Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evidence: Can we trust traditional texts to be reliable?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It really depends on how much care has been taken to preserve them.

Recently, Barry Arrington posted on how we can be sure of something (for example, that bin Laden is dead). The burden of proof is on any who might claim otherwise.

For some, the question has arisen whether the oral transmission of the Torah (the books of Moses in Jewish tradition) could be reliable. What about memory lapses, deliberate alterations, etc., especially during the time when oral memory and transmission were normal, alongside scrolls (which were expensive and time-consuming to produce).

Well, I asked the ID community reb, Moshe Averick, author of Nonsense of a High Order: The confused and illusory world of the atheist, how do you know that the Torah goes back to the time of Moses? Here is what he says,

There are many safeguards in Jewish law and practice to preserve the integrity of the Torah scroll. However, the simplest and most obvious evidence of how well the system works, is that after the founding of the State of Israel, Jews from every corner of the world brought their own Torah Scrolls and the ones from Yemen ( whose community was over 2000 years old) matched the ones from Poland. This, despite the fact that there are over 300,000 letters in the Torah.

The scrolls are all handwritten, it is absolutely forbidden to use a printing press to create a Torah scroll, and a new scroll can only be copied from an already existent one. The scroll is read from publicly three times a week, Monday, Thursday and Shabbat. There are no vowels or punctuation in the scroll, if the reader makes a mistake (everyone follows from a printed edition) he is immediately stopped and must repeat the word properly.

If it turns out that there is a mistake in the text, even one letter, it is forbidden to read from it publicly and is immediately put back in the ark with a distinct sign that it is invalid, until it is repaired by a qualified scribe. Unless you have actually seen how quickly the reader is jumped on by the congregation if he makes a mistake, and unless you have actually watched a Torah scroll invalidated in the middle of the service and put back in the ark, it is hard to really understand how exacting this process is.

It is also important to understand the reverence that the community has for the Torah scroll. I’m not talking about orthodox communities, that goes without saying, I’m even talking about the most Reform, liberal congregations. They might eat on Yom Kippur, but no one, and I mean no one messes with a Torah scroll. It would be unthinkable (this is something that can only be known from experience) for the most liberal Reform congregation to write their own version of a Torah scroll, and this is despite the fact that they claim to believe that the whole thing is a bunch of man made myths.

There are 5-6 letter differences between the scroll of the Arab-Jewish communities and the eastern European Jewish communities. These are all letters that are silent in the words, and none change the meaning or pronunciation of a word or phrase. Example: Thouht and Thought , foreign and forein, etc.

Torah scrolls can easily used for up to 100 years, which means that the transmission process really only has to happen 30-40 times. This takes you back over 3000 years to the final writing of the Torah at the end of the 40 years in the desert.

I replied,

It is a good example of the use of an oral tradition to correct a written tradition as well as the durability of a written tradition – if anyone cares about it. Oral traditions are not necessarily so subject to corruption as the original commenter seemed to think. He is confusing situations where no one cares much with ones where they do and must care.Ancient Greek myths of the gods were examples of situations where no one cared much. There were many variant accounts of the soap opera lives of the pagan gods, and the only bottom to the confusion is that a good editor would sometimes fashion an account that – being a good story – would simply get told more often until it became the standard story. Somewhat like one soap opera being way more popular than others, but it was all just nonsense.  Think Homer. That was a Darwinian system! – the story was shaped for fitness, not for truth. Of course, after a while, people got tired of truth-optional religion, which is why you and I are where we are today and the Greek gods are just garden statues somewhere.

Readers, you decide.

Update: Re Dead Sea Scrolls, he also notes: “I is important to know that none of the Dead Sea Scrolls were of the type that are used in a synagogue. In other words they are unauthorized texts written by unknown scribes. It is obvious that in texts like these there will be quite a bit of variation. ”

See also “Detecting authenticity in lack of design. (Note: There, we are talking about authenticity, not conciseness = how inconcision can be a marker for authenticity.)

