Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Accuracy the Goal of Biblical Scribes?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 28 (63911)
11-02-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mendy
11-01-2003 8:54 PM


Re: ON scribal errors
I notice that you don't mention when the Masoretic tradition started (the 7th Century AD if I remember correctly). And if I remember correctly the Talmud is also relatively late and so cannot be assumed to be a reliable account (especially when historians date the Torah to well after Moses' death).
The whole Masoretic tradition was started to produce an authoritative text, not to prserve one that existed at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 8:54 PM mendy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 9:18 AM PaulK has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 17 of 28 (63920)
11-02-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mendy
11-01-2003 8:54 PM


Re: ON scribal errors
For these reasons you will find that Torah scrolls worldwide are almost identical [i think there are maybe 6 variant letters] in Torah scrolls found anywhere in the world, from the west to the far east. I suggest that this can be extrapolated backwards to biblical times and that the accuracy of the hebrew scrolls is very high.
Given a choice between textual evidence and doctrinal extrapolation, I'll choose the former. The "plurality" addressed by Tov was not a statement of faith, but an obsevation of fact. Live with it!
Better yet, consider reading Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 8:54 PM mendy has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 18 of 28 (63921)
11-02-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-02-2003 7:57 AM


Re: ON scribal errors
The whole Masoretic tradition was started to produce an authoritative text, not to prserve one that existed at that time.
Bingo!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2003 7:57 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:45 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 28 (63961)
11-02-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist
11-02-2003 9:18 AM


Re: ON scribal errors
i think that it is fair to say that they had at least a double purpose: One to fix with certainty the text, as youve said due to some differences floating around. But, i think the primary goal, was to nail down the correct version of those texts already floating around from previous eras. So, while its true they tried to produce an authoritative text -but they werent living in a vacuum -as religious jews, they used an existing text day in and day out - their attempt was simply to preserve the majority of the transmission of the text they already had and to make clear the minority of text for which there was confusion. Think about it? where di they get their texts from? Previous editions they had didnt just disappear....everything they did was ultimatly based on previous works. So, i am disagreeing with what you all have said. I didnt see any proof from anyone, just assertions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 9:18 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2003 2:51 PM mendy has not replied
 Message 21 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 4:32 PM mendy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 28 (63971)
11-02-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-02-2003 1:45 PM


Re: ON scribal errors
Here are some references from Encyclopedia Britannica:
On the Talmud
"Each of two groups of Jewish scholars (amoraim), one in Palestine and the other in Babylonia, independently produced a Talmud. Although the two groups addressed the same Mishna and consulted with one another, their work resulted in two separate collections of law, lore, and commentary. The amoraim of Palestine laboured for about two centuries, completing their work c.400 CE, approximately one century earlier than their counterparts in Babylonia. The Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) is consequently more extensive than the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) and, for that reason, more highly esteemed. Neither of the Talmuds covers every section of the Mishna; some commentaries were never written, and, presumably, others have been lost."
So whichever Talmud you were talking about it dates to many centuries after when Moses would have lived (which we do not even have a reliable date for).
On The Dead Sea Scrolls ("Biblical Literature and Its Critisal Interpretation")
"The importance of the Qumran scrolls cannot be exaggerated. Their great antiquity brings them close to the Old Testament period itself--from as early as 250-200 BCE. For the first time, Hebrew variant texts are extant and all known major text types are present.Some are close to the Septuagint, others to the Samaritan. On the other hand, many of the scrolls are practically identical with the Masoretic text, which thus takes this recension back in history to pre-Christian times. "
So Qumran shows a mix of texts.
Of the actual Masoretic texts
"No biblical manuscripts have survived from the six centuries that separate the latest of the Judaean Desert scrolls from the earliest of the Masoretic period. A "Codex Mugah," frequently referred to as an authority in the early 10th century, and the "Codex Hilleli," said to have been written c. 600 by Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel, have both vanished. The earliest extant Hebrew Bible codex is the Cairo Prophets written and punctuated by Moses ben Asher in Tiberias (in Palestine) in 895. Next in age is the Leningrad Codex of the Latter Prophets dated to 916, which was not originally the work of Ben Asher, but its Babylonian pointing--i.e., vowel signs used for pronunciation purposes--was brought into line with the Tiberian Masoretic system."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:45 PM mendy has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 21 of 28 (63993)
11-02-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-02-2003 1:45 PM


Re: ON scribal errors
So, i am disagreeing with what you all have said. I didnt see any proof from anyone, just assertions
Good grief! Have you ever read anything pertaining to the history and textuual transmission the Torah?
quote:
And after I looked at the books of the Masorah and studied them, I saw that they were utterly confused (mebulbalim be-taklit) and corrupt to the point where there is no house that does not contain a corpse [cf. Ex. 12:30], that is, the verses that the author of the Masoret cited and the great confusion in them.
- Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible (1524-1525), by Jacob ben Hayyim
quote:
... not only did the Torah become like two torot, it was more like an infinite number of torot, because of the many variants that are found in the texts (sefarim),that are in our regions, both new and old ...
- Introduction to Minhat Shai, by Y.S. Norzi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:45 PM mendy has not replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 28 (65529)
11-10-2003 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brian
11-01-2003 1:10 AM


Matthew and Luke both used Mark when they were writing, so some degree of harmony is expected.
Could you provide evidence for this statement ? Just want to know why you believe this.
thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 11-01-2003 1:10 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2003 6:27 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 11-10-2003 7:24 AM Zealot has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 23 of 28 (65532)
11-10-2003 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Zealot
11-10-2003 6:07 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Zealot, posted 11-10-2003 6:07 AM Zealot has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 24 of 28 (65537)
11-10-2003 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Zealot
11-10-2003 6:07 AM


Hi Zealot,
The reason I didn't expand on this is because I took it for granted that this is common knowledge to everyone involved in Christian theology.
CA has provided a link (thanks CA) for you.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Zealot, posted 11-10-2003 6:07 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Zealot, posted 11-10-2003 11:32 AM Brian has replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 28 (65567)
11-10-2003 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Brian
11-10-2003 7:24 AM


The reason I didn't expand on this is because I took it for granted that this is common knowledge to everyone involved in Christian theology.
Hi Brian.
I'm aware of that belief, however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise.
Appologies for being unclear, but I was more interested in your personal opinion. Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief, so if you don't want to discuss this in more detail I understand.
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 11-10-2003 7:24 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 11-10-2003 1:54 PM Zealot has not replied
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 11-10-2003 2:20 PM Zealot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 28 (65580)
11-10-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Zealot
11-10-2003 11:32 AM


Hi, Zealot!
Brian's mention of the theory that Mark is the original source of much of the nearly identical material that is in Matthew and Luke was intended as just one aspect of the reasons for the apparent harmony in some Biblical material. You replied by saying:
I'm aware of that belief, however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise.
Well, yes, some scholars believe Matthew is the original source, and there are even a few who argue for Luke, but in any case somebody must have copied from somebody, and Brian's offering of copying as one reason for gospel harmony isn't affected by which source is the original. So when you say this:
I was more interested in your personal opinion. Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief..
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you want to know if Brian is aware of the other theories, which don't affect his point anyway? Or are you hinting at some other possibility, such as that all the sources are original and no copying was done?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Zealot, posted 11-10-2003 11:32 AM Zealot has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 27 of 28 (65585)
11-10-2003 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Zealot
11-10-2003 11:32 AM


Hi Zealot,
however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise.
Maybe once upon a time, but I think it is universally accepted nowadays that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark, or from 'Q'. Can you name any of these noted scholars so I could investigate a little more?
but I was more interested in your personal opinion.
My own opinion is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark. The appearance of passages, almost verbatim, points toward a use of a common text, perhpas Mark or the hypothesised Q.
Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief, so if you don't want to discuss this in more detail I understand.
I havent read any modern day scholar who thinks that the four gospels arose independently of one another, could you highlight a few?
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Zealot, posted 11-10-2003 11:32 AM Zealot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2003 11:24 PM Brian has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 28 of 28 (65745)
11-10-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Brian
11-10-2003 2:20 PM


I havent read any modern day scholar who thinks that the four gospels arose independently of one another, could you highlight a few?
I think that The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem is worth reading.
Also of interest, this time from the perspective of Lukan priority, is Who Questioned Jesus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 11-10-2003 2:20 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024