I accepted
B. B. Warfield's interpretation of theopneustos (θεόπνευστος) after my first reading (circa 1982)
of his essay, "GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE" (The Works of Benjamin
B.Warfield, 1927/1981, Vol. 1, pp. 229-280; The Inspiration and
Authority of the Bible, edited by Samuel G. Craig, 1948, pp. 245-296;
original in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, v. XI, pp. 89-130;
online version HERE).
Warfield's interpretation is repeated throughout this contribution, and
concludes, with the following:
What
is θεόπνευστος is "God-breathed,"
produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. (p.296)
Warfield reiterates this interpretation in, "Inspiration", an
article which first appeared in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (Vol. 3, pp. 1473-1483), and subsequently reprinted in The Works of Benjamin B.Warfield (1927/1981, Vol. 1, pp. 77-112),
wherein we read:
For the
Greek word in this passage [2 Tim.3:16] — θεόπνευστος, theópneustos — very distinctly does not mean "inspired of God."... What it says of Scripture is, not that it is
“breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its
human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product
of the creative breath of God. (pp. 78, 79)
Now, before I introduce
the online article/essay which prompted this thread, I would like to point out
that in addition to Warfield's interpretation/understanding of the term theópneustos, I
also adopted his view that this "'God-breathed'...product of the creative
breath of God" was limited only to the originals autographs (i.e. sola
autographa) and did not extend to any copies (i.e. apograha). I took
it for granted that this was the 'classical' view of the conservative, Reformed
paradigm. However, it seems that I was mistaken on this point, for Dr. Theodore
P. Letis, in his scholarly essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy
and Biblical Criticism", argues that Warfield was the first conservative,
Reformed scholar to adopt the notion that theópneustos pertains only to
the autographa. Note the following:
Benjamin
Brickinridge Warfield (1851-1921), Professor at Princeton Seminary from
1887-1921, was the most astute and critically aware N. T. scholar at Princeton
during his tenure. While he also retained the old scholastic view of verbal inspiration,
he did so, keenly aware of this "weapon" in New England.
A good deal
of Warfield's early academic career, therefore, was spent mastering the
discipline of N.T. criticism so as to tame and neutralize this threat. How he
went about his task helps to explain
three developments at Princeton in his lifetime and his lasting influence on
the current evangelical view of Scripture: 1) why he gave a distinctive
emphasis to the autographic inerrancy theory; 2) how text criticism came to be
viewed by evangelicals in the twentieth century as a safe, neutral realm that
can only support the evangelical cause and never harm it; 3) how Warfield
contributed to the climate that was more tolerable toward genuine biblical
criticism at Princeton at a time when such criticism was perceived to be
threatening in the extreme.
Warfield's
first step in this process was to distance himself the Protestant scholastic
approach to text critical matters, while retaining the scholastic view of verbal
inspiration...in contrast to Charles Hodge's view, which we shall treat
below, Warfield began by depreciating the established text (what was called the
textus receptus—the "received text") which had hitherto been
the locus of the verbal inspiration view. For Warfield, the scholastics had
stumbled when their reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not
unnaturally exercised, erected the standard or received text into the norm of a
true text. [These are Warfield's own words; see note below.]
Warfield was
the first from Princeton to break so decisively with the old text standard. He
did so with the confidence that a far better text was then emerging.
Nevertheless,
to abandon this standard meant he would be abandoning the text thought to be
verbally inspired by the Divines who produced the Westminster Confession of
Faith. In order to save, therefore, his verbal view of inspiration—the last
vestige of Francis Turretin's influence—he was forced to now relegate
inspiration to the inscrutable autographs of the biblical records...
The true
test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in
the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural
authority. Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), Charles Hodge (1797-1878), and the
Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney, (1820-1890) were genuine heirs of
Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant, copies of the biblical
texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomenon, as
"providentially preserved" and sanctioned edition (Westminster
Confession Faith, 1:8).
