The Two Types of Biblical Inspiration

By Gwen Frangs / Cambridge, UK / January 2021

When you start out reading the Bible using an interlinear Bible, it comes as a shock to discover that the Book of Genesis is not the work of a single author. English Bible translators have managed to alleviate any confusion for the reader by translating the Bible in a manner which smooths out the existence of the different authors. However, when you read the original Hebrew text, you discover that there are at least two different authors whose work has been combined to form the book of Genesis.

However, the fact that there was more than one author is not a cause for alarm and does not mean that the Bible is not an inspired text. It merely means that God has used a larger number of authors to create the Bible than is immediately apparent to the English reader. It is like a woman who creates a beautiful patchwork quilt. The quilt forms a unified whole, even though she has used many different pieces of material to make it. In just about all cases, the text of the Bible forms a unified whole, but, just as with a quilt where some pesky threads may stick out, in a few rare instances the unity of the authors breaks down.

In my opinion the most serious of these instances occurs when the unity breaks down between Exodus 6:3 and Genesis 14:22.

In Exodus 6:3 Yahweh tells Moses that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know Him by His name, Yahweh:

And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and to Jacob in el sad-day, but, by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.

(Exodus 6:3 Bible Hub interlinear Bible)

However, in Genesis 14:22 Abraham tells the King of Sodom that he serves Yahweh el Elyon.

But said Abraham to the king of Sodom, I have raised my hand to Yahweh el el-yo-wn the Possessor of heaven and earth

(Genesis 14:22 Bible Hub interlinear Bible)

Therefore, Yahweh speaking to Moses in Exodus 6:3 says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know his true name Yahweh. However, according to Genesis 14:22, Abraham not only knew the name of Yahweh, but the name of Yahweh was so familiar to him that he declared to the King of Sodom that he serves Yahweh. Clearly, one of these verses contains inaccurate information. Clearly, there are contradictions in the Bible.

What does this mean for those of us who believe that the Bible is an inspired book?

God solved this problem for me by teaching me that there were two types of inspiration at play when it came to the writing of scripture. I will call these two types of inspiration the inspiration of the prophet and the inspiration of the author. God did not use this specific terminology when teaching me about divine inspiration, but for the purpose of this article to make what I am discussing more understandable, I will refer to these two types of inspiration by these names.

The inspiration of the prophet occurred when God spoke to one of the prophets and the prophet wrote down exactly what God said word, for word. This occurs in the prophetic books of the Bible and in the prophetic psalms.

The inspiration of the author occurred when God inspired an author to write a story, a historical account, the other psalms or proverbs. The author is not writing down direct words from God and the author’s intellect needs to be actively involved in the writing process. The writing process may involve a great deal of research before the author starts to write.

In the case of the stories in Genesis, hundreds of years may have passed since the events themselves had occurred. The author of most of Genesis, who Bible scholars call the Yahwist, is believed to have written these stories down at a time during or after the exile of the Israelites to Babylon. Hundreds of years had passed since the time when Abraham was alive and the time of the Babylonian Exile when the Yahwist was writing Genesis. The information that the author was using to write the texts was the oral history which had been carried down through the years by the people of Israel. God, using the inspiration of the author, inspired the author to write down this oral history. This type of inspiration is a deep seated desire which God places in an author to write about something. This article, is itself, the product of this type of inspiration.

However, the oral history that the author was documenting clearly did not include the detail that Yahweh had initially revealed himself by means of El Shaddai only and had not used the name Yahweh. You may think it crazy that something like that could have been forgotten. However, the Jews of the present day have forgotten how the name of God was originally pronounced because they have used the shortened form of the name for so long. If a detail of such great importance as the pronunciation of the name of God could have been forgotten, it is possible that if enough time has passed, just about anything can be forgotten.

Furthermore, Yahweh, Himself may have not wanted the fact that He had originally appeared by means of El Shaddai only and had not used the name Yahweh, to be retained in the collective memory of the people. When archaeologists excavated the site of the city of Ugarit, a city which was located close to Israel, they discovered tablets on which the name El Shaddai was included as a member of the Ugaritic pantheon. It seems that between the time that the Israelites went to live in Egypt and their return to Israel that the name El Shaddai had been assimilated into the pagan religion of Ugarit. Therefore, Yahweh could no longer use this name when dealing with the Israelites because He would have been confused with a pagan god.

Exodus 6:3 and the accounts in Genesis which refer to El Shaddai were written at an earlier time in history than Genesis 14:22 and, although these accounts also relied on oral history, because the time of writing was closer to the events themselves, the people still remembered that God had originally made himself known only by means of El Shaddai and not as Yahweh. Therefore, this detail was documented by the author.

Does the fact that this detail was not captured by the Yahwist make his account less powerful or useful in the eyes of God? Does it make it less true? I do not believe that it does. God inspired the Yahwist to document the oral history which was available in the Yahwist’s day and to use the history to convey spiritual truths about God. The Yahwist acted on the inspiration of God and produced a written product which did just that. The fact that this detail had been forgotten and, so, was not included in the oral history of the Yahwist’s day, does not mean that he was any less inspired, or that the people in the story were not real, or that the events did not happen. Jesus was happy to accept the writings of the Yahwist as scripture and He used them Himself as teaching material, indicating that He was happy with the level of historical accuracy contained within them.

