Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Hebrews

[gmw803]

Can grammatical errors impinge on inerrancy?

From one perspective, there is no such thing as a grammatical error. There are grammatical irregularities whereby the speaker or author says something using syntax differently than what the hearer or reader is expecting. An example is Revelation 1:5, where the reader is expecting genitives, but is instead reading nominatives. This was likely not an error, but an intentional grab for attention. Even today, an intentional grammatical error can often be used to stress the importance of what is being said.

I point to Hebrews 11:32, where a masculine participle, a self-reference to the author of Hebrews, appears in the male form. Some people (raising my hand) jump to the conclusion that any consideration of Pricilla as the author of Hebrews can be dismissed on the grounds that for Pricilla to refer to herself as a male would impair inerrancy. But there is nothing inspired about grammar. Rather, grammar is the observation of man regarding normal syntax of sentences. In modern day, grammar is taught to each new generation in order to perpetuate orderly communication between the generations. Texting grammar is an example of what would happen if each generation were free to use his or her style to communicate. That rules of grammar change is inevitable. Grammar classes serve to regulate the speed that it changes. All this points out that as long as communication tales place, then rules of grammar become a fiction.

Hebrews 11:32 is the only solid evidence that disqualifies Pricilla. Would it impair the truth if Pricilla proved to be the author of Hebrews?

[jimwalton]

First of all, I need to say that "inerrancy" is a shaky word, and is inadequate in any discussion about Scripture. I know we like it because it coincides with a perfect God, but when it comes to the written revelation, "inerrancy" as a term has been weighed in the balances and found wanted. When the psalmist says, "The trees of the field clap their hands," is that inerrant (without mistake)? How can one evaluate poetic expression that way? And what about Job's friend, Elizphaz, in Job 5 when he spews out all kinds of things that are technically theologically correct, but basically he's mistaken about the whole thing. We know this as we read, so how does his speech fit into the idea of "inerrancy"? Are we left to assume that God put down without error all the erroneous things Eliphaz said? You know what I mean? When the Psalms record a prayer, and the prayer is misguided (but that's what the guy prayed), is the text inerrant? I'm just not sure that "inerrant" is a great choice for a word. How can a prayer or a song be inerrant? It's not a wrong term, it's just that it isn't useful.

You probably know that there are different conceptions of inerrancy (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology pp. 248-249):

1. Absolute inerrancy: the Bible, in all things, in all teaching, is fully true. If the Bible says the diameter of a sea was 10 cubits, and its circumference was 30 cubits (2 Chr. 4.2), and that it was circular, then it was so, even though this is mathematically incorrect.
2. Full inerrancy: the Bible is completely true. Any historical and scientific data is fully true as they appeared to the writer (even though the writer may have been wrong about it).
3. Limited inerrancy: The Bible is inerrant regarding salvation teaching.
4. Inerrancy of purpose: The Bible inerrantly accomplishes its purpose.

The Israelites believed the world was flat, and they talk about it that way in the Bible. They also thought the sky was a solid dome. They were wrong about their science, but is the text still "inerrant"? It's just a lousy term for what we're trying to describe as to the ultimate authority of Scripture, and God as the source of Scripture. The term "inerrancy" was created and applied to this context to ward off challenges to the Bible.

Walton and Sandy ("The Lost World of Scripture") prefer other terms. The Bible says it is "God-breathed," and that means that the words, grammar, sentences, rhetorical structures, and genres (etc.) have their source in God. But it's what is DONE with the words and sentences—blessings, promises, instructions, assertions, that have authority and for what we might use the word "inerrancy." So God may have spoken to someone who had bad grammar and bad science, who in turn wrote a prophecy, let's say. His grammar may be faulty (and God inspired the poor boy even in his solecistic sickliness), but his message (the prophecy) is what has authority, not his grammar. The authority of the Bible lies in its illocutions, not in the words (because God accommodates human foibles in the words). Does that help? We can take it further if you like.

As far as Heb. 11.32 proving Priscilla was not the author, you can't go with that concretely. First of all, as I said, the authority is in the illocution, not in the grammar. Secondly, it's very possible that writing in the masculine was the acceptable way to write, as it often is in our culture also. We can't guarantee, on the basis of one personal pronoun, that the author was not female, but it is a piece of evidence in the detective file about the author of Hebrews.