Was Accuracy the Goal of Biblical Scribes?

It is often asserted that copying errors in the Bible are minimal because the scribes were so skillful and careful, and while I don't believe that skill and care are sufficient to eliminate human error, I have always accepted that accuracy was the copyist's goal. However, something I just read in the August, 2003, issue of Computer Magazine leads me to question whether this is really true. This is from The Profession, a monthly column written by a different guest columnist each month. The August, 2003, guest columnist was Simone Santini, a project researcher at the University of California at San Diego. His column was titled, "Bringing Copyright into the Information Age." Here's the relevant portion:

Copyright Principles

​

In its current form, copyright results from the conjunct action of two historically profound revolutionary forces: the printing press and industrialization.

​

Gutenberg's legacy

​

The printing press consolidated the concept of the text as a closed corpus that can be changed only by the author, who is always clearly identified and takes responsibility for the contents fo the text. This notion represents a change from the classic and medieval concept of a text as an open work to which the whole reader community contributes. Saint Bonaventura, the Franciscan monk and philosopher, looked almost in scorn at those copyists who merely reproduced a text without altering it in any way. Likewise, Plato considered written language inferior to spoken language because it exposed the text to the risk of closure. Before the invention of the printing press, collectively written texts were common - from the tales of Homer to the commentaries of medieval philosophers.

So this leads naturally to the question of whether accurate copying was the goal of Bible copyists, or did they perhaps sometimes incorporate new ideas and/or story elements, perhaps their own, perhaps suggested to them by respected holy men or popular traditions of the time.--Percy

It appears that present day translators of text are quite happy to insert modern views (their own) into the translation. It wouldn't be too surprising that those copying centuries ago would want to change the text to make it "right".

Well as that old saying says,"No one (same) story can be told in the exact same content and exact same lingustics twice, each time it will differ more and more."

To single out a group as "Biblical scribes" and attribute the same attitude to all of them is in itself unreasonable.The Bible is a composite work - different books would be treated differently (and there is evidence of additions - some of them major - to a number of books)The attitude to different books may well have changed over time - indeed the evidence of additions, as well as the variants found at Qumran are evidence of this.The Masoretes started their work because of the difficulty of finding an "authoritative" version of their scriptures.So I think the real answer has to be "only some of them".

It's seems funny how fundee x-ians & others make this (another) assumption to bolster their faith. The O.T. writers may have been very careful in copying their works, but their is plenty of evidence of change: the two stories of creation in Genesis for example.
As for the NT, plagarism was a common and acceptable practice in the Greco-Roman world when writing about events in the time of Jesus.
No, I also don't think copying accuracy was practiced, because the manuscripts of NT writings that still exist are different from each other.

I think that's exactly what Matthew & Luke did with Mark. I'll have to read-up on it.

Hey Jim, that cannot be an accurate copy of your picture, can it?! It's Halloween & all the picture needs is fangs![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-30-2003]

Haha. You got me there.While this has nothing to do with the accuracy of Biblical stories and plagarism and copying, I must say though - the picture is a take-off of Quentin Tarantino's film: The Resevoir Dogs. It make look and resemble the visuals of Halloween, it is not supposed to be.

It is a good question, and one that is quite easy to answer because the clues are in the Bible itself. The Books of Samuel and Kings have a ‘historical core’ to them, this core is essentially repeated by the Chronicler, so we have two historian’s version of the same events, this is a great opportunity to compare writings and see how ‘history’ was written in ancient Israel.A very good example of how ‘biblical scribes’ were selective or ideological in their writing is the comparison between the two versions of the Davidic Covenant given in 2 Samuel 7:11b-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:10b-14.2 Samuel 7:11b-16.[11b] Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a ‘house’.[12] When your life is complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up one of your offspring after you, the issue of your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.[13] He shall build a ‘house’ for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.[14] I will be his father, and he shall be my son.When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and oppression by the sons of men;[15] He (?) will not turn my grace away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.[16] And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"1 Chronicles 17:10b-14[10b] Moreover I declare to you that the LORD will build you a ‘house’.[11] When your life is complete and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up one of your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his rule.[12] He shall build a ‘house’ for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.[13a] I will be his father, and he shall be my son.[13b]I will not take my grace away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.[14] But I will establish him in my ‘house’ and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne shall be confirmed for ever.'"Compare Samuel verse 13 with its parallel verse 12 in Chronicles. There are some subtle differences that demonstrate that the Chronicler’s purpose is to show that now, in the post-exilic era, that the emphasis is on God’s kingdom, the king is the ruler, elected by God, but the kingdom belongs to God.Sam 13 says ‘He shall build a ‘house’ for my name,’ this is obviously a reference to the Temple, but the parallel in Chronicles 12 says ‘He shall build a ‘House’ for me is more like a reference to a dynasty. ‘House’ (byt) in Hebrew has many meanings but if you take Chron.12 to clarify the first half of the sentence ‘and I will establish his throne forever’ suggests that the ‘throne’ and the ‘house’ are related and imply a royal dynasty that will reign forever.Notice as well that 2 Sam 13 claims that ‘I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever’, the Chronicler puts his own ‘spin’ on this verse and uses it for his own purpose of emphasising God’s kingdom when in the parallel verse he simply says that ‘I will establish his throne for ever. The Chronicler omits the mention of ‘his kingdom’ because in his eyes the kingdom is not the king’s, it is Gods.By stating that David’s bloodline, his ‘House’ would be established forever this is a prerequisite for the messiah; he has to come from David’s royal bloodline.The thing is, David was told that he wasn’t to build the Temple, it would be his son, David was not to build the Temple because he had blood on his hands, his adultery and his ‘murder’ of Uriah meant that David could not build the Temple. So, instead of David building a ‘House’ for the Lord, the Lord builds a ‘House’ for David.These verses written by the Chronicler to establish the Davidic bloodline and to emphasise the primacy of Jerusalem as the chief cultic centre of Judaism. Martin Noth claims that the Chronicler’s main purpose is seen in the anti-Samaritan polemic that is found in the Chronicles. He says that the chronicler wants to demonstrate that the Jerusalem cultic community was the genuine successor of the ancient and legitimate ‘Israel’. The immediate opposition to these beliefs was the Samaritan community who had their own cult on Mount Gerizim. The support that Noth uses for this is the fact that all the traditions that were common to both communities were left out For example, both communities followed the Pentateuch, hence there is no Pentateuchal material in Chronicles.The Chronicler essentially does repeat the ‘history’ in Samuel and Kings, but he just manipulates it a little in order to put across his theological beliefs. In a way, all written histories are biased to some degree, the Chronicler wants to highlight divine authority so he just tweaks the existing historical record to illustrate this.The Chronicler was really a bit of a propagandist, his treatment of Saul is an excellent example of this. The Chronicler hardly mentions Saul, and what he does mention is derogatory, so his record of ‘history’ is very selective here.He uses Saul as a perfect foil for David, in contrasting Saul it highlights how special David was.Saul consults a medium, David consults God.
Saul loses to the Philistines, David defeats them
Saul’s ‘house’ has fallen, David’s is established for ever.Saul is defeated and Israel is seen as weak, helpless and abandoned, this is the so-called ‘Exilic’ situation and this can only be ended by a King who is faithful to God, and the Chronicler is intent on showing David’s faithfulness and that God will establish David’s bloodline as the legitimate royal dynasty.A very interesting omission by the Chronicler is the leaving out of 2 Samuel 14b ‘When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and oppression by the sons of men.’I think that the omission of this verse is to show his community that the Davidic kings will be faithful to God and will not require any punishment. The faithfulness of the Davidic kings will mean that God will protect Israel as long as the King does not transgress, like Saul transgressed. This appears to be a device used to reassure the community that they will not enter another Exilic period because the god will not take his grace away from him as he took it away from him who was before David.The Chronicler does reproduce faithfully quite a bit of Samuel and Kings, for example:2 Samuel 5:6-9:6 The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, "You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off." They thought, "David cannot get in here." 7 Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David.
8 On that day, David said, "Anyone who conquers the Jebusites will have to use the water shaft to reach those 'lame and blind' who are David's enemies." That is why they say, "The 'blind and lame' will not enter the palace."
9 David then took up residence in the fortress and called it the City of David. He built up the area around it, from the supporting terraces inward.1 Chronicles 11:4-8:4 David and all the Israelites marched to Jerusalem (that is, Jebus). The Jebusites who lived there 5 said to David, "You will not get in here." Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David.
6 David had sad, "Whoever leads the attack on the Jebusites will become commander-in-chief." Joab son of Zeruiah went up first, and so he received the command.
7 David then took up residence in the fortress, and so it was called the City of David. 8 He built up the city around it, from the supporting terraces to the surrounding wall, while Joab restored the rest of the city.2 Kings 14:2-6:2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddin; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD , but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash. 4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
5 After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 6 Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."2 Chronicles 25:1-4:1Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddin; she was from Jerusalem. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD , but not wholeheartedly. 3 After the kingdom was firmly in his control, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 4 Yet he did not put their sons to death, but acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."These are basically the same, there is not a great deal of difference between the two and they are clearly talking about the same events.I do no think that accuracy was the goal of the biblical scribes, I think it was important for them to keep an historical core to the writings, but that some writers glossed these reports is certainly not in question. So although they are recording what they believed to be an accurate account of the historical events, they exercise a lot of poetic license in order to prove theological points.Brian.

