I'm trying to take an objective view.
As am I, friend. Please do not imply that I am questioning your intent. I am only questioning your conclusion(s).
I can only say that I'm using the most detailed lexicon I have, which includes evidence on usage in Greek and Jewish cultures.
Brother, my point is that I have a very hard time believing Paul chose such a word to describe Scripture with the background of a speaking God whose breath and spoken word (which the term in question most certainly
can reference) is described as creating the very universe and yet was
not trying to communicate the breathed-out-of-the-mouth-of-God nature of Scripture. Of course the word has usage outside of Scripture (such as describing poetry). However, we are dealing with a biblical author who has a bank of theology in his mind as he is penning (or speaking) these words.
If you want to use "breathed by God" as giving a theory of inspiration, it would seem to imply dictation, the words coming directly from God. You may believe that, but that's not a traditional Reformed view. At least not outside parts of the prophets and Jesus' teachings.
This seems confused to me. I would suggest reading this helpful work:
Packer, J.I. “Calvin’s View of Scripture.” In
God’s Inerrant Word, edited by John Warwick Montgomery, 95-114. Minneapolis, MN: 1974.
In it, Packer gives very convincing evidence of Calvin holding the very view that you claim the Reformed tradition never espoused. Furthermore, it is entirely fallacious to argue that "breathed by God" would necessarily entail dictation to the point of suspension of the human writers' minds (which is what I assume you mean). That, too, is explicitly denied by Calvin (who uses "dictation" language frequently himself, as Packer notes at length) and virtually every other piece of Reformed literature I have read. There is plenty of early Church witness to this view, as well; it is not novel to the Reformers, much less evangelicals of the 20th Century.
