Were the Apostles’ Inspired? Or Was It Something They Wrote?

"One of the doctrinal errors I warn our church about is found in the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833. It says, 'We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired…' According to 2 Timothy 3:16, God inspired the 'graphe' or Scriptures, not the men." - P&D

1810 reads

There are 26 Comments

JNoël's picture

This article is nothing more than arguing over a word and is entirely unnecessary. All scripture was breathed by God, and men wrote it. Of course the men who wrote the Bible were "divinely inspired" - God breathed the words out to men who heard them and who then wrote them down. The writers were used by God supernaturally to pen the words God wanted them to pen. 

Other thoughts:

"Second, if God inspired the men, their other writings should be inspired too." - this is an illogical argument.

"Fourth, “inspired men” opens the door for men to repeat this action today." - More illogical argumentation. There are so many other things we could claim in the same manner.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Don Johnson's picture

JNoël wrote:

This article is nothing more than arguing over a word and is entirely unnecessary.

then why are  you arguing with it?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JNoël's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

 

JNoël wrote:

 

This article is nothing more than arguing over a word and is entirely unnecessary.

 

then why are  you arguing with it?

Because someone needed to. The article is an unnecessary source of conflict over words, and it should be called out as such.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

dgszweda's picture

This article is way off base.  This is not the historical understanding of this confession.  He keeps stating the term "inspired men", yet that is not what the confession states.  It states men divinely inspired  and in 1855 clarifies it by God, and if you continue to read, it states that God is the author.  This is a sad print that is being pass off as an article by the FBFI.  The language structure is a bit more archaic in the 1833, but the 1855 clarifies it with updated language.  Before someone attacks an archaic languaged confession they should understand the contextual understanding of the confession.  This is the first time I have heard someone attack the 1833 on the grounds of inspiration, and to call it a false doctrine is just too far of a stretch.

Don Johnson's picture

dgszweda wrote:

This is the first time I have heard someone attack the 1833 on the grounds of inspiration, and to call it a false doctrine is just too far of a stretch.

David, the article doesn't call the Confession false doctrine. It calls it a doctrinal error. I suspect that you all may be reacting to having a favorite ox being gored. If the 1833 Confession were perfect, why would it need the revisions you point out?

The overall point of Tim's article is what led to its publication. I think his point is correct.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

TylerR's picture

Editor

An unfortunate article. The 1833 NHCF means the men were "divinely moved" to write what they did. The context supports this. Strangely, the author uses Greek to exegete an English source document. An American dictionary contemporaneous with the original 1833 (Webster's 1828) defines "inspired" as "informed or directed by the Spirit," which is the meaning the context suggests. The OED also notes this is a valid understanding of the word; the relevant option here (def. 4a) is "to influence or actuate by divine or supernatural agency." Again, the context suggests this meaning.

The author is wrong.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

JNoël's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

The overall point of Tim's article is what led to its publication. I think his point is correct.

In order to support the title of his article, he references a confession that itself was updated later to help clarify the position, a position we all agree with. The author of the article could not have made his case without using the more ambiguously worded confession. That's sloppy.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Don Johnson's picture

But the point he makes is the point of the article. it is a blog, not an academic publication.

I still think you all are huffy because someone doesn't like a confession you like.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JNoël's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

I still think you all are huffy because someone doesn't like a confession you like.

Not at all. Actually, I don't think I've ever even read the entire confession. I'm just trying to point out that he has created conflict where it doesn't exist. That's a problem that should be corrected, and I hope he is reading all of this so he perhaps recognizes it.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Ed Vasicek's picture

More than one problem with this article.

From my first book, The Midrash Key:

This "hypostatic union" means we believe that Yeshua is both God and man. This raises a question: If Jesus was God, was every word he uttered the “Word of God?” If Christ asked brother James to "pass the biscuits," was that request inspired?

I think we need to make a distinction between (1) words a divine Person has spoken, (2) the inspired words of a divine Person, and (3) Scripture.

Consider the first category, "words a divine Person has spoken." This includes whatever God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit have said to one another, to angels, or to men.[1] Many of these words – though true and perfect – were intended only for the moment.

The inspired words of a divine Person are not merely true, but impregnated with a special power and purpose (Isaiah 55:10-11). But not all inspired words have been preserved.[2] When we discuss God’s written Word (Scripture), we mean God’s preserved and inspired word.
The Scriptures provide a blueprint for all we need in the realm of spiritual maturity (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus the Scriptures are the full composite of all the inspired teaching God has determined perennial and essential.