quote:

---

It appears that present day translators of text are quite happy to insert modern views (their own) into the translation. It wouldn't be too surprising that those copying centuries ago would want to change the text to make it "right".

---

Present day translators who are quite happy to insert modern views into the translation are fulfilling the prophecy of the apostle Paul who prophesied that apostacy would come in the end times before Christ returns. Thankfully translators of old took the warning of Revelation 22, which lays a curse on those who take away or add to, seriously.The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that not much has been changed in the important texts of cannon scripture. God saw to it though, for the most part that his words would not pass away as has been also prophesied.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-31-2003]

One thing that makes the Bible so unique and reliable is that it was written by about 40 different authors over some 13 to 15 centuries with a noticeable common thread leading from beginning to end of God's program on planet earth which was his creation. Other so called holy books such as the Quran and the Book of Mormon were written by one person during a period in their lifetime, leaving no checks on reliability.It is important that more than one account of the same events were recorded, though one might phrase differently than the other or one might recall things the other missed. God seems to require two or three witnesses for everything important in his program.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-31-2003]

hi, I severly doubt your timeline here, care to elaborate or are you merely repeating the traditional view? What you have to remember Buz is that various selections of books have been brought together by editors and the 'harmony'has been worked into them.For example, Genesis, Exodux, Leviticus and Numbers were brought together by the Redactor R.1 and 2 Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah brought togther by either one author or one commitee of authors.Matthew and Luke both used Mark when they were writing, so some degree of harmony is expected.The Bible books are not all individually written by people who had no knowledge of the other texts, they were not composed isolation of the other texts, they were composed whilst being compared to other texts. But Buz the Bible only has one author! God is the author of the Bible or so I am led to believe by various Christian sects. What do you mean by reliability here, that the text is harmonious or that the Bible's version of historical events are reliable?Brian

I forgot to add that you also have to take into consideration the fact that these books were hand selected by councils from the existing corpus of the time.Brian

This is a marvelous sentence, with its claim precariously balanced between the vacuous and the vague. What constitutes "not much", and what the hell are "the important texts [as opposed, presumably, to unimportant text] of cannon [canonized?] scripture"?So, what can, in fact, be asserted. In the following quote, abbreviations employing unavailable characters are replaced with full names within braces: Furthermore, by the mid 3rd century BCE, textual transmission had long since entered the preservation stage. Any degree of agreement reflects only the degree of import assigned to various texts, and says absolutely nothing about the process or integrity of composition and early transmission.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-01-2003]

I would like to point out a few things about Jewish [Masoretic] canon:
As far as i know, although there were some words for which the exact formulation was lost, the vast majority of the original hebrew version is one the Masoretic we find today:
Proof:
There 3 laws Jews have
[1] No Torah book may be written without another authorized copy present in front of the scribe - in other words, you cant write based on memory or some second hand book
[2] If a Torah scroll was found to contain even ONE letter off -it was immediatly removed from public usage and ciculation until it is fixed . [So any book with a mistake would immdeiatly be taken out!]
[3] Any book that was old, smudged, burned, torn etc that was unusable or that major mistakes had been made [copied same sentence twice, skipped a line etc] had to be placed in "geniza" -buried so as to not be available for mistakes
Many rabbis were called [sofrim] which means 'the counters' because they literally counted the letters in the scrolls and kept ledgers of special words or phrases -so that the version would be exact.
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. This would make sense since theb Jews believed that their script was divine and that every word and letter counted [see Talmud, where, in hebrew, very word and even single letters can be used to learn new laws] and so were VERY careful about keeping the books exact. BTW, the talmud states [ ithin i read it once] that before he died, Moses himself wrote 13 officla copies of the Torah [this is if you accept one author writing etc] and gave one to each tribe - and one resided next to the ark in the Temple [or Tabernacle]. These were used as official references when needed and that the scroll that Ezra wrote was base don one of these. These were hannded down, more or les, to the masoretes who formalized it.