What do you think?
Rate this book
The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture
John C. Poirier examines the “theopneustic” nature of the Scripture, as a response to the view that “inspiration” lies at the heart of most contemporary Christian theology. In contrast to the traditional rendering of the Greek word theopneustos as “God-inspired” in 2 Tim 3:16, Poirier argues that a close look at first- and second-century uses of theopneustos reveals that the traditional inspirationist understanding of the term did not arise until the time of Origen in the early third century CE, and that in every pre-Origen use of theopneustos the word instead means “life-giving.”
Poirier thus conducts a detailed investigation of theopneustos as it appears in the fifth Sibylline Oracle , the Testament of Abraham , Vettius Valens, Pseudo-Plutarch ( Placita Philosophorum ), and Pseudo-Phocylides, all of whom understand the word to mean “life-giving.” He also studies the use of the cognate term theopnous in Numenius, the Corpus Hermeticum , on an inscription at the Great Sphinx of Giza, and on an inscription at a nymphaeum at Laodicea on the Lycus. Poirier argues that a rendering of “life-giving” also fits better within the context of 2 Tim 3:16, and that this meaning survived late enough to figure in a fifth-century work by Nonnus of Panopolis. He further traces the pre-Origen use of theopneustos among the Church Fathers. Poirier concludes by addressing the implication of rethinking the traditional understanding of Scripture, stressing that the lack of “God-inspired” scripture ultimately does not affect the truth status of the gospel as preached by the apostles.
Poirier thus conducts a detailed investigation of theopneustos as it appears in the fifth Sibylline Oracle , the Testament of Abraham , Vettius Valens, Pseudo-Plutarch ( Placita Philosophorum ), and Pseudo-Phocylides, all of whom understand the word to mean “life-giving.” He also studies the use of the cognate term theopnous in Numenius, the Corpus Hermeticum , on an inscription at the Great Sphinx of Giza, and on an inscription at a nymphaeum at Laodicea on the Lycus. Poirier argues that a rendering of “life-giving” also fits better within the context of 2 Tim 3:16, and that this meaning survived late enough to figure in a fifth-century work by Nonnus of Panopolis. He further traces the pre-Origen use of theopneustos among the Church Fathers. Poirier concludes by addressing the implication of rethinking the traditional understanding of Scripture, stressing that the lack of “God-inspired” scripture ultimately does not affect the truth status of the gospel as preached by the apostles.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published February 25, 2021
3 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 18, 2023
Poirier works hard to rehabilitate a minority reading of the key biblical verse 2 Timothy 3:16, arguing that the Greek term theopneustos was not originally used in ancient Greco-Roman contexts to mean "divinely inspired," but instead meant "God-breathing" in the sense of conveying life (a la Genesis 2:7). Thus, on this reading, the author of 2 Timothy would be teaching that "all Scripture is life-giving and therefore useful for teaching, admonishing, correcting, and training in righteousness."
In his thorough and informative introduction, Poirier lays out the history of interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16. Perhaps his most helpful contribution is his demonstration of how scholarship since the 20th century has been too beholden to B. B. Warfield's flawed interpretation. Warfield tried to claim that the term theopneustos must always be passive and always referred to divine inspiration -- an argument Poirier capably refutes.
From there, Poirier attempts to demonstrate that the earliest extant examples of theopneustos and its lexical cognates outside of its single use in the New Testament are best understood in their contexts to describe something as "life-giving." For example, it can refer to: life-giving springs or streams of water (Sibylline Oracles); life-preserving ointments applied to a corpse to prevent decay (Testament of Abraham); the living or life-giving soul/breath (Valens' Anthologies); and the power of pharaohs to grant life to their subjects (as opposed to having them executed), as memorialized on a Sphinx inscription.
Since these uses of theopneustic language are roughly contemporaneous with 2 Timothy, they provide evidence to support the possibility that that biblical text was referring not to the divine inspiration of the Hebrew Bible, but rather to its ability to give life to its readers (i.e., by pointing them to the gospel of salvation in Christ -- see 2 Tim 3:15, the verse immediately preceding -- and giving instruction on how to live in light of the gospel).
Why, then, did Christian tradition come to read this verse so staunchly as implying divine inspiration? Poirier asserts that this misreading begins in the third century, with Origen of Alexandria misunderstanding the term and importing a Philonic scheme of biblical exegesis around it. Once the New Testament was then translated into Latin, with theopneustos rendered as divinitus inspirata, this reading was enshrined into the tradition.
