A Response to David Watson on Biblical Inerrancy

Note: This response was originally published as a series of four blog posts in 2023.

PART I

Dr. David F. Watson recently published an article for Firebrand in which he presents several objections to biblical inerrancy (or "verbal inerrancy"), a doctrine articulated in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and affirmed by every member of the Evangelical Theological Society. In this series of posts, I respond to the objections presented by Watson. In this first post, I consider Watson's assertions concerning the nature of inspiration.

Notice first how Watson characterizes the doctrine of inerrancy in his account of I. Howard Marshall:

Marshall rejects the idea that all of the Bible constitutes divine speaking. In other words, he rejects verbal inerrancy. He holds that we do see examples of divine speaking in the Bible in prophetic utterances. Yet not all the Bible came to the biblical writers in the same manner that the words of the prophets came to them. God has inspired the biblical writers in different ways.

A few paragraphs later, Watson states this:

Following J. I. Packer Marshall adopts a view of "concursive action" regarding the inspiration of the Bible. This is the idea that both human beings and God were involved in every aspect of the formation of the Bible, from oral traditions to written accounts to canonization. God and humans worked side by side throughout the entire process. God has worked in and through people providentially to guide the formation of the canon throughout its entire development.

Watson thus presents Packer as guiding Marshall to an understanding of inspiration that is superior to the one implied by the doctrine of inerrancy. However, Packer was one of the theologians who produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy! The notion of "concursive action" that Watson describes is explicitly articulated in the Statement. The Statement affirms that God "utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared" (p. 5). The Statement emphasizes that these writers acted "in freedom" (p. 7) and denies that God "overrode their personalities" (p. 5). Thus the Statement insists that the Bible must be read as a "human production":

Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. … However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence. (p. 9)

With respect, I would challenge Dr. Watson to produce the name of one single evangelical theologian who would deny that "human beings and God were involved in every aspect of the formation of the Bible." Likewise, I would challenge Dr. Watson to produce the name of one single evangelical theologian who would affirm that "all of the Bible came to the biblical writers in the same manner that the words of the prophets came to them." (In the opening verses of his Gospel, Luke himself tells us that the production of his narrative involved gathering and arranging source material.)

The Chicago Statement certainly affirms "that all of the Bible constitutes divine speaking," in the sense that "what Scripture says, God says" (p. 8). However, this is no radical position. It simply reflects the way the New Testament writers describe the Old Testament. Notice, for example, how the author of Hebrews reads the Old Testament as divine speech, even when the human author is talking about God in the third person (e.g., the quotation of Psalm 104:4 in Heb 1:6-7).

Just as the New Testament writers viewed the words in the Old Testament as the words of God, so the early church fathers viewed the words in the New Testament as the words of God. Consider the following excerpt from a recently discovered sermon by Origen, a Christian theologian born in the second century:

Masters have received the command from Christ, the one speaking in Paul, "Grant to slaves justice and equality" [Col 4:1]. (Hom. Ps. 7.2)

Notice that Origen hears the words of Paul as the very words of Jesus. This is not, by the way, a controversial point in the sermon that Origen feels compelled to defend. He simply asserts it as something his audience already understands and believes.

In conclusion, inerrantists obviously do not believe that God simply dictated the Bible to the human authors. Inerrantist do believe that God in his sovereignty guided the production of the Bible in such a way that the words of Scripture are rightly considered the very words of God. However, in holding this view, inerrantists are simply affirming the traditional view of Scripture which the church has held since her inception.

---

PART II

Dr. David F. Watson recently published an article for Firebrand in which he presents several objections to biblical inerrancy (or "verbal inerrancy"), a doctrine articulated in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and affirmed by every member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). This is the second in a series of short posts responding to the objections presented by Watson. In this post, I consider Watson’s assertion concerning Gospel differences:

In cases in which the Gospels relate what seems to be the same story in two slightly different ways, proponents of verbal inerrancy must conclude that these are actually accounts of two separate events. Otherwise, one would have to admit errors in the text.

On the contrary, the Chicago Statement explicitly rejects such a conclusion. The Statement insists that it is not "proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose." Thus the Statement denies that "inerrancy is negated" by "lack of modern technical precision" or "variant selections of material in parallel accounts" (p. 5). The Statement further insists that we must pay careful attention to "differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours." Thus, since

non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. (p. 9)

Ironically, the two New Testament historians who have done the finest recent work expounding the differences in the Gospels are both inerrantists! Mike Licona, who is a member of ETS, published an important study in 2017 analyzing the differences in Plutarch’s biographies (Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, Oxford University Press). Plutarch composed biographies of important Greeks and Romans such as Caesar and Cicero. Some of these men lived at the same time and participated in the same events. Licona demonstrates that when we compare Plutarch's record of the same event in different biographies, we find the same types of discrepancies that we find when we compare parallel accounts in the Gospels. Licona concludes,

