature sense). If part of the identity of 1 John is its “being written in Greek”ness (or, if part of the identity of 1 John is certain attributes that necessitate the text’s being written in Greek), then a particular 1 John in English is not really 1 John at all. Or, is 1 John something beyond language, having its identity purely in meaning? In this case, particular copies of I John relate to “1 John” similar to how statements relate to propositions. If this second account is the case, then our Bible stand a chance at being inspired (in so far as they faithfully capture what the original 1 John communicated [darn, communication is a joint activity; texts don’t communicate; texts and people communicate, right?]. However, if “1 John” is by nature a Greek text, then there is no sense, not even a derivative one, in which our English Bible’s are inspired.

I suppose my driving question is "To what does the quality 'inspiration' apply? And if the answer is 'the original manuscripts of scripture,' then to what does this quality extend?" Does it extend to all documents insofar as they exactly reproduce the (ink coordinates of the) original? Or, more broadly, does it extend to all texts in so far as they capture the nature (meaning) of 1 John?

What does it mean for something to be the “Word of God.” And, if “Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς” is or ever was the word of God, then is “Jesus is the Christ/Messiah/Anointed one” the word of God? Too many questions; not enough theories...