In rejecting an inspirationist reading, Poirier seeks to return readers to what he sees as the earliest, primitive Christian understanding: that infallible truth resides not in a text (which wasn't even finished or canonized in that first generation of believers), but in the apostolic proclamation of the gospel of Jesus, which is witnessed to (imperfectly but adequately) by the Scriptures. The texts give life by conveying this gospel.
But is Poirier's case convincing?
On the whole, he succeeds in demonstrating that most instances of theopneustic language prior to the third century do, in fact, bear the connotation of something being "life-giving" (if taken in the active voice) or "living" (if passive). This makes his reading of 2 Tim 3:16 possible, but not proven.
I found his assertion of Origen being the first to misread theopneutos as "divinely-inspired" very weak. The examples he gives from Clement of Alexandria (Origin's predecessor) seem to me to be clearly inspirationist as well, and Poirier's arguments to the contrary were unconvincing. Poirier appeals to a possible indirect allusion to 2 Tim 3:16 in Irenaeus' earlier Against Heresies to support the notion that earlier church fathers described Scripture as "life-giving," but the parallel is incredibly weak. The fact is that we do not see Christian authors using theopneustos to mean anything other than divine inspiration aside from the one outlier, the fifth-century Nonnus of Panopolis.
This is not to say that Clement could not have been guilty of misinterpreting 2 Tim 3:16. However, it does at least serve as evidence that an inspirationist reading of the language is indeed very early and may even reflect a common Hellenistic Jewish and later Christian assumption about the nature of Scripture -- an assumption that may lie behind various texts of the New Testament, whether or not it is made explicit.
In terms of how to translate theopneustoc in 2 Tim 3:16, then, I think the evidence could point us in either direction. Linguistic evidence may slightly favor the rendering "life-giving," but we cannot rule out the possibility that Christians like the author of 2 Timothy were already employing the term in the now-traditional sense of inspiration. I'm left wishing we had more surviving early examples of how the term theopneustos was used to describe written texts to help us here.
That said, I heartily agree with Poirier's conclusions about the dangers of resting the gospel's reliability on the assumption that all of the Bible must be true in a thoroughgoing way; rather, the New Testament's authority "comes from the (faith-embraced) fact that the apostles told the truth about what they had witnessed" (p. 236). The possibility is thus opened for a reading of Scripture that does not assume each and every passage was directly inspired by God, yet still sees Jesus and his resurrection as the historical object of a life-giving faith, and the Bible as an accompanying source of life-giving wisdom and food for reflection/spiritual growth.
Overall, Poirier's work is a valuable and stimulating contribution to New Testament scholarship and a helpful resource for mature thinking on biblical hermeneutics.
In his thorough and informative introduction, Poirier lays out the history of interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16. Perhaps his most helpful contribution is his demonstration of how scholarship since the 20th century has been too beholden to B. B. Warfield's flawed interpretation. Warfield tried to claim that the term theopneustos must always be passive and always referred to divine inspiration -- an argument Poirier capably refutes.
From there, Poirier attempts to demonstrate that the earliest extant examples of theopneustos and its lexical cognates outside of its single use in the New Testament are best understood in their contexts to describe something as "life-giving." For example, it can refer to: life-giving springs or streams of water (Sibylline Oracles); life-preserving ointments applied to a corpse to prevent decay (Testament of Abraham); the living or life-giving soul/breath (Valens' Anthologies); and the power of pharaohs to grant life to their subjects (as opposed to having them executed), as memorialized on a Sphinx inscription.
Since these uses of theopneustic language are roughly contemporaneous with 2 Timothy, they provide evidence to support the possibility that that biblical text was referring not to the divine inspiration of the Hebrew Bible, but rather to its ability to give life to its readers (i.e., by pointing them to the gospel of salvation in Christ -- see 2 Tim 3:15, the verse immediately preceding -- and giving instruction on how to live in light of the gospel).
Why, then, did Christian tradition come to read this verse so staunchly as implying divine inspiration? Poirier asserts that this misreading begins in the third century, with Origen of Alexandria misunderstanding the term and importing a Philonic scheme of biblical exegesis around it. Once the New Testament was then translated into Latin, with theopneustos rendered as divinitus inspirata, this reading was enshrined into the tradition.
In rejecting an inspirationist reading, Poirier seeks to return readers to what he sees as the earliest, primitive Christian understanding: that infallible truth resides not in a text (which wasn't even finished or canonized in that first generation of believers), but in the apostolic proclamation of the gospel of Jesus, which is witnessed to (imperfectly but adequately) by the Scriptures. The texts give life by conveying this gospel.
