@ScottS What is your current understanding of inspiration and the role of intertextuality in hermeneutics?

@Jas3.1 Inspiration: is the Holy Spirit's moving of men to write the words God is breathing out which He desires to communicate in a form for preserving to future audiences. Such is done within the context of the life God has for His chosen instrument (their experiences, history, family, etc.), using their vocabulary and style, in union with or directing of their thoughts. This gives the unity of one Author and the diversity of many authors for Scripture.

Intertextuality: There are clearly noted connections between Scriptures ("it is written"), as well as many allusions, etc. to the Scriptures. The OT is clearly referenced often within itself and by the NT, but fewer clear connections of NT to NT (though not absent). I hold to the priority of Matthew, and reject the theoretical (fictional in my mind) Q document, largely because if one believes the divine side of inspiration, no literary connection is even needed between the Gospels, as the Divine mind can guide to different witnesses to write the same thing (that does not mean a source as not used, but it is irrelevant and a waste of time to speculate on).

That last is really the point for me regarding your question, except explicitly references, intertextuality might be the cause or might not be, but it cannot be proven if divine inspiration is held. Unity can be seen, but whether that unity is from using a "source" or being inspired by the same Source is unprovable.

And your understanding of those?

→ 13 messages moved to Conversation about chats with Jas

@ScottS RE: Inspiration... did you get this definition from somewhere or is it your own? What I'm wondering is why you say "in union with or directing of their thoughts", as these are two very different perspectives. My question is whether you are uncertain yourself, or whether you got this definition from someone who wants to leave either possibility open?

(I'll come back to the rest. I want to make sure I've understood you before I shift the conversation to my own views.)

@Jas3.1 My own summary (not quite definition), and it is for not only leaving both possibilities open, but that both occurred. Some Scripture is more experiential, such as some of Paul's writings, and come very much from his perspective emotionally, etc., and God breathes out what Paul is feeling (so union is more the idea), whereas some Scripture is directing of thoughts, as the writer could not possibly know what he is writing of his own (prophecy, creation account, etc.).

@ScottS prophecy was spoken, right? so the author of Scripture could have known full well what they were writing (an account of the prophecy -- whatever that prophecy might mean), while the prophet may have been in the dark about what he spoke. Would you agree with that distinction?

@ScottS Did God then "breathe out" in some places that he didn't know exactly what he was talking about?

@ScottS Talk to me about the idea that God "breathed out" words from Paul's perspective? This sounds like an oxymoron (or some kind of weird puppetry!!)

@ScottS If you don't mind me asking, are you Pentecostal by chance? (The reason I ask is that they tend to lean more toward the operation of the Spirit being an external thing, where the Spirit sort of "takes over" the body / mind / etc. of the "host" and does His will using them as a sort of "tool".)

@ScottS And of course, if you're not sure or haven't thought through it yet, that's OK too... just trying to get a clear picture of where you're at with it.