During the age when the Gospels were written, the finest historians and biographers did not practice writing with the same commitment to precision as us moderns. They wanted to tell a story in a manner that entertained, provided moral guidance, emphasized points they regarded as important, and paint a portrait of important people. If they had to adapt some details on occasion, it was permissible. Such adapting was not intended to distort the truth but to communicate it more effectively. (198)

Licona then applies this insight to the problem of Gospel discrepancies:

[Many] devout believers have been troubled by the differences in the Gospels. They have often responded with harmonization efforts, some of which have bordered on subjecting the Gospel texts to a sort of hermeneutical waterboarding until they tell the exegete what he or she wants to hear. Doing such violence to the texts is unnecessary, since a large majority of the differences can quite easily and rightly be appreciated and/or resolved in light of the literary conventions of ancient biography and history writing. (200-1)

Likewise, Craig Keener, who recently served as the president of ETS, published a study in 2019 demonstrating that the literary conventions described by Licona "extend well beyond Plutarch to many other ancient biographers" (Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels, Eerdmans, 303). Keener concludes,

Audiences from the Gospels’ era did not expect biographers to freely invent events, but they did allow them to flesh out scenes and discourse for the purpose of what they considered narrative verisimilitude. Biographers were not supposed to invent a teacher’s message, but they could interpret and communicate it from their own perspectives. (499-500)

In conclusion, inerrantists are of course well aware of the many differences in the Gospels. The Chicago Statement provides a nuanced account of inerrancy that explicitly allows for such differences. Furthermore, the Statement's important qualification concerning literary conventions has been developed with great sophistication and rigor by Licona and Keener.

---

PART III

Dr. David F. Watson recently published an article for Firebrand in which he presents several objections to biblical inerrancy (or "verbal inerrancy"). This is the third in a series of short posts responding to Watson's article.

Watson proposes that Scripture is "infallible," meaning that Scripture is "utterly reliable" for the fulfillment of its primary purpose: "to lead us into salvation and the associated life." Nevertheless, Watson denies that the Bible is "inerrant." According to Watson, the Bible does contain errors in matters of history and science, but these errors do not impede its primary purpose.

Watson is a Wesleyan, and he aims his article at Wesleyans. Therefore, it is worth considering what John Wesley would think about Watson's proposal.

In 1763 William Warburton, the Bishop of Gloucester, published a treatise entitled, The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit. In it he asserts that the purpose of inspired Scripture is to "afford an infallible rule for the direction of the Catholic Church." He therefore concludes that while divine inspiration prevented the human authors from making any "considerable error" (p. 33), it did not prevent them from making "trifling errors in circumstances of small importance" (p. 36).

Notice the striking similarities between Warburton's proposal and Watson's proposal. Both claim that the Scriptures are infallible but not necessarily inerrant. Both assert that certain errors in the Bible do not impede the Bible's primary purpose and are therefore consistent with divine inspiration. Contemporary Wesleyans who find this view attractive need to acknowledge the historical fact that Wesley heard it, Wesley understood it, and Wesley emphatically and unequivocally rejected it. In response to Warburton's claim that divine inspiration merely ensured that the human authors made no "considerable error," Wesley retorted, "Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole?" (Works 11.504). Elsewhere Wesley asserts, "If there be one falsehood in the Bible, there may be a thousand; neither can it proceed from the God of truth" (Works [1872] 9:481).

Furthermore, in insisting upon the inerrancy of Scripture, Wesley was not, as some contemporary Wesleyans like to imagine, merely succumbing to the influence of the Enlightenment. Rather, Wesley was affirming the traditional view of Scripture.

Consider Augustine's response in the late fourth century to Jerome's interpretation of Gal 2:14. Some in the early church were troubled by this verse, which relates a sharp disagreement between Peter and Paul. In his commentary on Galatians, Jerome suggests that Peter and Paul never really disagreed. Peter held the same view as Paul, but only withdrew from the Gentiles for a time to avoid destroying the faith of weak Jewish Christians. Paul knew this, but nevertheless pretended to rebuke Peter for the benefit of those listening.

Notice that Jerome is not suggesting that there was some error in Paul's theology of salvation. Rather, he is merely suggesting that Paul's historical account of his interaction with Peter is not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, Augustine reacted strongly against Jerome's interpretation. In his first letter to Jerome on the matter, Augustine anticipates Wesley's concern:

It seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. ... The authority of the Divine Scriptures becomes unsettled (so that every one may believe what he wishes, and reject what he does not wish) if this be once admitted, that the men by whom these things have been delivered unto us, could in their writings state some things which were not true. (Letters 28.3, 5)

In a subsequent letter to Jerome, Augustine insists again that the Scriptures are inerrant:

I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. (Letters 82.3)

Note that Augustine is not presenting a view of Scripture that he believes to be controversial. Indeed, Jerome himself apparently abandoned his interpretation of Gal 2:14 after Augustine's rebuttal (see Augustine, Letters 180.4-5).