Once we understand that God used two different types of inspiration in the production of the scriptures, we will not be disturbed by any of the small contradictions which occur in places in the Bible. These contradictions occurred because God used authors and not prophets to write these accounts. None of these contradictions change the central message of the Bible in a material way. Therefore, we can be confident that the Bible represents a unified, inspired message from God.

The following article may prove helpful to those who are struggling with the idea that the Yahwist wrote most of Genesis rather than Moses:

DID JESUS INTEND TO TEACH THAT MOSES
WROTE THE PENTATEUCH?

By Rev. W. P. McKEE,
Olivet Baptist Church, Minneapolis.

So far as the New Testament records go, just what did
Jesus say on this matter?
” And Jesus saith unto him [the man cleansed of leprosy], See thou tell no
man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.” Matt. 8:4.
At most, Jesus here only allows that Moses had to do with
making certain regulations concerning leprosy. Nothing is
taught as to the authorship of the Pentateuch.
” Why then did Moses command to give her a bill of divorcement, and to
put her away ? He [Jesus] said unto them, Moses, for your hardness of heart,
suffered you to put away your wives ; but from the beginning it hath not been
so.” Matt. 19:7, 8.
Here Jesus tacitly disapproves of an act of Moses, but he
utters no positive teaching as to the authorship of the Penta-
teuch.
” For Moses said, honor thy father and mother.” Mark 7 :10o.
At most Jesus admits that through Moses came this com-
mandment. Nothing is said about the authorship of the mass
of literature of which this was a part.
” But as touching the dead, that they are raised: have ye not read in the
book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush,” etc. Mark 12 :26.
Manifestly, the Jews believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch
as a whole, with the exception of the “last eight verses,
which were added by Joshua ” (Toy). Jesus is confronted with
the crucial matter of the Resurrection. An answer to that
question is urgently, clamorously demanded. Does he turn
aside from that vital matter, to discuss the point of the au-
thorship of the record in which this incident is found? In
presence of a question of first importance, he ignores the
question of secondary moment. At most, here, Jesus allows
the current view of the authorship of the Pentateuch to pass
unnoticed. He utters no teaching upon that point.
” They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Luke 16 : 29.
Here Jesus, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,
is striving to rebuke the Pharisees for their inordinate, soul-
destroying love for money. (Lk. I6: 14). The question of
authorship is not before the Saviour.
” And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled which
are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning
me.” Lk. 24:44.
As above, Jesus’ purpose in this utterance is foreign to any
question of authorship.
” And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
Son of Man be lifted up.” John 3: 14.
It may be claimed that here Jesus, by using this incident
as an illustration, asserts its historicity. No more can be
claimed, and even this might be disputed.
” For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me.”
John 5:46.
This would agree with the theory that Moses wrote the
whole of the Pentateuch. But this statement, as it stands,
need not imply that. Moses could have written of Christ
without writing five books of considerable proportions. So
far as this Scripture is concerned, a single passage in which
Moses made reference to the Christ would be enough to fill
up the necessary implication in the Master’s words. The
most that can positively be asserted of this passage then is,
that in one place Moses wrote of Christ. And even then it is
to be kept in mind that Jesus was arguing from the point of
view of the Jews, and on the basis of their own beliefs. He
was not at all discussing a question of authorship. He was
rebuking the Jews because they did not believe in their sacred
writings. Practically, he asserts here that they do not be-
lieve the Old Testament, and that unbelief in it is the reason
for their unbelief in Him. Mere matters of authorship are
far from his purpose.
” Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law ?”
John 7:19.
Plainly, at most here, the Saviour only assumes that Moses
was an historical person who had to do with giving the law
to Israel. The question of the original authorship of a great
book is not under consideration. Similar remarks may be
made on verses 22, 23, following.
We may omit John 8: 5 as being in a doubtful passage.
Moreover it offers no facts beyond those considered already.
Beyond these, I find no record of any important sayings of
Jesus, touching this matter. Certainly, if Jesus says any-
where that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he says so here.
What then can be our answer to the question: Did Jesus in-
tend to teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Only this:
We have no record that Jesus intended to teach, or did teach,
anything whatever concerning the authorship of the Penta-
teuch.
The weighty words of Professor S. R. Driver, (Introduc-
tion to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. xviii), upon the
general question of the attitude of our Lord to the Old Testa-
ment, may be quoted here:
“,That our Lord appealed to the Old Testament as the
record of a revelation in the past, and as pointing forward to
Himself, is undoubted; but these aspects of the Old Testa-
ment are perfectly consistent with a critical view of its Struc-
ture and growth. That our Lord, in so appealing to it,
designed to pronounce a verdict on the authorship and age of
its different parts, and to foreclose all future inquiry into
these subjects, is an assumption for which no sufficient ground
can be alleged. * * * In no single instance (so far as
we are aware) did He anticipate the results of scientific in-
quiry, or historical research. The aim of His teaching was a
religious one. * * * He accepted, as the basis of His
teaching, the opinions concerning the Old Testament current
around Him; He assumed, in His allusions to it, the prem-
ises which his opponents recognized, and which could not
have been questioned, * * * without raising issues for
which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had they been
raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount
purpose of his life. There is no record of the question,
whether a particular portion of the Old Testament was writ-
ten by Moses or David or Isaiah, having ever been submitted
to Him; and had it been so submitted, we have no means of
knowing what His answer would have been.”

Published in The Journal of Religion Volume 14, Number 3, March 1982

Other topics: