Does Biblical Inerrancy Include Spelling?

[Moneyball]

Hi everyone, I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible… that’s a veeery high view of Scripture. My question is this: is biblical inerrancy unlimited? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the original manucripts (if they still existed) would have zero spelling mistakes?

 

[bmullins]

My understanding is that the message that is presented is what is inerrant, not the actual details. Not sure who taught you that? There are transcription errors, etc. We accept that as Catholics. What we believe is inerrant is the message that is portrayed by the scripture. That’s also why we look at historical data, writing style, the thought and religious beliefs of the time etc. The bible is not a history book, though it does contain some history. It’s a theology book. It should be treated as such.

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ. From a Catholic Answers question: Is the Bible’s inerrancy

 

[e_c]

Hi everyone, I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible… that’s a veeery high view of Scripture. My question is this: is biblical inerrancy unlimited? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the original manucripts (if they still existed) would have zero spelling mistakes?

It would not make sense for there to be an error of spelling in these documents, from a purely natural standpoint, due to the intensity of attention paid during the writing of these texts.

It would seem unfitting that the Holy Spirit would allow it, though certainly if there were any they would be such that they would not affect the message being conveyed or would be obvious.

 

[Moneyball]

It would not make sense for there to be an error of spelling in these documents, from a purely natural standpoint, due to the intensity of attention paid during the writing of these texts.

It would seem unfitting that the Holy Spirit would allow it, though certainly if there were any they would be such that they would not affect the message being conveyed or would be obvious.

So if true this would mean that every original manuscript of the Bible, both from the OT and the NT would have had a total of zero spelling mistakes. That’s something I hadn’t thought of before now… and I’m not sure how I feel about it.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi everyone, I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible

Umm… it does? Where’d you learn that?

The Catechism, quoting Dei Verbum, states:

Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

That doesn’t seem to suggest either “every historical detail” or “perfect spelling.”

(Of course, it also raises the question of whether every event in the Bible is meant to describe a historical event… )

 

[Moneyball]

Umm… it does? Where’d you learn that?

The Catechism, quoting Dei Verbum, states:

That doesn’t seem to suggest either “every historical detail” or “perfect spelling.”

(Of course, it also raises the question of whether every event in the Bible is meant to describe a historical event… )

Why would the Holy Spirit affirm historical falsehoods?

I completely agree with the last line.

 

[e_c]

That doesn’t seem to suggest either “every historical detail” or “perfect spelling.”

No, but it does not exclude it either. I think that that very same document speaks on the topic of perfect inerrancy… Moneyball has the teaching correct.

But it is really not as daunting a teaching as it seems.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Hi everyone, I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible… that’s a veeery high view of Scripture. My question is this: is biblical inerrancy unlimited? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the original manucripts (if they still existed) would have zero spelling mistakes?

English has no standardised/standardized spelling, as English is not regulated, like, French for instance, so I do not think so. Spelling variations are common in English, depending on location. What I would spell as “jail” is spelled as “gaol” in some parts of the world. Now, with regards to the ancient text and original languages, if I recall correctly, Hebrew has not always had vowels as letters. Greek, I know, has spelling variation, and I don’t know enough about Aramaic one way or the other.

 

[Antegin]

Spelling is not the problem in most languages that it is in English.

As a language, English has an absurd number of contributing languages including, Latin Greek French Italian German Welch and Gaelic. Each of those languages contributed not only a word or a grammatical construct, but the spelling. As a result, English doesn’t have a spelling rule that can’t and isn’t broken often. English speakers have more difficulty with correct spelling.

English is a newer language, especially where genuine exegesis is concerned, so it’s not that a ‘‘spelling’’ error can distort the meaning of scripture and result in error.

Changes in the meaning of a word can be more problematic. Take for example the changing meanings of the word ‘‘hot’’ in the last 75 years. Image a changing language over 2000 years! Spelling is the least of the problems in exegesis.

 

[Gorgias]

No, but it does not exclude it either. I think that that very same document speaks on the topic of perfect inerrancy

Perhaps you can find it for me, then?

I was able to find this:

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another

… which seems to suggest what I’m pointing out: not everything is written as historical narrative, and therefore, not to be expected to have “every historical detail” inerrantly recorded.