But is Poirier's case convincing?
On the whole, he succeeds in demonstrating that most instances of theopneustic language prior to the third century do, in fact, bear the connotation of something being "life-giving" (if taken in the active voice) or "living" (if passive). This makes his reading of 2 Tim 3:16 possible, but not proven.
I found his assertion of Origen being the first to misread theopneutos as "divinely-inspired" very weak. The examples he gives from Clement of Alexandria (Origin's predecessor) seem to me to be clearly inspirationist as well, and Poirier's arguments to the contrary were unconvincing. Poirier appeals to a possible indirect allusion to 2 Tim 3:16 in Irenaeus' earlier Against Heresies to support the notion that earlier church fathers described Scripture as "life-giving," but the parallel is incredibly weak. The fact is that we do not see Christian authors using theopneustos to mean anything other than divine inspiration aside from the one outlier, the fifth-century Nonnus of Panopolis.
This is not to say that Clement could not have been guilty of misinterpreting 2 Tim 3:16. However, it does at least serve as evidence that an inspirationist reading of the language is indeed very early and may even reflect a common Hellenistic Jewish and later Christian assumption about the nature of Scripture -- an assumption that may lie behind various texts of the New Testament, whether or not it is made explicit.
In terms of how to translate theopneustoc in 2 Tim 3:16, then, I think the evidence could point us in either direction. Linguistic evidence may slightly favor the rendering "life-giving," but we cannot rule out the possibility that Christians like the author of 2 Timothy were already employing the term in the now-traditional sense of inspiration. I'm left wishing we had more surviving early examples of how the term theopneustos was used to describe written texts to help us here.
That said, I heartily agree with Poirier's conclusions about the dangers of resting the gospel's reliability on the assumption that all of the Bible must be true in a thoroughgoing way; rather, the New Testament's authority "comes from the (faith-embraced) fact that the apostles told the truth about what they had witnessed" (p. 236). The possibility is thus opened for a reading of Scripture that does not assume each and every passage was directly inspired by God, yet still sees Jesus and his resurrection as the historical object of a life-giving faith, and the Bible as an accompanying source of life-giving wisdom and food for reflection/spiritual growth.
Overall, Poirier's work is a valuable and stimulating contribution to New Testament scholarship and a helpful resource for mature thinking on biblical hermeneutics.
May 8, 2024
What does the word translated as “God-breathed” or “inspired” in 2 Tim 3.16 mean? I think Poirer argues well that texts before and around the time of 2 Timothy’s composition in Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources all use it to mean life-giving and not directly beamed from God as its source. This misunderstanding was found in Origen in the 3rd century as the primary driver that influenced everyone else after him. He argues the text is best understood as saying all Scripture is life-giving because it reveals Jesus Christ (connecting it v. 15).
This of course means there is no text to speak of Biblical inspiration (and whatever other things people want to add to it). How then can we trust the Bible? Poirer argues that we trust, in faith, the apostolic testimony to the crucified and risen Christ. Neither an inspired nor infallible text is necessary for this, only a generally true outline. And to be honest, seems good to me!
This of course means there is no text to speak of Biblical inspiration (and whatever other things people want to add to it). How then can we trust the Bible? Poirer argues that we trust, in faith, the apostolic testimony to the crucified and risen Christ. Neither an inspired nor infallible text is necessary for this, only a generally true outline. And to be honest, seems good to me!
May 24, 2024
This book is massively underrated. Careful philological analysis of the Greek term θεοπνευστος in all extant Hellenistic literature before Origen in the mid 3rd century and persuasively argues that the best reading of the data is one that leads to understanding the term as related to vivification. The term thus should be translated “life-giving” rather than “inspired”. The theological implications here are profound and I suspect that if this catches fire has it has the potential to shape theological discourse among contemporary Christians. This is an exemplary case of not simply accepting what you’ve been taught OR even simply accepting what a lexicon says. But, instead going back and reassessing the data and offering a conclusion that makes the best sense of it. EVEN if it means reconfiguring doctrines and concepts that are of the utmost important to us.
July 8, 2025
Highly technical and excellent treatment of a very important subject in New Testament scholarship. Glad I knew a little attic Greek before tackling this one further. Best chapter hands down is the last one, which makes some very powerful and inspiring statements on what the focus of Christian Faith and belief should be turned to in light of a vivificationist reading of θεοπνευστος
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews