Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009)
Article: Reconsidering Inerrancy: A Response To A. T. B. Mcgowan’s The Divine Authenticity Of Scripture
Author: James W. Scott

---

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 185

Reconsidering Inerrancy:
A Response To A. T. B. Mcgowan’s
The Divine Authenticity Of Scripture

James W. Scott

In The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, A. T. B. McGowan sets out to reconstruct the doctrine of Scripture.1 In the process, he rejects the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He is not altogether clear about this, but he seems to accept that the Bible, even as originally written, contains what most people would call errors (although he prefers to use softer terms like “discrepancies”), although he insists that they are trivial. He promotes an “infallibilist” view that seeks to uphold the divine authenticity of Scripture without getting hung up on its minor human imperfections. He urges those who have held to inerrancy “to listen carefully to the argument and to consider it on its merits,”2 and that is what we propose to do.

But before we get into the details of his argument, four preliminary observations are in order. First, it is difficult to determine whether McGowan believes that there are errors (i.e., statements contrary to fact) in the original text of Scripture. He denies that Scripture is inerrant, which would logically imply that it is, in his view, errant. But only once does he actually state that there are “errors” in the Bible, and those are “in the extant manuscripts and translations,” which may all be the errors of copyists and translators.3 Indeed, he aligns himself with those who are “not persuaded of the inerrantist position” and yet do not “affirm errors in Scripture.”4 It would seem that his position really amounts to a denial of erroneous teaching (on any matter), but an acceptance of minor factual mistakes that

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 186

do not adversely affect the teaching of Scripture.5 He occasionally allows that there are, or at least may well be, such minor errors in Scripture, as when he quotes others favorably who say just that,6 but he also says more openly on one occasion that God “did not give us an inerrant autographical text.”7 Ordinarily, though, he has followed the advice of Donald G. Bloesch: “It is better to speak of ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Bible, even imperfections, rather than error. The reason is that what the Bible purports to tell us is not in error.”8 McGowan should have been ...

visitor : : uid: ()