 

[thistle]

Perhaps you can find it for me, then?

I was able to find this:

… which seems to suggest what I’m pointing out: not everything is written as historical narrative, and therefore, not to be expected to have “every historical detail” inerrantly recorded.

 

[e_c]

Not everything is supposed to be an exact retelling of history, of course.

However, with regards to inerrancy, that teaching of paragraph 11 from Dei Verbum needs to be read in continuity with Divino Afflante Spiritu and Providentissimus Deus. Find those documents, ctrl+f, “error”…

 

[e_c]

Spelling is not the problem in most languages that it is in English.

As a language, English has an absurd number of contributing languages including, Latin Greek French Italian German Welch and Gaelic. Each of those languages contributed not only a word or a grammatical construct, but the spelling. As a result, English doesn’t have a spelling rule that can’t and isn’t broken often. English speakers have more difficulty with correct spelling.

English is a newer language, especially where genuine exegesis is concerned, so it’s not that a ‘‘spelling’’ error can distort the meaning of scripture and result in error.

Changes in the meaning of a word can be more problematic. Take for example the changing meanings of the word ‘‘hot’’ in the last 75 years. Image a changing language over 2000 years! Spelling is the least of the problems in exegesis.

Also, THIS. I’d forgotten about this. Good stuff Antegin!

 

[Gorgias]

Not everything is supposed to be an exact retelling of history, of course.

Just to remind you of what Moneyball is asking us:

Moneyball:

I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible

Sure looks like he’s asserting that “the Church’s understanding of Biblical inerrancy” is that “everything is … an exact retelling of history”…

However, with regards to inerrancy, that teaching of paragraph 11 from Dei Verbum needs to be read in continuity with Divino Afflante Spiritu and Providentissimus Deus.

Great idea! It’s been a while since I’ve read Divino afflante spiritu. Let’s see what it says about ‘error’…

• “[Scripture] contain revelation without error” (#1).
  [*]Inerrancy refers to “entire books with all their parts”, not just “matters of faith and morals” with everything else being written “obiter dicta” (i.e., “just in passing”). (#1)
  [*]"[T]here is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things in the physical order ‘went by what sensibly appeared’, … speaking either ‘in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time’, … [because] “the sacred writers or … the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things… [that are] in no way profitable to salvation, which 'will apply to cognate sciences and especially to history.” (#3)
  [*]“Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if ‘copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible’ or ‘if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous’.” (#3)
  [*]“it is absolutely wrong and forbidden … ‘to admit that the sacred writer has erred’, since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible with God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.’” (#3)
  

OK, so, let’s see what Pius is teaching us:

• We cannot claim that the writers of Scripture (human and divine) are in error.
• In this definition, ‘error’ does not include transcription errors (including spelling).
• ‘Error’ also doesn’t include things that the Holy Spirit wasn’t intending to teach, such as physical science or history

Yep, sure looks like ya’ll are trying to make a different case than Pope Pius XII did, e_c…

 

[PJM]

Hi everyone, I just learned today that the Church’s undertanding of biblical inerrancy also includes every historical detail found in the Bible… that’s a veeery high view of Scripture. My question is this: is biblical inerrancy unlimited? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the original manucripts (if they still existed) would have zero spelling mistakes?

NO

 

[Moneyball]

Spelling is not the problem in most languages that it is in English.

As a language, English has an absurd number of contributing languages including, Latin Greek French Italian German Welch and Gaelic. Each of those languages contributed not only a word or a grammatical construct, but the spelling. As a result, English doesn’t have a spelling rule that can’t and isn’t broken often. English speakers have more difficulty with correct spelling.

English is a newer language, especially where genuine exegesis is concerned, so it’s not that a ‘‘spelling’’ error can distort the meaning of scripture and result in error.

Changes in the meaning of a word can be more problematic. Take for example the changing meanings of the word ‘‘hot’’ in the last 75 years. Image a changing language over 2000 years! Spelling is the least of the problems in exegesis.

Thank you and everyone else for your responses. My main question has more to do with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, not so much on translation/spelling mistakes effecting exegesis.

For example, many scholars (including Christian historians) do not believe it is historical that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Personally if this were the case it would not weaken my faith in Christ, but it would pose challenges to the doctrine of inerrancy… wouldn’t it? The only alternative, I think, would be to argue that the authors did not intend for that detail to be taken as historical, correct?

Also, in a hypothetical scenario, if it were ever the case that we found fragments of the original New Testament documents and it contained one obvious spelling/grammar mistake, wouldn’t that disprove the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

 

[Gorgias]

For example, many scholars (including Christian historians) do not believe it is historical that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Personally if this were the case it would not weaken my faith in Christ, but it would pose challenges to the doctrine of inerrancy… wouldn’t it?

Well, these would be scholars who don’t believe in inerrancy, right? So, it would be kind of weird to take one scholar’s arguments and apply them to another’s conclusions, wouldn’t it? I think that the way to go would be to look at the arguments and conclusions of the scholars who do believe in Scriptural inerrancy, and see what they say.

The only alternative, I think, would be to argue that the authors did not intend for that detail to be taken as historical, correct?

First, you’d have to buy into the “not born in Bethlehem” argument, wouldn’t you? Only then would it make sense to worry about what ‘alternative’ is out there…

Also, in a hypothetical scenario, if it were ever the case that we found fragments of the original New Testament documents and it contained one obvious spelling/grammar mistake, wouldn’t that disprove the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

Ugh. :banghead:

Spelling isn’t included in inerrancy. :nope:

 

[Moneyball]

Well, these would be scholars who don’t believe in inerrancy, right? So, it would be kind of weird to take one scholar’s arguments and apply them to another’s conclusions, wouldn’t it? I think that the way to go would be to look at the arguments and conclusions of the scholars who do believe in Scriptural inerrancy, and see what they say.

I don’t feel like I’m being understood. I’m not providing arguments against biblical inerrancy, I’m trying to understand what exactly biblical inerrancy entails. From what I understand, some have said that not every little historical detail mentioned in the Bible is subject to biblical inerrancy, and one example I gave of that is Jesus not born in Bethlehem.

First, you’d have to buy into the “not born in Bethlehem” argument, wouldn’t you? Only then would it make sense to worry about what ‘alternative’ is out there…

Right, so in other words, saying “the authors might have mistakenly thought Jesus was born in Bethlehem” would not be an option for the practicing Catholic… right?

Ugh.

Spelling isn’t included in inerrancy.

Why wouldn’t it be though? If every other detail in the Bible is without the slightest error, then why wouldn’t that also be true for grammar/spelling (original documents)? I’m not looking for a debate, I’m just trying to learn what the Church teaches about inerrancy.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t feel like I’m being understood. I’m not providing arguments against biblical inerrancy, I’m trying to understand what exactly biblical inerrancy entails. … I’m not looking for a debate, I’m just trying to learn what the Church teaches about inerrancy.

OK… and we’ve provided those details, from sources ranging from Divino afflante spiritu to Dei verbum and the Catechism. Have you looked at those documents, or even the citations provided in this thread?

From what I understand, some have said that not every little historical detail mentioned in the Bible is subject to biblical inerrancy, and one example I gave of that is Jesus not born in Bethlehem.

But, you can’t demonstrate that He wasn’t – just that some scholars make that claim. If they could prove their claim (which, you’ve got to admit, they can’t!), then we could play “what if.” Since they cannot, there’s no benefit in playing that game. It has the same prospects as making you answer “have you stopped beating your wife?” – the premise is untrue/unprovable, so the assertion has no merit.

Right, so in other words, saying “the authors might have mistakenly thought Jesus was born in Bethlehem” would not be an option for the practicing Catholic… right?

There are lots of options. They’re not relevant, though, unless the premise is true.

Why wouldn’t it be though? If every other detail in the Bible is without the slightest error, then why wouldn’t that also be true for grammar/spelling (original documents)?

Again: Read. The. Documents.

Does the Catholic Church claim that Biblical inerrancy holds down to orthography? Not that I’ve seen.

What are the claims that the Church makes? They’re right there in black and white. Read them, and you’ll see that spelling/grammar is not part of what the Church claims is part of the teaching of Biblical inerrancy.

 

[juliamajor]

Lord have mercy. Spelling as a criteria for inerrancy?