Scribes' Errors

[PrinceFarfoocle]

Are they possible? I’ve seen that explanations for some supposed contradictions, especially the ones concerning numbers, are that a scribe made an error while copying text.

 

[Vicki_T]

Of course they are possible. Wouldn’t you be bound to make some type of mistake if you had to copy a book as huge as the bible word for word? We are human after all!

 

[PrinceFarfoocle]

But then how do we know that some verses in Bible, read in liturgy and used as evidence in theology, are really what they mean and not a mistake?

 

[friardchips]

Hi. In the OT, or Hebrew Scriptures as they were called, it would be possible that something was lost in translation, except that 72 holy men - scribes - were all partitioned off from one another, each doing his own translation, and the texts from one to the other afterwards were compared to see if they agreed. These trusted, genius and prayerful Scribes did these translations lovingly in God’s care and were absolutely meticulous. Why would there be errors? It is more likely that some writings were left out, if anything, or lost.

 

[Cachonga]

Only the original autographs were inspired. There can be textual variants attributed to scribal errors. Words could be misspelled (many copies were made by “regular” people, not professional scribes, and they didn’t have Spell Check), lines could be missed (or repeated), and even not heard clearly (this from Scriptoriums where one person would read the exemplar and several scribes would write down what they heard (what is the difference between Omicron and Omega, sound-wise?)). Furthermore, you should remember that these were written on either papyrus or vellum, both of which had lines/creases. Also, there were no lower case letters until long after the Scriptures were originally penned. Finally (for my part), Hebrew and Greek used letters for numbers (much like the Latin used I, II, II for 1, 2, 3).

This is a discipline unto itself (textual criticism), and I’ve only made a very small scratch on the surface. There is no major doctrine of the Christian Church that depends on a textual variant, and, in fact, there are no variants in over 90% of the New Testament. What friardchips said about the translation of the OT into Greek is an unproven myth, but I believe I can have confidence in the OT Greek because it was quoted and used by the NT Church.

 

[friardchips]

Only the original autographs were inspired. There can be textual variants attributed to scribal errors. Words could be misspelled (many copies were made by “regular” people, not professional scribes, and they didn’t have Spell Check), lines could be missed (or repeated), and even not heard clearly (this from Scriptoriums where one person would read the exemplar and several scribes would write down what they heard (what is the difference between Omicron and Omega, sound-wise?)). Furthermore, you should remember that these were written on either papyrus or vellum, both of which had lines/creases. Also, there were no lower case letters until long after the Scriptures were originally penned. Finally (for my part), Hebrew and Greek used letters for numbers (much like the Latin used I, II, II for 1, 2, 3).

This is a discipline unto itself (textual criticism), and I’ve only made a very small scratch on the surface. There is no major doctrine of the Christian Church that depends on a textual variant, and, in fact, there are no variants in over 90% of the New Testament. What friardchips said about the translation of the OT into Greek is an unproven myth, but I believe I can have confidence in the OT Greek because it was quoted and used by the NT Church.

This is what is taught in Theology. It may come down to hearsay but this does not make it ‘myth’ because it cannot be 100% proven. I only heard what was told to me so maybe you know better as could be the case if you have studied. Thanks for responding to my post.

 

[Vicki_T]

But then how do we know that some verses in Bible, read in liturgy and used as evidence in theology, are really what they mean and not a mistake?

This is why I think the Bible cannot be taken 100% at face value. I mean yes the Bible may have been divinely inspired but when it boils down it was still written by man, and as we all know, man is inherently flawed. Combine that with human error, misinterpretation and mistranslation, and you’re left with a book that is mostly subjective and to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[John_Martin]

Only the original autographs were inspired. There can be textual variants attributed to scribal errors. Words could be misspelled (many copies were made by “regular” people, not professional scribes, and they didn’t have Spell Check), lines could be missed (or repeated), and even not heard clearly (this from Scriptoriums where one person would read the exemplar and several scribes would write down what they heard (what is the difference between Omicron and Omega, sound-wise?)). Furthermore, you should remember that these were written on either papyrus or vellum, both of which had lines/creases. Also, there were no lower case letters until long after the Scriptures were originally penned. Finally (for my part), Hebrew and Greek used letters for numbers (much like the Latin used I, II, II for 1, 2, 3).

This is a discipline unto itself (textual criticism), and I’ve only made a very small scratch on the surface. There is no major doctrine of the Christian Church that depends on a textual variant, and, in fact, there are no variants in over 90% of the New Testament. What friardchips said about the translation of the OT into Greek is an unproven myth, but I believe I can have confidence in the OT Greek because it was quoted and used by the NT Church.

Actually, it is the texts chosen by the Catholic Church for its Canon of Scripture that are Scripture. Later, 1200 years later there were protestors who wanted to choose different Scriptures for themselves, so they defined inspired books based on their judgments, not based on the original texts. So, you have the Catholic Scripture defined by the Catholic Church, and you have the Protestant’s Scripture defined in the 1500’s by those who did not want to have the Catholic’s Bible, but have their own definition of what the Church should be instead of what it really was.
The Catholics chose their Scripture based on unified agreement among the Bishops that these were the books and teachings that they were all using in faithfully following their predecessors in the Faith. The Protestants thought they knew better than their teachers so chose different books than their predecessors, and worry about little errors of scribes because they do not trust their predecessors to teach them only truth. Catholics created the Bible, beginning with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. and interpret it in line with the Faith they have in person received from their predecessors.

 

[spiderweb]

There are over 5,000 Greek manuscript fragments of the new testament and over 20,000 handwritten copies in other languages. The earliest complete manuscripts date to the early fourth century “Codex Sinaiticus” and “Codex Vaticanus”. However due to the large numbers of incomplete fragments that date much earlier, and also to the early writings of the church fathers, the reliability for the bible as we have it today is well documented.

Scribes or any other copyists can make errors, but the other manuscripts and writings would be able to find the error simply by comparison.

Suggest this link bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

 

[Nelka]

The scribes can err but the Holy Spirit cannot.

 

[Cachonga]

John Martin:

Actually, it is the texts chosen by the Catholic Church for its Canon of Scripture that are Scripture. Later, 1200 years later there were protestors who wanted to choose different Scriptures for themselves, so they defined inspired books based on their judgments, not based on the original texts. So, you have the Catholic Scripture defined by the Catholic Church, and you have the Protestant’s Scripture defined in the 1500’s by those who did not want to have the Catholic’s Bible, but have their own definition of what the Church should be instead of what it really was.
The Catholics chose their Scripture based on unified agreement among the Bishops that these were the books and teachings that they were all using in faithfully following their predecessors in the Faith. The Protestants thought they knew better than their teachers so chose different books than their predecessors, and worry about little errors of scribes because they do not trust their predecessors to teach them only truth. Catholics created the Bible, beginning with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. and interpret it in line with the Faith they have in person received from their predecessors.

Just curious, but what does this have to do with the topic of the thread? (BTW - I’m pretty sure we both have the same New Testament books).

 

[friardchips]

This is what is taught in Theology. It may come down to hearsay but this does not make it ‘myth’ because it cannot be 100% proven. I only heard what was told to me so maybe you know better as could be the case if you have studied. Thanks for responding to my post.

I wasn’t trying to be squashing with this part of the post btw…Cachonga; in short, I just meant that you might well know more than me, but the bit underlined can unintentionally be read two ways (just in case )

 

[friardchips]

This is why I think the Bible cannot be taken 100% at face value. I mean yes the Bible may have been divinely inspired but when it boils down it was still written by man, and as we all know, man is inherently flawed. Combine that with human error, misinterpretation and mistranslation, and you’re left with a book that is mostly subjective and to be taken with a grain of salt.

That doesn’t show much trust IMHO.

 

[1newcatholic]

I wasn’t trying to be squashing with this part of the post btw…Cachonga; in short, I just meant that you might well know more than me, but the bit underlined can unintentionally be read two ways (just in case )

The legend of the 72 (or 70) is expressed in the Letter of Aristeas and repeated (with some variation) in Philo, and also by some of the church fathers (although I’ve never made a careful study of which fathers said what about the Septuagint). However, I think most critical scholars today (including many Catholics) accept that this is a devout legend or myth, which the church fathers cited to give preference to the Septuagint copies. This was important especially since the Septuagint/Greek translations of the scriptures disagree in meaning and content with the Hebrew originals.

