The Backyard Professor

What Does Timothy in the NT Mean by the Greek "Theopneustos" - "God Breathed"?

A very good question has shown up on a message board I inhabit from time to time, and the answers given by BYU scholar Bill Hamblin are truly worth putting up for more people to see. I thought this was a rather down to earth, good understanding of a logical situation.

“Sargon” asked about the scripture - 2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
What does this mean? Evangelicals believe it means that the text is "inerrantly" communicated from God to man. LDS tend to interpret it to mean something more along the lines of "inspired".
Is the LDS view of scripture compatible with such strong wording by the apostle Paul? What does Paul mean by "God-breathed"?

As others noted, Paul could not have had the New Testament in mind, since it was not in existence at his day. So, the question is what is the meaning of "theopneustos"? Here is where Dr. Hamblin stepped in. “It means literally "god-breathed" = Theos + pneuma. The phrase "inspired by God" is a good way to translate it, since "in-spiration" means literally "breathed in" (as in re-spiration). There is nothing in the term that implies inerrancy. Evangelicals assume inspired means inerrant, so if scripture is inspired it is must be inerrant. However, this is, of course begging the question, which is: is inspiration inerrant.”

 

Discussion of Text Types From Which the Bible Originated

 Note on Western Non-Interpolations

One of the features of the Western text is the occasional omission of words and passages that are present in other types of text, including the Alexandrian. How should one evaluate such omissions from a form of text which is generally much fuller than other text-types? According to one theory, popularized at the close of the last century by Westcott and Hort¹ such readings, despite their being supported by the generally inferior Western witnesses, ought to be preferred rather than the longer readings, though the latter are attested by the generally superior manuscripts, B and א. Nine such readings were designated by Westcott and Hort as “Western non-interpolations,”² on the assumption that all extant witnesses except the Western (or, in some cases, some of the Western witnesses) have in these passages suffered interpolation.

Amen to That!

 

The general Hebrew word for truth or truthfulness, and faith or faithfulness, is a derivative of the verb Aman (אמן, Assyrian amanu), whence the word Amen draws its origin. Aman in its simple active form signifies to nurse or nourish up; in the passive, to be firm and established, and hence steadfast (Prov. 11:13); and in the Hiphil or causative form, to take as established, and hence to regard as true, to realise, or to believe. The last is its most general rendering. The A. V. translates it ‘to have assurance’ in Deut. 28:66; and ‘to trust’ in Jud.11:20; Job 4:18, 12:20, 15:15, 31; and Micah 7:5. A form of this word is translated pillars in 2 Kings 18:16; compare 1 Tim. 3:15, ‘the pillar and ground of the truth.’

Witherington on Ehrman's newest book on the Jesus Interruption

Important work in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism, Redactional Criticism, Historical Criticism, etc., is important to acknowledge, as well as what scholars are saying about the Historical Jesus of History and/or the Christ of faith. Bart Ehrman's latest attempt at discussion is here reviewed by Ben Witherington.

 

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html

How to Study the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament - Some Ideas

A METHOD FOR UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

To understand the use of an Old Testament passage in a particular New Testament context, it is necessary to take several steps. This is especially true when it is a messianic passage since there is always a question as to whether we are dealing with direct prophecy or indirect typology. In doing so, we must consider whether passages like Psalm 22, 16, 69 and 110 are messianic in nature or not. The term often used for this today is intertextuality, a word not used in biblical contexts until 1989 but which quickly became a key term in the discipline and refers to the interplay of dialogue between one text used in a different context. As such the two texts reverberate between the original source and the new situation. Stanley Porter argues that the term has been abused and linked with everything from echoes to source criticism and so should be dropped (1989:84–85). This is an overreaction, but it is true that we must define it carefully. Intertextuality is best used as a study of the reuse of an Old Testament passage in a New Testament context, considering exactly how the dialogue between original meaning (Old Testament context) and new meaning (New Testament context) develops.

Archaeological Proof for the Bible - Some Issues

 There is great danger in using archaeology for apologetics. It is a two-edged sword. Jericho provides an excellent example. On the basis of John Garstang’s excavations of 1930–1936 evangelicals have argued that archaeological evidence indicates that the walls did indeed fall outward. Yet some today seem still unaware that Kathleen Kenyon’s work of 1952–1958 demonstrated that Garstang’s fortifications actually stemmed from an earlier period, namely, an early Bronze Age city destroyed by an earthquake and fire about 2300 b.c. (rather than the 1400 b.c.date of Garstang). To date, there is an absence of evidence for the biblical story regarding the walls of Jericho. This does not disprove the biblical data (see Dumbrell 1985:130–39) but does exemplify the serious problems in an apologetic use of archaeology. We dare not reach too hasty conclusions as to the relevance of archaeological discoveries. Often the problems outweigh the solutions, and it is dishonest to use a tool only when it supports us and to neglect it when it does not.