What Inerrancy Isn’t: CSBI Article XIII

"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

The framers here assert that inerrancy is a proper theological term for describing the “complete truthfulness of Scripture.” The denial portion of this article fleshes out a bit what the framers mean by “truthfulness,” or better, what they do not mean by it. All in all, I think these are very reasonable qualifications.

A common caricature of an Evangelical view of inerrancy is that the slightest discrepancy sinks the entire ship (a claim we might hear from New Atheists). CSBI asserts that the extent to which biblical inerrancy works can only be judged by standards Scripture itself recognizes, standards of truth and error that are not “alien to its usage or purpose.”

In other words, the framers assert that if different biblical authors—or even the same author—spell the same word two different ways, that does not mean there is an error, since the presence of this sort of difference is clearly something the Holy Spirit is not concerned about. The same holds for the other things listed here—like the use of round numbers or free citations of other biblical material.

As I said, these sorts of qualifications are important to make, but two issues arise. First, on what basis do we make the determination of what standards of truth or error are or are not “alien” to biblical usage? It seems to me that the criterion being used here is observing how the Bible behaves and making judgments on that basis.

So, the fact that some biblical authors clearly use imprecise numbers, or that Joshua says that the sun stood still (Joshua 10:12-13), indicates that inerrancy does not require precision or abandonment of earthbound ways of talking about the trek of the sun. (This line of argumentation presumes inerrancy at the outset, but for the purposes of engaging CSBI we need to accept this starting point. CSBI is an in-house Evangelical document, not an explication of inerrancy to outsiders.)

But using biblical phenomena as the standard for judging what inerrancy does and does not mean can be a two-edged sword. If we read closely the list of qualifications in this article, most of them are fairly uncontroversial—grammatical issues, hyperbole, etc. But why not also extend this principle to things like ancient cosmology, human origins, or creative interpretation of history to the list. These, too, are clearly documented in the Bible. I actually think a statement such as the following would help the framers’ case in defending inerrancy. “For ancient biblical authors to describe creation and historical events according to ancient standards is not ‘error’ but fully expected, just as one might expect ancient authors to employ hyperbole, round numbers, etc.”

In other words, the list of biblical phenomena that do not affect inerrancy is too limited in that it avoids the true points of contention.

The second issue that arises from this Article concerns two of the qualifications. I do not mean to be nit-picky, but there are two phrases here that betray thinking that I do not find helpful in the long run: “observational descriptions of nature” and “variant selections of material in parallel accounts.”

I am not certain what the first phrase refers to, but likely it is referring to things like those mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 above, where the sun is said to move. The sun looks like it moves (to ancients as well as moderns), but the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is not an argument that the biblical author erroneously made here. I agree that these sorts of things are irrelevant to the inerrancy discussion, but the question remains why the same courtesy is not extended by the framers of CSBI to include Genesis 1-3. Why must ancient observations about cosmic and human origins be of a different category than other sorts of ancient observations (as we see in Article XII)?

The second phrase is not immediately relevant to the science/faith discussion. But I want to point out that that the differences between parallel accounts in the Bible (e.g., the two creation accounts in Genesis 1-3, the Chronicler’s history of Israel vis-à-vis that found in Samuel/Kings, the four Gospels, etc.) are more pervasive than simply a result of “variant selections of material.”

What the framers mean is that variant accounts in Scripture exist because some authors decided to use some larger deposit of older material (written or oral perhaps) while other authors used different material. The problem here is that the different accounts in these parallels stem from different vantage points.

The framers are recognizing the reality of the synoptic problem, but the explanation given is inadequate at best, if not simply wrong. The reason that this explanation is given is that, if the parallel accounts in Scripture resulted from biblical authors living in different times and places, the framers’ arguments for inerrancy would be significantly undercut.

Having said this, Article XIII is an attempt to bring inerrancy into conversation with numerous factors that the framers understand to be a challenge to inerrancy. They are right to address them, even if their assertions lead to further probing. I can see some New Atheists jumping on things like hyperbole and lack of modern precision as evidence against inerrancy, and perhaps Article XIII is a fine parry to that thrust.

Knowledgeable arguments against CSBI, however, would not dwell on such matters but would want to address more pressing matters like science and history—topics that I am afraid CSBI brushes over too quickly.

Let me say in closing that, for its day, CSBI was a helpful step forward in addressing inerrancy and its challenges. But for the present state of the science/faith discussion, which has moved far beyond where things lay in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, issues the framers considered settled must be revisited.