Literary Sources

Suppose I tell you that a statement in a book was inspired by God. Then you discover that its author obtained some material from another book written by someone who made no claim to divine inspiration.
Would that discovery undermine your confidence in the book?

Something similar happened in Scripture. Solomon collected and arranged proverbs. Luke investigated existing accounts before writing his Gospel. Jude appears to quote from Enoch, while Paul quoted Greek philosophers. Biblical historians also consulted historical records.

Does inspiration require God to supply every piece of information directly, or can the Holy Spirit guide a writer who uses ordinary research?

I thought inspiration meant God gave the prophets their messages. Doesn't consulting other writers make the Bible partly human literature?

Of course the Bible is human literature. Human beings wrote it, using their vocabulary, personalities and literary abilities. But it is not merely human literature. That distinction matters.
We sometimes imagine inspiration as mechanical dictation, with writers simply recording words supplied by God. Yet Scripture presents something more complex.

Luke investigated earlier accounts. His research, judgment and ability to organize information were not suspended. The Holy Spirit worked through those faculties.
Human involvement does not cancel divine inspiration. It is part of the way inspiration operates.

Consider Solomon. If he collected sayings that already existed, what exactly was inspired? The sayings, his selection of them, or the way he arranged them?

That is a legitimate question. Inspiration does not require a writer to originate every sentence or idea. Ecclesiastes 12:9-10 tells us Solomon searched for sayings, arranged them and sought acceptable words.

We should not pretend to know precisely how the Holy Spirit guided every selection. But neither should we conclude that the absence of originality means the absence of inspiration.

Then what makes these writings uniquely authoritative? Jude quotes from 1 Enoch. Paul quotes Greek philosophers. Solomon collects existing proverbs. If these sources were not inspired, why should we regard the biblical writers' use of them as authoritative?

And if Jude quotes Enoch, shouldn't the entire book be considered inspired?

No. Quotation is not endorsement. Paul could quote a Greek poet without accepting that poet's entire philosophy. Jude's use of material associated with 1 Enoch does not place the entire book within the biblical canon.

We must distinguish between the authority of an inspired writer and the authority of every source he consults.

But what if those sources contained errors? How can we be certain that errors did not enter Scripture?

We must distinguish between the reliability of a source, the purpose for which it was used and the authority of the inspired account.

Scripture records lies, false accusations and mistaken beliefs. Their appearance in an inspired record does not make those statements true. Inspiration does not endorse everything it records.

Luke tells us he investigated carefully. We believe the Holy Spirit guided his work, but Scripture does not disclose every detail of his research.
We must avoid two extremes: assuming every external source was infallible, and assuming that using human sources makes Scripture unreliable.

I see another problem, particularly among Adventists. We insist that Scripture is inspired, but sometimes insist that inspiration must have operated in a particular way. When evidence challenges our explanation, we become defensive.

Have we confused defending Scripture's authority with defending our preferred theory of inspiration?

That is a question Adventists should take seriously.
We rightly emphasize biblical authority, but must not elevate our explanations of inspiration to the level of Scripture itself.

Consider Ellen White. We believe she was inspired, yet her writings demonstrate that inspiration does not exclude literary borrowing. She used historical and other literary sources.
That fact does not settle every question about inspiration, but it should challenge simplistic definitions of how inspiration must operate.

If we accept that the Holy Spirit worked through Luke's investigation and Solomon's collection of sayings, why should we assume inspiration must operate differently when we encounter literary sources in Ellen White's writings?
We cannot demand that God use only methods that fit our expectations.

So are we sometimes defending our explanation of inspiration rather than inspiration itself?

Yes. And that distinction is essential.
Three principles emerge from this lesson.
First, inspiration does not exclude investigation. Research and faith are not enemies.
Second, using a nonbiblical source does not automatically make a biblical writer's message unreliable. Nor does quoting a source make the entire source inspired.
Third, we must distinguish between the authority of Scripture and our explanations of how inspiration operated.

Let me leave you with something to consider.

If we believe the Holy Spirit can guide human beings in communicating truth, why do we become uncomfortable when evidence reveals just how human that process could be?

After all, if our understanding of inspiration cannot withstand honest investigation, perhaps it is our understanding that needs correcting.