The author is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Claremont Men’s College in Claremont, California. Admittedly, he writes this book as a philosopher and not as a theologian. And therefore Davis is to be commended for venturing outside his own domain to discuss matters pertaining to the theological debate on inerrancy. He has served the reader well by contributing to the continuing debate about the Bible, by asking evangelicals to take a closer look at the doctrine of inerrancy, and by compelling inerrantists to evaluate their stance.

The subtitle of the book reads ‘Inerrancy versus Infallibility’. Davis defines the two terms as follows: ‘The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice’ (p. 23). Davis opts for infallibility. He holds that the Bible does not teach inerrancy (p. 51); honesty would compel him to say that one will not find any biblical passage teaching that the Bible is infallible. But he does not say that. Instead he writes: ‘The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but not inerrant’ (p. 115). And thus he introduces a subjective element into the discussion. Infallibility, according to Davis, does not mean that everything the Bible teaches is relevant. That is, in his epistles Paul appears to favour sexism, and Jesus seems to have believed that the end of the world would come during the lifetime of his hearers.

This subjective element plays a distinctive role in Davis’ understanding of the teaching of Scripture. Davis wishes to determine whether certain teachings are faulty or misleading. In discussing the theory of accommodation, Davis says that God ‘must accommodate himself to our ignorance and occasionally commit errors’ (p. 45). And in his excursus into Christology, he opines that Jesus, because he became truly man, ‘perhaps shared with the people of his day certain false beliefs’ (pp. 123, 124).

Davis realizes that this approach to Scripture leaves some of his readers dissatisfied (p. 128). Davis’ view of its authority is open to criticism. Even though he states that he holds a high view of Scripture (pp. 20, 118), he makes it clear to the reader that Scripture’s authority is limited by man’s reason. Says Davis, ‘I claim that all that the Bible says ought to be authoritative for the evangelical Christian unless after careful study he finds good reason to reject some Biblical claim’ (p. 126). The author may write his book from a philosophical point of view, but he should know nevertheless that man’s reason has been affected by sin. And because of sin, man’s reason cannot be trusted as an infallible guide. Furthermore, one simply cannot place human reason above the authority of the Bible. By means of his inspired revelation God speaks to man and reveals his ultimate authority. God addressed Noah and told him to build an ark on dry ground. Human reason would object to God’s command. Joshua was told to wipe out the Canaanites at the time of the conquest. Again, human reason would protest, yet Joshua obeyed. Davis tries to show that it could not have been God’s will to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Canaanite nations. ‘Since the Bible clearly says that this was God’s will, I must conclude that the Biblical writers in this case were mistaken’ (p. 97).

Not man’s reason, however, but God’s authority is supreme. In his discourse on the sovereignty of God, the apostle Paul puts the question rather succinctly: ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’ (Rom. 9:20). Davis, in this discussion, wants to place reason above Scripture because he sees it as his ‘epistemological right’ to hold this position until he is shown to be in error. It is indeed difficult to see how he can elevate reason above Scripture and at the same time claim to hold a high view of the Bible.