Yeshua spoke many inspired words, but only some of them have been preserved as Scripture.[3] From a human perspective, we can assume that the Gospel writers chose to include portions they considered relevant to the Christian community or for evangelism.

What do we mean by assuming all Scripture is inspired? Although many conservative Christians claim to believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, some who make this claim really believe in a theory called “dictation.” ...True verbal plenary inspiration means that God guided the authors to assure that what they said was in accord with what God wanted said. God saw to it that the words they chose accurately conveyed the thoughts God wanted to convey.[4]  I do not operate from a premise of dictation, but verbal, plenary inspiration.

I believe that God typically worked through and with the human minds of the Scriptural authors. Some texts, like the 613 commandments of the Torah, were indeed dictated, but dictation is not the rule. Thus we believe the entire Bible to be the Word of God, but much of it is simultaneously the Word of God AND the word of godly men.[5]

[1] Though some of these words were both inspired and Scripture, it is interesting to note that the creation of the universe could be attributed to a conversation between the Persons of the Trinity.

[2] I Corinthians 14 makes clear that prophesying was an important function in the infant church. Prophesying is often defined as either inspired speech or inspired thought. Yet these many prophecies (some true, others false) have not been preserved. The First Testament mentions many prophets whose words are not recorded in Scripture. For example, in I Kings 14, Ahab speaks poorly of Ahijah the prophet. This means that Ahijah had previously prophesied, but these words were not recorded. In I Samuel 28:6, Saul inquired of the prophets but received no answer. Thus nameless prophets dot the First Testament.

[3] This is suggested by John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” One “thing” Jesus did much of is teaching.

[4] See Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, pp. 80-81.

[5] See Daniel Wallace’s paper, “Is Intra-Canonical Theological Development Compatible with a High Bibliology?” for further study on this subject.

 

"The Midrash Detective"

TylerR's picture

Editor

I think the phrase I remember seeing (from Erickson?) that captures the distinction between orthodoxy and dictation is "concursive." I might be wrong. I remember Erickson had a great discussion on the different viewpoints in his systematic, which is still the best evangelical Baptist ST out there, I believe. Just bought the third edition in Kindle. It's a treasure.

I bought Robert Letham's work this past Christmas, and have dipped into it a few times. Great stuff. I am wanting to branch out a bit, though, and am thinking of grabbing Lombard's Sentences and Aquinas in hardcover. I have Aquinas in Kindle, right now, but don't consult him at all.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

I think the test for the P&D article here is "would the authors of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith have recognized their idea as it was expressed in the P&D article?", and I think the answer to that question is an emphatic "no".  If you argue they were, as argues P&D, inspired over the course of their careers and not just as they wrote down the canonical books, then you would have to grant that to Peter as he refused to eat with Gentiles, denied Christ, and the like.  Classic example of the straw man fallacy.

The authors would perhaps point out,to respond to P&D, that the inspiration that put those words on parchment in ink had to do something to guide that pen, the hand and arm that held it, and the mind that thought at the time it was actually doing the work of phrasing the relevant sentences.  And when you've conceded that, you might as well say the writers were inspired during that time.

What's left, really, is a quibble over clarity as perceived 187 years after the original document was written.  Meh.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Don Johnson's picture

What is the limit of inspiration? Was everything the apostles said inspired? If so, how do you explain Paul's rebuke of Peter in Gal 2? The point of Tim's article is that *only* the apostolic writings collected in the Canon (i.e. the Bible) are inspired. Other letters by them were not. The apostles themselves were not inspired, their writings of Scripture were. You may argue that this distinction is minor. Fine. There are ramifications of suggesting that the men themselves were inspired and everything they said is authoritative. Geoffrey Bromiley, writing in Christianity Today, 1963, points out how the Catholics go astray with their appeal to tradition, or authority outside the Bible.

Now it is true that no precise definition has been given either of unwritten tradition or of its relation to Scripture. This was an unfulfilled task of the Vatican Council of 1870, and it is one of the most important and contentious issues of the Second Vatican Council. There are those who would bring spoken tradition and written Scripture into the closest possible relation, as though the one were merely the oral form of the other. In this case, no possibility of qualification by addition arises, for Scripture remains a constant check upon living proclamation. The evangelical emphasis on the importance of preaching might well be fitted into some such understanding.

