In this paper, I will argue that etymology, while not sufficient on its own to determine the meaning of θεόπνευστος, should not simply be dismissed. Instead, etymology can establish normative patterns of usage that should be presumed until a compelling argument is made to the contrary. The impetus for this paper comes from the argument made in John C. Poirier’s book The Invention of the Inspired Text, in which he denies that Scripture teaches its own inspiration. He contends that θεόπνευστος means “life-giving” and not “God-breathed” as B. B. Warfield had forcefully argued over a century ago. Warfield made his case based on the extra-biblical usage of θεόπνευστος, its etymology, and its coherence with New Testament theology. Poirier, however, believes that Warfield’s etymological arguments are invalid and that the New Testament nowhere teaches its own inspiration, thus making the extra-biblical usage of θεόπνευστος the sole determiner of its meaning. Although etymology cannot provide the final answer on meaning, it does have important contributions to make and should not be so quickly dismissed.
I will begin by surveying the etymological arguments of key figures in the debate on the meaning of θεόπνευστος and then offer an assessment of the debate. Then I will evaluate what etymology can reveal about the meaning of θεόπνευστος by (1) identifying appropriate comparative -πνευστος compounds, (2) comparing θεόπνευστος with other -τος verbal adjectives that are compounded with θεός, and (3) examining the relationship of θεόπνευστος and θεόπνοος.