As I go through The Bible Says So by Dan McClellan, I will essentially be having a “conversation” with it—a running commentary, if you will. Now, there are 19 chapters in the book, so there is no way I will be able to provide a completely in-depth analysis of every chapter without ending up writing a 19-part blog series—and there is no way I’m doing that. What I will attempt to do is simply get through as many chapters in about a 2,000 post as I can. Maybe this will end up being a 5–6-part series. Let’s dive in.
1: How Did We Get the Bible?
In Chapter 1, McClellan gives a brief lesson regarding the development of the biblical canon. For the most part, it touches upon the standard points one would learn in a basic introductory Bible course. He touches upon what is known source criticism, which basically claims that the first four books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) were actually compiled from three earlier “sources” (the Elohim-source, the YHWH-source, and the Priestly-source), and then a four source (Deuteronomy) was found or written during the reign of Josiah (circa 630 BC). From that point, once Judah was taken into the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC, Jewish scribes compiled what is known now as Genesis-Numbers, and eventually the books of Joshua-II Kings. McClellan describes those who compiled these books as “a group concerned for priestly authority and ritual purity” (23). Thus, these books were “the work of scribal schools and other elites working to structure power, values, and boundaries in their favor” (23).
McClellan emphasizes this because it provides the bedrock justification for how he approaches the Bible. There are just two problems in this, though. First, although scholars agree that the OT books Genesis-II Kings were probably compiled from earlier source material during or shortly after the exile in the basic form we have them today, the fact is that the only actual texts we have are those that are in the Bible. We don’t have any of the earlier “sources.” A responsible scholar will acknowledge the limits of our knowledge on this issue and will tread lightly when saying anything more. And so, when some scholars (like McClellan) confidently state when these sources were written, and when they were combined, and what precisely the theology of the writers of these sources had, let’s be clear—there is no “data” to support any of it. It is complete speculation on their part.
Secondly, the way McClellan describes the Jewish scribes who compiled/wrote Genesis-II Kings is also complete speculation that is fueled by his own dogma and biased agenda. His view, reflecting the same view of his mentor Francesca Stavrakopolou, comes down to the claim that the scribes who put Genesis-II Kings together were purposely covering up and distorting the true history of Israel and pushing their own patriarchal, monotheistic agenda. Therefore, we can dissect these biblical texts and ‘reconstruct’ what really happened. Or, as McClellan states, knowing how the biblical text came together “will help us to set aside some of the conventional wisdom and received traditions that distort and get in the way of thinking more critically and clearly about what the authors of the Bible were trying to achieve (19).
His foundational assumption regarding the biblical text is that the writers were purposely being dishonest and were distorting the truth about their past, and that gives him license to read into (or rather behind) the text whatever he wants. He passes off his own speculation and “reconstruction” of the biblical text as “data”—but it’s not “data” at all. It’s biased-fueled speculation and dogma. So, when he says, “In this book, I’m going to try to go back to the earliest recoverable layers of the biblical and other texts to reconstruct how the authors and earliest audiences most likely would have understood them” (27), you need to realize that if he is “reconstructing,” then they aren’t “recoverable” literary layers.
What we have is the biblical text. Yes, scholars agree (as I’ve said earlier) that the compilation of Genesis-II Kings probably happened around the Babylonian Exile, and that the writers compiled them from earlier sources. When it comes to speculating about how the writers handled those sources, there is simply no “data” whatsoever that proves they were purposely lying and distorting their past. Of course, they were giving their interpretation regarding their history, but McClellan begins his approach to these books with the assumption that the writers purposely were distorting things. You need to realize that as you read anything by McClellan, because not only does he push that “dogma” really hard, he claims it is just the “data.” It isn’t.
2: The Bible Says the Bible is Inspired
The first real issue McClellan tackles regarding “what the Bible says” is “The Bible says the Bible is inspired.” He begins the chapter by referring to some TikTok video creator who threw out 2 Timothy 3:16 as “proof” that the Bible is inspired: “All Scripture is God-breathed/inspired….” It is the standard verse used by many Christians in claiming the Bible is inspired. The question with this verse though is two-fold: (1) What “Scripture” is it referring to? (Answer: probably the Old Testament, because there was not New Testament canon yet), and (2) What exactly does the Greek word theopneustos mean? (Answer: literally “God-breathed” or “God-spirited” or “inspired”…but then what does that mean?).
Within Protestant circles, “inspiration” is a hot, controversial topic. The most extreme take is that which claims inspiration means God literally dictated every solitary word to the human authors who were really nothing more than secretaries who were almost in a hypnotic trance. (I remember reading a book that suggested how amazed Moses probably was to read what God had just written through him!). When it comes to 2 Timothy 3:16, there are (in my opinion) two things to know: (1) Whether you translate it as “God-breathed” or “inspired by God,” ultimately, it is saying the Scriptures are a “Holy Spirit thing;” (2) the purpose of Scripture is to teach, correct error, and to train in righteousness. It doesn’t mean the Bible speaks authoritatively on modern science or politics, or stuff like that. It’s that simple.
It is also worth noting that Christians came to accept the New Testament writings as inspired Scriptures as well, even though 2 Timothy 3:16 was probably primarily referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. There you go. You’re welcome.