In conclusion, both Wesley and Augustine explicitly affirm biblical inerrancy. This does not, of course, prove that the doctrine is correct. It does, however, suggest that Christians should take the doctrine seriously.

---

PART IV

Dr. David F. Watson recently published an article for Firebrand in which he presents several objections to biblical inerrancy (or "verbal inerrancy"), a doctrine articulated in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and affirmed by every member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). This is the fourth and final entry in a series of short posts responding to Watson's article. In this post, I consider Watson’s assertions concerning the relationship between inerrancy and modern science.

In expounding the views of Billy Abraham, Watson articulates this critique of inerrancy:

Questions related to the existence of dinosaurs or the age of the earth become problematic. The Bible gives us one timeline. Science provides overwhelming evidence for another. How do we decide between these? Proponents of verbal inerrancy would be compelled to argue that we must believe the Bible and disregard the science.

On the contrary, some inerrantists are outspoken critics of Young Earth Creationism. William Lane Craig is an active member of ETS and thus affirms the society's "doctrinal basis": "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." Furthermore, Craig asserted in 2021 that acknowledging scientific error in the teachings of Scripture would require "a major revision of the doctrine of inspiration" (In Quest of the Historical Adam, 7). Nevertheless, despite affirming inerrancy, Craig clearly does not feel compelled to "disregard the science" concerning origins. When it comes to Young Earth Creationism, Craig is quite blunt:

The sooner the Christian community gets rid of Young Earth Creationism the better. This is an embarrassment for the Christian faith that is creating enormous obstacles to Christian belief among scientifically educated people. The universe is not – and the Earth is not – six thousand years old, and there is no reason biblically to think that it is. (source)

The Chicago Statement denies "that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation" (p. 5). Significantly, however, the Statement does not specify what precisely the Bible teaches about creation. As I noted in my first post, J. I. Packer was one of the theologians who produced the Chicago Statement. In a lecture on creation, Packer describes the genre of Genesis 1 as a "prose poem" and characterizes the literal reading of this passage as "naïve." According to Packer, "The biblical narratives of creation – Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 – don’t obviously say anything that bears one way or another on the question of whether the evolutionary hypothesis might be true or not" (source). Notice that Packer is not merely suggesting that Genesis is compatible with an old Earth. He is also suggesting that Genesis is compatible with the theory of common descent, a key element of the "evolutionary hypothesis."

Now to be sure, many inerrantists disagree with Packer on this point. They insist that Genesis does in fact make assertions which are contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis. This debate, however, clearly concerns the interpretation of Scripture, not the accuracy of Scripture. More specifically, the debate concerns the genre of Genesis 1-11. The Chicago Statement explicitly acknowledges that the Bible contains other genres besides history (see p. 9), and the Statement makes no attempt to specify the precise genre of Genesis 1-11.

It is a simple historical fact that readers of Genesis have long questioned whether or not the creation narratives were intended to be read as literal history. Philo of Alexandria, born in the first century BC, insists that certain elements in the creation narratives are clearly "intended symbolically rather than literally" (Creation 154 [LCL]; see also Planting 32-38; Posterity 33-51). Origen, born in the second century AD, asserts that a literal reading of these narratives is patently absurd. In reference to the Tree of Life and other elements in the story, Origen concludes, "I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events" (De Principiis 4.3.1 [Butterworth]). Even Augustine, whose strong views on inerrancy were discussed in my previous post, suggests that in Genesis 1 God's instantaneous creation is presented to us "as if in periods of time" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 28 [Teske]).

Critics sometimes complain that since the term "inerrancy" requires so much qualification, it is unhelpful and should be abandoned. I would reply that the denial of inerrancy is often associated with an overly simplistic reading of the Bible. Consider differences in the Gospels, discussed in a previous post. Watson suggests that these differences indicate "errors in the text." Regardless of whether or not such a characterization of the Gospels is problematic theologically, I would argue that it is problematic historically. As Michael Licona and Craig Keener have shown us, the Gospel writers are following established literary conventions, and thus it is misleading to describe them as making errors. Likewise, the assertion that Genesis contains scientific error assumes that the text was intended to be read as a straightforward historical narrative. A close study of both the text and the history of interpretation suggests a more complex picture.

In conclusion, I appreciate Watson's willingness to tackle the complex and controversial issues surrounding our doctrine of Scripture. Furthermore, Watson and I certainly agree on much more than we disagree. Nevertheless, as I have argued in these posts, I think that his presentation of inerrancy can only be described as a "straw man." I know of no biblical scholar or theologian at ETS who would accept inerrancy as it is presented by Watson. Furthermore, I remain concerned by Watson's conclusion that the Bible "is not inerrant." As argued in my previous post, such a conclusion is emphatically contradicted by Wesley and is a clear departure from the traditional Christian view of Scripture.