Posted on 02/22/2010 9:47:13 PM PST by restornu
Since ancient scribes were so totally accurate in their work, how could any mistakes ever enter into the Bible?
There is a myth among some circles that ancient scribes were so incredibly cautious, making sure that every letter was perfectly copied, that they never produced any mistakes when copying the manuscripts, and thus all ancient manuscripts agree with each other.
This is entirely bogus - a deceptive lie or statement of shear stupidity. The great Hebrew scholar,
Emmanuel Tov, for example, has discussed numerous scribal problems in Hebrew manuscripts.
In a 1994 lecture entitled "The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls," Dr. Tov explains what we learned about ancient scribes and Hebrew manuscripts with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Let me explain the importance of having discovered these documents from a very early period relating to the Hebrew Bible.
Before these discoveries were made in 1947, the earliest sources for the Hebrew Bible were the texts found in the Cairo Geniza.
The Geniza is a storeroom in which discarded writings considered to be holy or that contained the name of God were placed [when they were worn out].
The earliest of these document are from the eighth century of the Common Era [A.D.].
Until 1947 we had no ancient records in Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible.
You might say we had no really good evidence of what the Hebrew Bible looked like, until the discoveries of Qumran.
It turns out that our knowledge was rather good, but we had no evidence in our hands.
So, the first time that we were able to see what an ancient Hebrew Bible looked like was after these documents were found near the Dead Sea.
We now know what is meant by a copy of the Hebrew Bible from early periods.
We now know that the text was written in a scroll, and when we say scroll, we really mean something which was rolled.
We mean that these were sheets of leather sewn to each other or glued to each other, on each of which you could have a number of columns of writing.
Each column is what we would probably call a page, and so normally you'd have three or four columns on each sheet, with a fixed number of lines.
We now see what the text looked like.
We see that there are scribes who wrote well, and we see that there are scribes who were rather sloppy.
One of the scribes was a terrible scribe, the scribe who wrote the Isaiah scroll.
When I say terrible, I mean terrible.
This is a scribe who made a mistake in every second, third, or fourth -- well, let's say every fifth word.
Already the second word of that scroll has a mistake.
It starts with the vision of Isaiah, and in that word Yisha'yahu the third letter, the 'ayin, he simply forgot, because this is a guttural letter, which he (like I) did not pronounce, so he just wrote yod shin yod hay vav and then afterwards when he realized what he did, he, or a reader, put the 'ayin above the line.
Mistakes in guttural letters in that scroll abound. Words are omitted.
Words are added.
Words are added in the margin.
This is sloppy handwriting.
We simply must remember that this is a human scribe of blood and flesh who wrote this scroll and hence produced a product which, in his case, was not a good product.
(Emmanuel Tov, "The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls," Seventh Annual F.A.R.M.S. Lecture, Feb. 20, 1994, Document TOV-94, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994, pp. 6-7; see also Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd edition, Fortress Press, 2001)
It's not just that some scribes were sloppy.
They were condemned as a class by the Lord for their unrighteousness ("Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" in Matt. 23:39).
Evidence supports the idea that changes were deliberately made due to their religious bias.
Some early Christians reported that Hebrew scriptures had been changed to take out some clear prophecies of Christ, which was an entirely logical but corrupt response from those who kept the manuscripts and hated Christianity.
One thing is clear: there are numerous variants between the different ancient texts, both in Greek and Hebrew.
While the manuscripts agree with each other in many ways, there are thousands of differences due to the vagaries of human activity.
Scribes were imperfect.
They were not infallible.
Their products cannot possibly be considered infallible, perfect and complete.
One can ignore the abundant evidence, but it's time to recognize that only God is the final and perfect authority, and that's why we need continuing revelation from his authorized prophets and apostles.
The Bible is scripture and needs to be studied with faith, but also with a recognition that it is a book printed by humans, translated by humans, copied by humans, and even originally written by inspired humans, none of whom were infallible. Mistakes happen. Errors creep in.
Translations create unintended meanings. This is mortality, and these kind of things happen.