Unfortunately, McClellan doesn’t really take that route in his chapter. He spends the first half of his chapter claiming that the “academic consensus” is that 1 and 2 Timothy (and Titus) weren’t really written by Paul, and that they were written either in the late first or early second century. Why do scholars hold that view? “The biggest issue is that they just don’t sound like Paul” (32). In addition, they deal with Church administration and Church offices, and that didn’t “fit well within Paul’s lifetime and his concern for spirit-led ministry. It fits far better within the growing church at the turn of the century” (32).
McClellan also addresses the suggestion of some scholars that after the conclusion of Acts, Paul was released from prison, only to be imprisoned a second time, and that the trips he mentions in the Pastoral Epistles happened between those two imprisonments. McClellan doesn’t buy it: “Both rationalizations are examples of ginning up scenarios that are not in evidence to sidestep the data and arrive at the desired goal rather than follow the data to the conclusion to which they most naturally lead” (33). Therefore, the “data” indicates Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy 3:16.
I find it highly ironic that McClellan dismisses the notion that Paul could have been released from prison and later imprisoned a second time as “rationalizations” that “don’t follow the data.” Let’s look at the two assumptions made that doubt the authenticity of the Pastorals. First, “they don’t sound like Paul.” I’ve always found this scholarly objection suspect. A personal letter doesn’t sound like a formal letter that lays out doctrine and teaching? Really? Using that logic, one could say there was no way the same Joel Anderson could have written his PhD thesis AND the personal emails and texts to friends—after all, the language isn’t the same. Second, where is the “data” to suggest that the churches Paul established in the 50s-60s didn’t have administrators (like elders and deacons) and some kind of structure? Elders are mentioned throughout Acts, bishops and deacons are mentioned in Philippians.
To be clear, those scholarly assumptions are not data. They are assumptions and speculations. Yes, there is a possibility that Paul might not have written the Pastorals, but that argument is not airtight or (in my opinion) all that convincing.
…besides, what does that even have to do with the proper understanding of theophneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16?
It’s only in the second part of the chapter that McClellan finally starts to address theophneustos. Yes, he acknowledges it is usually translated as “inspired” and literally means “God-breathed.” But then he turns around and basically accuses the established New Testament scholar Craig Keener of being nothing more than a “Christian apologist” because in an abstract in a journal article on the Greek and Jewish conceptions of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, Keener wrote, “Second Timothy 3:16 speaks of Scripture as θεόπνευστος, ‘God-breathed,’ ‘inspired.’ What would ancient audiences who heard such a claim assume that it entailed regarding accuracy?” (35). Note, Keener defines theophneustos in the two ways McClellan acknowledges it is usually defined. And yet for some reason, that makes Keener a “Christian apologist” and not a scholar. Why does McClellan do that? I have to assume it’s because Keener is an Evangelical and wrote an article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Basically, Keener is an Evangelical who believes the Bible is inspired, so he’s not really a scholar…just a freaking Christian apologist! (Cue the Pavlovian salivating!).
McClellan then claims that a better way to understand theophneustos comes from John Poirier in his book The Invention of the Inspired Text. He argues that the notion of “God-breathed” has to do with something like what God did in Genesis 2:7, when he breathed life into the man He formed out of the dust. Thus, theophneustos should be understood to mean “life-giving” and not “inspired.”
McClellan then points to Origen of Alexandria of being the culprit who distorted theophneustos to mean “verbal inspiration.” According to McClellan, no one before Origen ever used theophneustos to mean anything other than “life-giving.” But it was Origen who made “the most ardent and sustained case in early Christianity for the unified, univocal, and verbally inspired nature of the scriptures” (36). He then ends the chapter by reiterating again that this (supposedly) anonymous author of 2 Timothy “wanted us to believe they were Paul writing in the 50s or 60s” [i.e. he was lying and distorting!] and was “trying to arrogate authority to their positions that did not belong to them” (36) [i.e. power grab!].
Allow me to make a few closing remarks. First, I can see the emphasis on theophneustos being “life-giving,” because when God breathed into the nostrils of the man, He was giving him life. The “giving of life” was certainly a result of God breathing, but it’s still not the same as God breathing. Also, theophneustos is essentially a compound word, combining God (theos) with breath/spirit (phneustos)—one would never know God or Breath/Spirit had anything to do with what is being conveyed in the verse if one translates it merely as “life-giving.” As a translative choice, it is woefully too general—it would be like translating “My love is a red, red rose,” with “I like you a lot.” But still, sure, because all Scripture is theophneustos, it is “life-giving” in the sense that it is useful for teaching, correction, etc.
Second, McClellan doesn’t really do Origen justice. If you read Origen’s fourth book in On First Principles, his basic argument is that the incarnation and revelation of Christ proves the theophneustos of the Old Testament. By fulfilling the Old Testament, He validates it as truly coming from God. That’s pretty much it. But McClellan gives the impression that Origen was the same as some modern-day Southern Baptist Fundamentalist who claims the Old Testament was verbally dictated by God. Simply put, McClellan’s comments are sloppy at best, and more likely are just purposely misleading.
Finally, McClellan seems to be clairvoyant in knowing that the writer of 2 Timothy was purposely trying to be deceptive in order to make some kind of power grab for authority. Those comments have no “data” backing them. Instead, McClellan’s dogma is showing, much like someone whose fly is open—he needs to zip up.