The more traditional view, however, is rather different, and far more dangerous. On this interpretation unwritten traditions are apostolic truths and precepts which were never committed to writing, but which are equally authoritative with what is written. Thus the Church might teach and practice many things which cannot be substantiated from Scripture. If challenged, as at the Reformation, it counters the argument from Scripture by an appeal to unwritten tradition. “Biblical” and “apostolic” are not necessarily coterminous. Thus the Bible loses its unique position as the one absolute authority and criterion in the Church. Tradition is not merely another aspect of the one source of revelation. It is a second source in the stricter sense. Or rather, the apostolic preaching is the one source. And this has come down to us in the complementary forms of Scripture on the one side and tradition on the other. Hence many things may be defended as authentically apostolic even though there is no sanction for them in Scripture. On this reading, the control of Holy Scripture is very largely undermined.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Roman Catholicism: The Sources of Revelation,” Christianity Today (Washington, D.C.: Christianity Today, 1963), 9.

One could object to the point Tim asserts by saying it makes too much of a distinction. In ordinary language, we do talk about the inspired writers of the Bible, but if pressed, I think we would agree that it is their writings in the Bible itself carry the inspiration, not the men themselves. Tim uses the wording of the 1833 confession as an illustration of a common error of speech and points out that the error can lead to other errors. I think its a point worth making.

My objection to your criticism is that you all seem to be unwilling to engage with the points Tim is making. Do you think, for example, that the letters Paul alludes to between himself and the Corinthians were inspired? I think we can safely say there was at least one of these. Personally, I see him alluding to two other letters in the pages of the two epistles we have. Were those missing letters inspired? My understanding of the doctrine of inspiration would say no.

Further, I can't imagine that Peter only ever wrote two letters in his life, or John just the three that we have. Why were they not preserved, if they were inspired?

The same goes for Paul, James, and Jude. Do we have everything they ever wrote? I doubt it. So the point of the article is that inspiriation is limited to the books we have. We need to start there with our doctrine. I think that's a point worth making.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JNoël's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

What is the limit of inspiration? Was everything the apostles said inspired? If so, how do you explain Paul's rebuke of Peter in Gal 2? The point of Tim's article is that *only* the apostolic writings collected in the Canon (i.e. the Bible) are inspired. Other letters by them were not. The apostles themselves were not inspired, their writings of Scripture were. You may argue that this distinction is minor. Fine. There are ramifications of suggesting that the men themselves were inspired and everything they said is authoritative. Geoffrey Bromiley, writing in Christianity Today, 1963, points out how the Catholics go astray with their appeal to tradition, or authority outside the Bible.

. . .

My objection to your criticism is that you all seem to be unwilling to engage with the points Tim is making. Do you think, for example, that the letters Paul alludes to between himself and the Corinthians were inspired? I think we can safely say there was at least one of these. Personally, I see him alluding to two other letters in the pages of the two epistles we have. Were those missing letters inspired? My understanding of the doctrine of inspiration would say no.

Further, I can't imagine that Peter only ever wrote two letters in his life, or John just the three that we have. Why were they not preserved, if they were inspired?

The same goes for Paul, James, and Jude. Do we have everything they ever wrote? I doubt it. So the point of the article is that inspiriation is limited to the books we have. We need to start there with our doctrine. I think that's a point worth making.

I think we're still just talking around the issue, stuck on an English word, "inspiration."

Let's see if we can follow each other.

1) Theopneustos is how scripture came to be. God Breathed.

2) None of us were there, and the Bible does not tell us exactly how that worked. And so we are forced to figure it out ourselves. But do we really need to?

We accept The 66 as being God's intended writings for our learning. How those 66 came to be isn't entirely clear to us, outside of God Breathed.

I think we're arguing about something that doesn't need to be argued about. There were humans God used to pen The 66. How did he do it? God Breathed. But how? I don't know, and none of us do, either. But we have The 66, and that is what God intended us to have. No one is saying the writers said or wrote more things than The 66 that are somehow on the same level as The 66. God Breathed The 66, humans penned, end of story. So a humanly written Confession may have been ambiguously worded in saying “We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired…” - but is that statement really incorrect? Divinity (God) used (inspired) Men to Write the Holy Bible. Is that really in question? I think not, and I still maintain he is creating an argument that is simply isn't there.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

JNoël's picture

And this gets really down to understading how to read the Greek, which is far above my level of knowledge, but I know there are people here who are expert in that practice, so help me out.

When I look at 1 Timothy 3:16, I see a process - all scripture is God-breathed. Some translations say "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" - is that a bad translation? Because that translation describes a process - it is given by inspiration. It doesn't say the scripture itself is God breathed, it says that God breathed is the process by which scripture was written.

