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.
Nor does one have to be a serious translator. Get yourself some decent bible software, commentaries and lexicons (unless you don't want to ask you minister about it first) - study to show your self approved.
For the OT, I’d recommend the Jewish Study Bible. You’ll be shocked at the Hebrew translations for some very familiar verses.
svcw: Are you saying in this statement that Jesus was not supposed to be Crucified? Please clarify.
If the scriptures were clear would they have crucified their Messiah? If the scriptures were clear would they ignore John the Baptist who by lineage would have been the High Priest an office which was politicized, Hellenized and bought and sold?
Jeff Lindsay: It was a conspiracy we can read a little of it in the NT and between the lines of what was not said!
svcw: Read between the lines, well that's something I have never heard before. Guessing at what God was really supposed to mean.
LOL at your reply. Considering entire religions have been built at putting words into God's mouth. Have you ever discussed the Scriptures with an Evangelical?
I've never heard of Jeff Lindsay, but he's spot on in this analysis.
Which one is the truth?
Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [a]
Footnotes:
1. Deuteronomy 6:4 Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one ; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone
or
Deuteronomy 6:4 (Young’s Literal Translation)
4`Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;
Which interpretation you pick determines the meaning, no? You are forcing your perspective on the passage again. It means what you want confirmed.
Jesus explained this point in John 12 -
38* That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39* Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40* He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41* These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42* Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43* For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44* Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46* I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47* And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48* He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49* For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50* And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
As translations they all carry the truth dependent upon the translation methodology used. Even with variations - they present the same message do they not?
Look at footnotes closer, for NIV the hebrew transliteration "Jehovah" is consistently translated LORD which for even more accuracy represents the tetragrammaton YHWH. NIV draws upon newer ms than Young had as well. So you mix apples and oranges.
Which interpretation you pick determines the meaning, no? You are forcing your perspective on the passage again. It means what you want confirmed.
Nope, there are many passages that have been translated by non-Christians that come to the same translation as Christians have. What you are trying to force is eisengensis - forcing an interpretation on the scripture. The only ones that tend to do that are various cults like JWs.
OK, let’s stick with Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)
I pick this translation:
The LORD is our God, the LORD alone
Explain it to me.
You can use exegesis if you like or don’t...”The only ones that tend to do that are various cults like JWs.” LOL
the Lord is Israel's God and is the only God
As stated before, possible verbal varieties in the translation amount to the same sense
OK, let’s stick with Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)
I pick this translation:
The LORD is our God, the LORD alone
Explain it to me.
You can use exegesis if you like or don’t...”The only ones that tend to do that are various cults like JWs.” LOL
I read it as Israel's god is the LORD(Jehovah) and the LORD(Jehovah) alone, i.e. don't worship any other gods other than Jehovah.
It is consistent with Deuteronomy 5:9 where God admits to being a God of "deep and sensitive" feelings. He is their god who brought them out of Egypt.
Am I wrong?
The two are essentially the same. Israel's God is the Lord / the Lord is Israel's God are just flip flopping the first phrase components.
As far as your expansion goes on the "Lord alone", I am equally comfortable with that interpretation because it is a component of my statement that the Lord was the only God.
It is consistent with Deuteronomy 5:9 where God admits to being a God of "deep and sensitive" feelings. He is their god who brought them out of Egypt.
"Well, yes as is my understanding, but I don't believe the immediate context of the passage supports it. It is more closely linked to 6:2 " That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged." What are those statutes and commandments? Starts with vs 4.
But it doesn't say that, does it?
If I say that Godzilla is Israel's monster and the only monster on Monster Island, is it the same as saying Godzilla is the only monster on Monster Island that Israel worships?
You see you want it to jive with what you've been indoctrinated to believe and you read it as you want it to read.
"the Lord is Israel's God and is the only God" ≠ "Israel's god is the LORD(Jehovah) and the LORD(Jehovah) alone."
Translation matters to interpretation.
The Lord knew the wicked would play right into the Lord's plan.
That was accomplish by corrupting the Word of the Lord.
In John 8... The conversation see pretty much like trying to talk with those who cannot discern that the Lord was having the same situation trying to converse with the scribes and Pharisees for they boldly denounce the Lord scripture to Jesus
Example
12 ¶ Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, ut I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO MENis true.