In my limited understanding, the textual evidence does not suggest that there was ever one specific and well-distributed copy of the Septuagint, until the matter was definitively settled by the formation of the Christian canon. The significant manuscript variations among the surviving manuscripts of the LXX seems to suggest that there were several different versions of the Greek scriptures floating around. The debates over Christianity and canonicity in the 2-4th centuries eventually determined what we now identify as the LXX.

 

[John_Martin]

Just curious, but what does this have to do with the topic of the thread? (BTW - I’m pretty sure we both have the same New Testament books).

You wrote mistakenly that “only the original autographs were inspired”.
But we know that the Pope and Magisterium of the Church are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that they recognized for us (not we ourselves) which books should be in the Bible belonging to the Church.
As to having the same new testament books, you have the books decided on by Martin Luther and the other protestants, you almost lost James, based not on the authority of Martin Luther and the other protestants, but on an assumption that a text belonging in the new testament is “self-evident” to you, as if you can recognize inspiration. The Catholic New Testament is what it is because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit requiring the Magisterium / Councils to select these books and not others. The Church by the Holy Spirit chose the New Testament hundreds of years after the letters and texts were written.
And this means that the supposed scribal errors are immaterial to the Faith, which is held in the Church’s teaching and people, not in some original but missing manuscript.

 

[Cachonga]

John Martin:

You wrote mistakenly that “only the original autographs were inspired”.
But we know that the Pope and Magisterium of the Church are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that they recognized for us (not we ourselves) which books should be in the Bible belonging to the Church.

So are you saying that the Scriptures are inspired because the “Pope and Magisterium of the Church” declared it to be so, or did they simply recognize and acknowledge what they believe God had inspired in the original autographs? Just to try and keep on topic, what did the Pope (which one?) and Magisterium of the Church recognize as Scripture - the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, or a later copy/translation?

As to having the same new testament books, you have the books decided on by Martin Luther and the other protestants, you almost lost James, based not on the authority of Martin Luther and the other protestants, but on an assumption that a text belonging in the new testament is “self-evident” to you, as if you can recognize inspiration. The Catholic New Testament is what it is because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit requiring the Magisterium / Councils to select these books and not others. The Church by the Holy Spirit chose the New Testament hundreds of years after the letters and texts were written.
And this means that the supposed scribal errors are immaterial to the Faith, which is held in the Church’s teaching and people, not in some original but missing manuscript.

I see no reason to respond to this since the topic of the thread concerns textual critical issues, not questions of the canon. If you want to discuss canon issues, you might want to start a new thread.

 

[John_Martin]

So are you saying that the Scriptures are inspired because the “Pope and Magisterium of the Church” declared it to be so, or did they simply recognize and acknowledge what they believe God had inspired in the original autographs? Just to try and keep on topic, what did the Pope (which one?) and Magisterium of the Church recognize as Scripture - the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, or a later copy/translation?

I see no reason to respond to this since the topic of the thread concerns textual critical issues, not questions of the canon. If you want to discuss canon issues, you might want to start a new thread.

Let me say, I read my Bible daily from the Greek for my private study and devotions. I have worked with the historical critical methods of which you refer, consulting various recensions having various readings for different texts and arguments for each reading to prepare my own analyses of those text meanings - textual criticism does not concern inspiration, but originality of a given text (does it equal the original author’s words).

When you bring up the issue of “inspiration”, you are bringing up the Magisterium (of whom Paul was a member in the first century when he said of the old testament, “All Scripture is inspired by God”. And he participated in the first Council at Jerusalem where it was not Scripture, but the Apostles and finally the Pope that made a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Just because we understand the Book of Acts to be Scripture, we must also see there that it is the Church that is the source of what we believe giving the doctrine they have heard from their teachers, and the Scripture is used by this Church “for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness”)

If the Church puts out a text as “The inspired Word of God” for its liturgical practice, that text, as you read it is inspired, even where others may say it disagrees with some manuscript that appears different. This thread’s answer is answered in the reality of the See of Peter, the Magisterium, and the Councils, because this thread is about whether the Bible is trustworthy as we know it.

