Review of The Invention of the Inspired Text

Poirier, John C. The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2022, pp. xvi + 249, $39.95, paperback.

While Poirier’s book is written for scholars, his argument is sure to gain greater attention beyond the academy. His book serves as a call to re-examine the debate between Warfield and Cremer and to ensure that the Evangelical doctrine of Scripture has not overstepped what Scripture actually teaches.

John C. Poirier is an independent scholar who has published numerous articles on a wide range of topics in the New Testament. He has also edited and contributed to Marcan Priority without Q (2015).

            In The Invention of the Inspired Text, Poirier argues that θεόπνευστος, a hapax legomenon, in 2 Timothy 3:16 should be understood as life-giving instead of inspired. The fundamental question is whether θεόπνευστος has a passive sense (the inspirationist view: Scripture is God-breathed or inspired) or an active sense (the vivificationist view: Scripture is God-breathing or life-giving). Poirier’s book is a re-examination of the debate between Hermann Cremer and B. B. Warfield from a century ago (8-11). Poirier holds that scholarship since Warfield has wrongly understood θεόπνευστος, forcing awkward readings onto the word’s earliest occurrences and its synonym θεόπνους (25). Poirier charges Origen as the culprit who first gave θεόπνευστος an inspirationist sense, thus “inventing” the inspired text (46, 129). Poirier argues that Scripture nowhere supports the inspirationist perspective, briefly addressing two other key passages: John 10:35 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 (110-13). He then concludes that the Bible must be rejected as “true in a thoroughgoing way,” (i.e., as inspired and inerrant) and faith must be grounded in the truth of the gospel as faithfully communicated by the apostles (160-1). In Poirier’s view, inspiration and inerrancy are not needed for reliable testimony, contending that epistemic certainty in Scripture misses the emphasis of the apostles, who focused on the truthfulness of the gospel (161).

To make his case, Poirier analyzes the pre-Origen uses of θεόπνευστος (six occurrences) and θεόπνους (four occurrences) in extant Greek literature, determining that all ten support a vivificationist reading. He then examines 2 Timothy 3:16, where he sees two indicators that support a vivificationist reading: (1) the life-giving quality of Scripture in v. 16a is a restatement of Scripture’s ability to make wise for salvation in v. 15b and (2) the Scripture’s life-giving nature leads to its usefulness in v. 16b (103). So, for Poirier, Scripture is life-giving because it communicates the gospel, which produces spiritual life (102). The final part of Poirier’s argument entails showing when the inspirationist understanding of Scripture developed by examining the patristic uses of θεόπνευστος, deducing that all pre-Origen occurrences have either a vivificationist or neutral sense. Poirier then presents key inspirationist uses of θεόπνευστος in Origen’s writings and theorizes that Origen’s error originated from a misreading of Numenius’s theopneustic waters (139).

            Poirier should be commended for making a comprehensive case to support his view of θεόπνευστος. He offers an in depth reading of each occurrence prior to Origen and provides a plausible scenario of how Origen misunderstood the word. Poirier impressively interacts with Greek literature, the New Testament, patristic writings, and the corresponding modern scholarship in each area. His argument and especially his interaction with pre-Origen writings should not simply be dismissed by Evangelicals in favor of Warfield’s inspirationist conclusions.

Finally, I see both a vivificationist and inspirationist sense reflected in the 10 pre-Origen passages, indicating that both options are open to Paul. This makes the context of 2 Timothy the final determiner, and ultimately the inspirationist interpretation fits better, although Poirier does offer a plausible reading.

The following critique will address five points related to Poirier’s proposal. First, by examining the usage of θεόπνευστος, Poirier is only able to show that the word’s semantic domain is wider than what was previously accepted in scholarship. He is arguing from silence to claim that θεόπνευστος did not have an inspirationist sense before Origen, even if all the readings fell in his favor. Scholarship’s ability to reconstruct the full semantic domain is limited by the few extant writings. Given this, Origen could be drawing upon a known use of the word to correctly interpret 2 Timothy. At best, Poirier’s argument is based on probability: because every pre-Origen occurrence (in his view) has a vivificationist sense, it likely should have that sense in 2 Timothy. This point is not definitive either way, but merely a caution against overstating what the data can prove.

A second difficulty in Poirier’s argument is his limitation to the realm of philology, which overlooks how a similar concept can be conveyed without the explicit word. He offers no exploration of similar word groups, such as ἔνθεος (inspired), a word Origen uses in the context of θεόπνευστος (Princ. 4.1.6). Also, Poirier does not discuss the possible connections of inspiration and breath in Greek thought, e.g., when a spirit breathes a plan into Penelope’s thoughts (Od. 19.138). Even more striking, Poirier offers only a cursory discussion of Old Testament connections, citing five Old Testament and three deuterocanonical references (15). Yet the Old Testament is not univocal on the imagery of God’s breath for his breath and word are paralleled at times (e.g., Ps 33:6; 147:18). Fleshing out the Old Testament background is particularly important because the verse in question – 2 Timothy 3:16 – is making an assertion about the Old Testament.

A third and related weakness is that Poirier does not give adequate weight to the distinct worldviews of Greek and Christian writers. It would not be surprising for Paul or Origen to use a word like θεόπνευστος in a sense distinct from non-Christian literature. This is especially noteworthy because Paul describes written documents as theopneustic, a connection no other non-Christian writer made. Further, Poirier rejects Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy and places its writing into the 2^nd century (106-7). This assumption presumes 2 Timothy a forgery, severs any meaningful Pauline connection, and makes 2 Timothy no longer the probable first use of θεόπνευστος.

A fourth weakness of Poirier’s argument is found in his interaction with the doctrine of Scripture and his final exhortation to the reader. His brief refutation of 2 Peter 1:19-21 and John 10:35 is not convincing, and he too hastily dismisses Warfield’s “avalanche of texts” that support inspiration (109). Because of this, Poirier’s final exhortation rings hollow.

Finally, I see both a vivificationist and inspirationist sense reflected in the 10 pre-Origen passages, indicating that both options are open to Paul. This makes the context of 2 Timothy the final determiner, and ultimately the inspirationist interpretation fits better, although Poirier does offer a plausible reading. He contends that all Scripture is life-giving because it communicates the Gospel, so that v. 16a restates v. 15b (102-3). However, Paul describes Scripture as theopnuestic not as a restatement but to highlight an additional function of Scripture. The salvific Scripture that Timothy has known since childhood is useful for ministry and equips “the man of God” (2 Tim 3:16-17). The title “man of God” is significant here because it is an Old Testament reference to prophets (e.g., Deut 33:1; 1 Sam 2:27), thus highlighting Timothy’s role as one who speaks for God. Timothy can speak for God because Scripture itself is breathed out by God. Paul, recognizing his end is near, seeks to ground Timothy’s ministry in Scripture to protect against false teachers (2 Tim 3:10-4:8). In contrast, Poirier’s attempt to fit life-giving into the context requires a sleight of hand – no longer is Scripture in its entirety theopneustic but only the Gospel that Scripture contains (102).

While Poirier’s book is written for scholars, his argument is sure to gain greater attention beyond the academy. His book serves as a call to re-examine the debate between Warfield and Cremer and to ensure that the Evangelical doctrine of Scripture has not overstepped what Scripture actually teaches.