18 I am ONE that bear witness of myself, and
the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
NOW NEXT JESUS TELLS HOW BY WHAT THEY DO..
JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR WHAT DO SCRIBES DO?
ARE NOT THE SCRIBES THE CARETAKER OF THE SCRIPURES?
Matt. 23:
13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! FOR YE SHUT UP THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AGAINST MEN: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Scribe
In the days of the Hebrews monarchy this was the title of a court official, a secretary of state (2 Sam. 8: 17; 2 Kgs. 12: 10; 2 Kgs. 18: 18).
After the captivity we find the title given to Ezra (Ezra 7: 6, 21) and to others who acted as teachers of the law. Scribes are frequently mentioned in the N.T., being sometimes called lawyers.
It was their business to develop the law in detail and apply it to the circumstances of their time; hence grew up the oral or traditional law side by side with the written law.
Their method of teaching was catechetical. Their aim was to reproduce and teach others to reproduce accurately the words of the wise (hence the office is a symbol of fidelity in instruction, Matt. 13: 52).
The scribes never taught on their own authority (contrast with this the Lord’s method, Matt. 7: 29). They taught either in houses of instruction or in the temple courts, their pupils sitting on the ground (Luke 2: 46; Acts 22: 3).
They formed an influential part in the supreme court of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi (my Master) was the title usually given them.
As a rule they were Pharisees (Mark 2: 16; Acts 23: 9), though there were also Sadducean scribes. In theory they received no pay for their work (but see Mark 12: 38-40), and it was usual to combine the study of the law with the exercise of some other calling.
Their influence considerably increased after the downfall of Jerusalem and the cessation of the temple worship.
As a class they offered a determined opposition to the Lord mainly because he disregarded the “traditions of the elders”
(Matt. 21: 15; Matt. 26: 3; Mark 8: 31; Mark 11: 18; Mark 14: 1; Luke 5: 30; Luke 6: 7; Luke 9: 22; Luke 11: 53; Acts 4: 5; Acts 6: 12). For his opinion of them see Matt. 5: 20; Matt. 15: 1-9; Matt. 23: 2-9; Mark 2: 17; Mark 12: 38; Luke 11: 44; Luke 20: 46.
There were certain scribes and Pharisees etc were not honorable with the scriptures and now many want people to believe it could not happen!
Cute example, flawed, but cute.
Taken through the broader scope of scripture there were other 'gods', baal, molech, ashatara, etc. But the scripture is consistent - these are false gods. Isaiah makes it clear in many passages, there are no other (real) Gods but Jehovah. Therefore, while not precisely matching your interpretation, mine is broader and incorporates yours. It declares that He alone is God and is Israel's only God.
There is no flaw. The above is true. The way you translate something matters and in this case you wish it to support your contention on monotheism. Which doesn't incorporate the translation I chose.
The point being that translation affects doctrine.
I see nothing in your ‘interpretation’ that affects my doctrine. As I said before, your understanding is defacto incorporated in my interpretations.
Don’t know why you are trying to see how many angels dance on the head of a pin with this but what ever.
That's the approach to the whole Bible. People make up your doctrine and then parse scriptures to make it fit. When faced with an obviously different interpretation belittle it and move on, safe in dreamland.
Don't know what planet your from to state that this is how my doctrine was derived. We take the teaching from scripture and derive doctrine from it - not bassackwards as you infer.
So you are saying that you sat down at a Bible one day, tabula rasa, and discovered what you believe today? No one taught you to believe in the Trinity? You just found that for yourself?
When you say "we" who do you mean, yourself in the royal sense or a group that influenced you?
I mean your belief is your business, but one shouldn't pretend that the doctrine came first, then is "found" in the Bible.
No, the doctrines I believe today were initially taught to me - just like what is describe in scriptures - to teach the doctrines to others.
I have since gone back into the scriptures, challenged those doctrines and found that they met the teaching of scripture.
I mean your belief is your business, but one shouldn't pretend that the doctrine came first, then is "found" in the Bible.
HUH???? Again, don't know what you are driving at? I don't by any means believe (or pretend) that doctrine came first then scripture. I have said - and go up thread and you'll find it - what you insinuate. The doctrines I ascribe to were derived from scripture, not superimposed upon scripture. Even the quote of mine states so.
Your commentary makes no sense - take an evening and sleep on it.
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.