Thank goodness there is a mechanism to overcome these problems when it's critical, and that mechanism is continuing revelation, which was meant to be an integral part of the Church of Jesus Christ from the beginning, and which has been restored in our day.
Apparently; so do replies in a thread...
From the article at LDS Newsroom, this quote: "There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.
The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly”
the article refers to one source’s opinions regarding the DSS and the records of the Hebrew OT writings. Yet what is is not posted is that the scroll of Isaiah is virtually identical to the previous oldest copy that was 1000 years younger.
The article on the face suggests that scholars are unable to reconcile these older versions with more recent ms. That has since 1999 been found to be untrue, now that broader dissemation and access to the scrolls has been made available.
***
Then why did you not bring that up in a discussion manner this is what this ecumenical thread is for discussion.
You know... as in “well I disagree and here is why!”
It seems no one here seems to know how to talk to one another!
The thread was posted by someone of the LDS faith but Prof Tov non LDS has had talks with many other dominations and they do not demonstrate as you have to my thread.
You could have looked up Tov talks he had with other faiths and posted them for discussion.
I can only go by actions and it seems to me many “meaning antis” do not want the LDS to have a voice and that is wrong!
Who knows there may be others who would like to join in but are intimidated with this road rage behavior and display of vindictiveness!
If you want the article to go without criticism at all, it should be a "devotional" or "caucus." But to be a "caucus" it must not mention the beliefs on non-members.
You too!
I never said he should not I said he should have included it instead of ranting before on my ecumentical thread his commnets here were gladly welcome how can you say I disagreed when I am telling his this is the kind of discuss we should be having!
Then why did you not bring that up in a discussion manner this is what this ecumenical thread is for discussion.
Meaning this is kind of discussion I was looking for not the previous rants I been receiving!
and then I gave an example
You know... as in “well I disagree and here is why!”
What Godzilla posted in # 80 is what I was hoping for!
Just talk and stop the rants, & road rage oh how I have been trying for eons
Just let’s have a productive exchange!
We learn through constructive criticism!
I have and Tov's comments in this article are not expanded upon as in his other writings. Yes, there were identified sloppy scribes - even in the case of the Great scroll of Isaiah (1QIsa). That scribe wrote the first half (designated 1QIsaa) and what the article above leaves out is that Tov notes that the errors were caught and corrected by either the scribe or another in Quram. In fact, several corrections were toward a text identical to the proto- Masoretic text.
The fact is that Jeff Lindsey is not an authorized spokesperson for lds, his articles are not unbias, on the contrary, they are often times polemic towards Christian and those critical to mormonism. It is not surprising that he would skew Tov's comments so much.
Were Lindsey to research more, he would have found an presentation by BYU prof., Donald W. Parry who worked with Tov regarding the 1QIsa. He stated " Don also remarked, “Scribes were professionals.” So there are other degrees of interpretation of just what Tov was trying to say.
Great points, Godzilla. This article is a biased twisting of Tov’s work.
I have several of Tov’s books and what is stated here is not what is apparent in his other works, Tov has great respect for the the transmission process and for scribal accuracy.
Indeed, and considering that this is from 1994/5ish, there has been a LOT more studies available. If 1QIsa was a torked up as lindsey et al insinuate, there would be absolutely no basis for the claim that the transmission over the 1000+ years to the MT was so remarkable. Seems mormon apologists like lindsey just don't understand that Christians do understand these things and the fact that the transmission of the OT and NT have come to us so well given so many hostile factors.
Hi, restornu! Nice to see you today. :)
Hi trisham got a lot of white stuff here hope this is it when Feb ends!:)
You been away for a few days.
We are expecting a snowstorm that will last for days. I’m hoping that instead it will end up as rain. I am tired of snow!
Rain and above freezing!:)
Absolutely. I hate ice!
Why, as a Christian, would I be the least bit interested in what a non-Christian has to say about “inaccuracies” in the Bible? You either believe it to be the word of God or you don’t. If you believe it to be the word of God, then, yes things do make sense and one can see the wonders of the book. If you don’t believe it to be the word of God it will look like it’s riddled with errors.
Sinful man will never see the glory of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.