So help me out in understanding how to properly translate and understand the Greek, please. Or is there no consensus even with that?

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Larry's picture

Moderator

I don't think it is mere argung over words nor do I think it is way off base. It is, in my judgment, misguided. (It is also a very common, if not the most common position, on inspiration). 

To his arguments:

First, the Bible clearly says God inspired the Scripture and not the men. “All Scripture is God-breathed…” This should be enough evidence, but for some it is not. If your church doctrinal statement says something different, change it to match the Bible

I think it is tenuous to draw a distinction between "God-breathed" and "carried along." 2 Tim 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed" (did you notice the FBFI is citing the NIV here?). It does not say "Only Scripture is inspired." And that is why that isn't enough evidence for some. We like the words of Scripture and think they are authoritative. It is possible to conclude that "only Scripture is inspired," but not based on that verse alone, IMO. I am not sure there is a lot of room here for a very big wedge between inspiring Scripture and not men. 

Essentially what is being done here is making inspiration equal to inscripturation. One of the problems that stems from this is making essentially a tautology out of 2 Tim 3:16: All Scripture in inscripturated. 

Of course that is to say nothing at all. Theopnuestos refers to its origin (from God), not to its form (in Scripture). To draw it this narrowly has never been convincing to me.

Second, if God inspired the men, their other writings should be inspired too. I cite the lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians 7:8, Paul referred to a letter that does not seem to fit 1 Corinthians. Why isn’t it in our Bible? The answer is that it was not an inspired Scripture. If God inspired Paul the man, 3 Corinthians could be a lost a book of the Bible.

Another common objection with another relatively easy answer, starting with the end. "Why isn't it in our Bible?" Because it wasn't preserved.  3 Corinthians, the letter to the Laodiceans, or Psalm 151 might be inspiredBut there is nothing requiring that an apostle who was inspired be inspired all the time. That is a non sequitur. 

Part of this depends on what you think inspiration does. If inspiration is connected to inerrancy and authority, then it would seem there is a strong argument for the letter to the Laodiceans to be inspired. After all, it is elevated to the same level as Colossians with the command to read it to the church. If we were to find this letter and the church at large was to agree that it was authentic, I don't see how we would escape the command to read it publicly. The Bible commands us to. 

Third, if God inspired the men, then inspiration died with them. If God inspired the text, we still have the inspired Word of God, which is preserved for all eternity (Psalm 119:89).

No, the text is still here. I don't think anyone claims that the men were inspired but not the text. Perhaps there are some. I will gladly join in refuting them. And citing Psalm 119:89 is not of much help since the word is settled in heaven.

Fourth, “inspired men” opens the door for men to repeat this action today.

Yes, it could happen theoretically, just like miracles or sign gifts or any other gifts. But I believe, based on Scripture, that that has ceased for this age. The "open door" argument is typically a slippery one that cannot be used dogmatically. 

In the end, I tend to think that the men were inspired to write inspired Scripture. I think the "bearing along" of 2 Peter 1 is inspiration--God breathing out to them. Inspiration is about source: Where did this come from? Part of the argument has to do with canonicity--with recognizing what God has inspired. I am sympathetic to the open door argument, but the other three are don't contribute much, IMO.

All in all I think the article picks a fight that does not need to be picked.

 

 

Don Johnson's picture

Here is the text in various versions:

NAU  2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

KJV  2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ESV  2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

NET  2Ti 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

YLT  2Ti 3:16 every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,

BGT  2Ti 3:16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

BYZ  2Ti 3:16 Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ·

Here is my literal translation, following the word order as close as I can:

all/every Scripture God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for child-training in the righteousness

the KJV "is given" is an attempt to smooth out the translation since the verb is assumed. The New American Update and English Standard Version do better by making the verb a simple "is" rather than "is given."

It is the Scripture that is God-breathed, not the men.

The Scriptures do tell us (Peter) that the writers of Scripture were "moved along" by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. However that process occurred, the men who wrote the Scriptures were moved by God in writing the Scriptures. i think it is safe to say that their "moving" occurred then and only then, not at other times in their lives, i.e. when giving sermons for example (except when those sermons were recorded for us in the Scripture)

I am preaching in Acts right now, and am in the midst of Acts 15. Some of the matters that were under discussion ("what about the Gentiles") God already supernaturally revealed in the vision he gave Peter (Acts 10). Interestingly, in Acts 15, there is no record of God supernaturally intervening to tell the apostles and elders how to settle the Gentile question. They had to sort it out for themselves. Their decision became God's revealed word when Luke wrote it down. Was Peter's sermon (Acts 15.7-11) "inspired" in the sense we mean the Scriptures are inspired? I would say that Peter was right in what he said, but the inspiration involved being recorded in the Holy writings.

I think the point is an important distinction to make, given errors that come from assuming, for example, that the "supernatural gifts continue." Some Charismatics claim there are apostles today. C J Mahaney used to claim the title for himself and his co-leaders in his group, though he seems to have backed off from that.

Hope that helps.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don Johnson's picture

I think Larry makes some good points, but I still maintain that we need to be careful in how we state the doctrine of inspiration. The only sure word we have is the Bible. Some have made a case for General Revelation as an authority, but I think General Revelation is authoritative only insofar as it confirms Special Revelation, ie. the Bible.

 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

AndyE's picture

I"m willing to concede that the authors of the confession could have thought of "inspired"  as "informed or directed by the Spirit."  Today, though, that's not how most people understand that terminology.  I agree that the words of Scripture were breathed-out by God and that means the text was inspired, not the penmen.  I"m not so sure I agree with all the points the author makes. I think his 1st and 4th are the best.  In general, the reasons I would give are (1) to show that the words of Scripture are there because of they are God's words, and not due to some special quality or talent of the penmen; and (2) the characteristics of the text take on the qualities of God as the ultimate author and thus are authoritave, inerrant, faithful, etc.  There may be other reasons, but those would be my top two off the top of my head.

I also agree with the person who said the word are both God's and the human authors -- that God did not dictate the words but used their own personalities and sytles to express exactly what and how God wanted it expresed.  I don't think that teaching comes from Theopnuestos, though.

AndyE's picture

Don Johnson wrote:
Some have made a case for General Revelation as an authority, but I think General Revelation is authoritative only insofar as it confirms Special Revelation, ie. the Bible.
  Here is how I would say it -- both General Revelation and Special Revelation come from God and are thus equally authoritative.  The problem is when people take things that are not General Revelation, like the truth claims of science, and equate those with General Revelation.  General revelation reveals truth about God to all men at all times in history (that's what makes it 'general').  It does not reveal how to be right with God, but it does reveal His existence, certain aspects of His being, and that mankind is not right with him -- all that with the absolute authority of the God who revealed it.

Don Johnson's picture

I should run everything by him, I think! Clarity of expression, he's got it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Mark_Smith's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

What is the limit of inspiration? Was everything the apostles said inspired?

Simple. I didn't even realize this was an issue, to be honest. When an apostolic era author wrote something the Lord inspired they were "inspired" or "moved" or "divinely led" to do so. When they were not writing that specific inspired document, they were in no way inspired.

There are better ways to critique the powerful error of Bethel and most other Charismatics than to try to split hairs over whether Mark was "inspired" while he wrote the gospel named after him, or just his written words were.

Mark_Smith's picture

is that the gift of prophecy no longer operates. That allows the apostolic era prophets to speak divinely inspired words, some of which are written down, but most are not. Interestingly, most of the ones that are written down are likely done so only in summary form, not precise dictation of exactly what was said.

As for today, NO ONE has this gift. Period.

josh p's picture

I remember going over this in Bible college and a lot of time was spent explaining that it was the scriptures themselves that were inspired and not the authors. Perhaps it is somewhat splitting hairs but I believe part of it was an argument against the liberal notion of inspiration which really just means something like transcendent. For instance, “Dostoyevsky is an inspired writer.” The important point is that God was “superintending” but I can see how inspiration can be said of the author as long as we keep a clear idea of what that means and especially the idea that they were not always inspired.

josh p's picture

double post

JNoël's picture

But you're all still talking about a word that has come to have various meanings in the English language - inspired/inspiration. But it's just a word. In the Greek, the process used, as written in the Bible (which we all agree is God's Word), is God Breathed.

And none of us knows what that really means - it is all speculation.

Did God whisper (breathe) the words of The 66 in the ears of the writers?

Did God inject an audible, inner voice into the mind of the writers so they knew they were properly writing down what God wanted them to write?

Did the writers of The 66 write without any conscious recognition that they were writing The 66?

In the end, we simply do not know, and we never will. But that does not mean we have no ground upon which to stand regarding the authenticity of The 66. But we also must recognize that there is a supernatural aspect at work within us, which is part of why we believe in the authenticity of The 66.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)