Not many of you will be able to study Greek or Hebrew, and still fewer will have any real skill at the critical methods while still retaining the Faith that was delivered to you. But all can know and trust the Church that gives you the Bible it gives you as a Shepherd feeds its sheep on Sunday at Mass.

 

[Cachonga]

John Martin:

Let me say, I read my Bible daily from the Greek for my private study and devotions. I have worked with the historical critical methods of which you refer, consulting various recensions having various readings for different texts and arguments for each reading to prepare my own analyses of those text meanings - textual criticism does not concern inspiration, but originality of a given text (does it equal the original author’s words).

I fully agree that textual criticism does not concern inspiration, but originality of a given text.

When you bring up the issue of “inspiration”, you are bringing up the Magisterium (of whom Paul was a member in the first century when he said of the old testament, “All Scripture is inspired by God”. And he participated in the first Council at Jerusalem where it was not Scripture, but the Apostles and finally the Pope that made a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Just because we understand the Book of Acts to be Scripture, we must also see there that it is the Church that is the source of what we believe giving the doctrine they have heard from their teachers, and the Scripture is used by this Church “for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness”)

I brought up the issue of inspiration to help explain why we have so much material available to study today. Why did people (even “uneducated”, non-professional scribes) make copies? Because they believed these to be Scripture. I believe Paul (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) commented on ALL of Scripture when he said “All Scripture is inspired by God” (or do you think Genesis is more inspired than the Gospel of John?). As far as “the Pope that made a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised”, you may want to reread what actually happened. While Peter did stand up and explain what happened with Cornelius, it was James (the Bishop of Jerusalem) that made the final decision. If you wish to pursue this issue, you may want to start a new thread.

If the Church puts out a text as “The inspired Word of God” for its liturgical practice, that text, as you read it is inspired, even where others may say it disagrees with some manuscript that appears different. This thread’s answer is answered in the reality of the See of Peter, the Magisterium, and the Councils, because this thread is about whether the Bible is trustworthy as we know it.

Are you saying that what Paul originally wrote (or dictated) wasn’t inspired until the Church (Pope, Magisterium or Council) declared it to be inspired in whatever language they happened to have available, regardless of any conflicts with what was originally written? If this is true, then I would think you could answer every question with “Because the Church says so!” Sorry, I don’t buy it!

Not many of you will be able to study Greek or Hebrew, and still fewer will have any real skill at the critical methods while still retaining the Faith that was delivered to you. But all can know and trust the Church that gives you the Bible it gives you as a Shepherd feeds its sheep on Sunday at Mass.

But what if the “inspired” text is Latin? Oh, right - doesn’t matter because the Church says so!

 

[John_Martin]

…

As far as “the Pope that made a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised”, you may want to reread what actually happened. While Peter did stand up and explain what happened with Cornelius, it was James (the Bishop of Jerusalem) that made the final decision. If you wish to pursue this issue, you may want to start a new thread.

…

But what if the “inspired” text is Latin? Oh, right - doesn’t matter because the Church says so!

At the Council, First, Peter declared, “NO” to the council.

“Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.””

Following Peter (as the Pope), James submitted a proposal, which was accepted by the Church and known as the Apostolic Decree:
James’ proposal - note it is his judgment of what** should be done **in light of the declaration by Peter. There was a word from the Pope, then a **strategic proposal **on implementation by James.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that **we should not make **it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

And after hearing what James thought they ought to do, all agreed “Yes, this is how we will implement the intention of Peter”.

There are people in this thread saying and/or thinking that the integrity of scripture is compromised by errors or lack of the original manuscripts. This is only negated by the authority of Apostolic Tradition providing us with the truth, to include the Bibles we use, to the end that the Scriptures we hear at Mass are indeed the inspired Word of God in full, as presented to us at Mass, “because the Church says so.”

If all would discuss only the possibility of transcription error, with no comment on the question of whether we really have fully inspired writings today, I would not comment. But when you are talking about our Bible, rather than specific texts, then I do comment. You have disavowed your allegiance to the Holy See, and do not grant that real people today can decide and declare what is from God, just as Peter could then.

 

[Cachonga]

John Martin, if you wish to pursue this issue, you may want to start a new thread.