Abstract
Theological literature contains many references to the analogy between the Incarnation of the Word and the expression of God’s words in human language. In “The Christological Analogy and Theological Interpretation” James Prothro points out that the incarnational theology is useful only in emphasizing the dual provenance of Scripture (divine and human authorship). Nevertheless, it does not hold true in a situation in which one derives the concept of inspiration from the analogy or tries to formulate conclusions on how to interpret the inspired books on its basis. According to the theologian, the text and the actual Incarnation are two different examples of divine self-disclosure to humans, and there is no immediate transit between Christology and the theology of Scripture. This article is a polemic with Prothro’s theses, which have been subjected to criticism. The theologian’s escape from the incarnational theology has proved unsuccessful. The limitations of the analogy do not prevent one from the possibility of using it. One should only remember about the “dissimilar similarity,” characteristic of every analogy. The final part of the article contains directions for further studies.