Warfield, on
the other hand, was the first professor at Princeton to allow his Common-Sense
Philosophy the role of reconstructing the text according to the canons of
German Criticism. (The Ecclesiastical Text, 1997, pp. 4, 5.)
[Note: "Reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, erected the standard or received text into the norm of a true text;" (Warfield, An
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 216).]
The
rest of Letis's essay builds a very strong case for the view that no
conservative, Reformed scholar prior to Warfield questioned authoritative,
normative status of the textus receptus as the "God-breathed"
Word of God.
Though
it seems that Warfield's view became the new 'standard' for most conservative,
Reformed folk (and the Evangelical paradigm as a whole)—replacing the Reformed
scholastic view—opposition to this theological novem has continued in
Reformed circles (and, interestingly enough, many Independent Baptists) to our
day.
With
the above, somewhat lengthy, introduction in place, I would now like to move on
to the online article/essay which prompted this post. Just yesterday, while
engaged in some unrelated online research, I happened upon the treatment,
" Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos,
“given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the
Inspiration of the Authorized Version" (LINK), by Dr. Thomas D. Ross (A PDF version, which I
recommend, is available HERE). Dr. Ross's contribution opens with the following:
Scripture teaches that the
words of Scripture are inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical
Scriptures are inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. God did not inspire people like Moses,
Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the words that He gave to mankind through them
are inspired. Since “inspired” means “God breathed,” and Matthew 4:4 states,
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God,” believers are to live by inspired words. Since the present
tense verb “proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4 represents continuing action, as is also
found in other very closely related uses of the verb, the breath of God, that is, inspiration, remains in the words of the
copies of the autographs, and men are to live by every word of those inspired
copies. The fact is that neither 2 Timothy 3:16 nor Matthew 4:4 actually refer
to inspiration as a process, rather than a product. (Page 1, PDF
version.)
Dr. Ross immediately
follows the above with five propositions:
1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew words
are inspired, since inspiration, in 2 Timothy 3:16, refers to a product. Paul
instructs Timothy that the product of the written Scripture itself is both
“inspired/God-breathed” and “profitable.” Neither “God-breathed” nor
“profitable,” in 2 Timothy 3:16, refer to the process of the giving of the
autographs. Both adjectives describe the noun “Scripture” and attribute a
quality to it.
2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word”
is inspired, because, by definition, if God breathes out some words, He has
inspired those words. “All Scripture is inspired,” 2 Timothy 3:16. The verse
equates what is “Scripture” with what is “inspired.” The two categories are
identical—if something is “Scripture,” then it is “inspired.” Had the verse referred to the process of revealing Scripture it would
have stated, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.” Since 2 Timothy
3:16 refers to the product of that process, inspired words, it states, “All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The breath of God is an inherent
quality of all that is Scripture, all that is the Word of God.
3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated
words are still Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, for example, refers to both the untranslated
gospel of Luke (10:7) and the translated book of Deuteronomy (25:4) as
“Scripture.” Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:18 is the only other reference to Scripture
(graphe) in Paul’s epistles to Timothy, so it is natural for one to
consider 2 Timothy 3:16 in light of this previous reference. The same Paul who
tells Timothy that everything that is Scripture is inspired calls
both the untranslated and accurately translated Word of God Scripture.
4.) Therefore, accurate translations are Scripture.
5.) Since accurate
translations are Scripture, they are inspired, since all Scripture is inspired.
All Scripture has the breath of God upon it. (Ibid., pp. 1, 2.)
Dr. Ross
concludes with:
Scripture teaches that inspiration
is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture.
Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they
are properly termed inspired. Since, in a derived sense, the Bible, when
accurately translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word
accurately translated is, in a derived sense, properly termed inspired.
Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version inspired, because
it is an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew autographs dictated once
and for all by the Holy Ghost. (Ibid., p. 6)
Dr. Letis and Dr. Ross
have given this beachbum some serious 'food -for-thought'. I would love to hear
from those who may share my interest in this subject...
Grace and peace,