Comments
That’s rather remarkable
What's remarkable is that there were only ten generations between Adam and Noah.
... do you know of any other ‘precise’ prophecies in the entire world that have been fulfilled in such a dramatic fashion?
Well, since this prohecy exists only in the imagination... One has to wonder how William Miller came up with a completely different date. I wonder what date Isaac Newton came up with.Mung
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
AMW brings up much the same points I would. 1. The original question was about oral transmission. The response used an example from written transmission. 2. Even taking the written transmission, how far back does he assert the practice he descibes extends?Mung
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
AMW, in your arguing that the Old Testament of the Bible is not reliable, you seem to depend totally on the preconception that the Bible is pretty much the product of fallible man, but many Christians, myself included, regard the Bible as 'inspired by God' even though it was written by fallible man. Thus I expect there to be 'supernatural watermarks' within scripture that reflects the guiding hand of God in scripture. One of the most powerful 'supernatural watermarks' that has been shown to me is this one: The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317 AMW, do you know of any other 'precise' prophecies in the entire world that have been fulfilled in such a dramatic fashion??? It is this 'supernatural' evidence which sets the Bible completely apart for me!!!bornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Instead of pressing the Reb against the wall, why not hear from Christians atheists on this issue??? CAs: There's no God, ye fools!!!Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
AMW, in looking over Dr. Missler's study notes, http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/ I find the majority of the proper names to translate 'straight-forwardly', whereas the few 'contested' names, that Dr. Missler admits to, are by no means 'severely stretched', Thus that was the basis of my question to the "Reb" to further clarify it. And contrary to you saying,,, 'If he’s not a Messianic Jew, I’m pretty sure I know what he’ll say.' ,,, most scientists and scholars, (other than neo-Darwinists or even the majority of Theistic Evolutionists who I find are merely sock puppets of neo-Darwinists) operate with a fairly open mind towards the evidence. Thus that you would be 'pretty sure' he would be biased towards the evidence actually reflects something personal in your own approach to evidence.bornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
AMW, you accused Dr. Missler of,,, 'My guess is there’s little to no scholarly backing to it.' And yet if you of bothered to look the site up I listed you would have found that Dr. Missler did indeed do his homework: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/ A Study of Original Roots The meaning of proper names can be a difficult pursuit since a direct translation is often not readily available. Even a conventional Hebrew lexicon can prove disappointing. A study of the original roots, however, can yield some fascinating insights. (A caveat: many study aids, such as a conventional lexicon, can prove rather superficial when dealing with proper nouns. Furthermore, views concerning the meanings of original roots are not free of controversy and variant readings.) Thus AMW, it seems your 'guess' that it was superficial, in reality, stems directly from your preconceived bias, instead of any real scholarly work on your part!bornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
AMW, Haha. Cool..appreciate it. And of course my fiance would say I put a fine tooth comb to everything! And i'm sure the back & forth is partially why we are all here. Socratic method and all that...MedsRex
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Let me just add as an addendum that the events described in Genesis are purported to have started about 4,000 years BCE. So that's a pretty long (~2500 year) oral tradition to add to the start of the written tradition.AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
cmow - Whoops! My mistake. According to the omniscient Wikipedia, Jewish scholars tend(ed?) to place Moses around 1300 BCE; Christians tended to place him around 1550 BCE. Not as extreme as I was erroneously claming above. But still a pretty big gap.AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
Hi, MedsRex. Apology accepted and no offense taken. Give and take is part of life as a commenter. Besides, I have no stones to throw. My wife can tell you that I pick nits with the best of them.AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
AMW -- Rabbi Averick is placing the Torah's beginning around 1000 BC -- 3000 years ago. You seem to be looking for a 5000 year history -- 2000 back to Jesus plus 3000 more years. Granted that doesn't do away with the gap you are questioning, but it does lessen it. To be honest, I'm not sure where Averick gets that date from. And I am not an expert. But from what I have read, depending on the worldview and biases of the chronologer, I've seen the Exodus dated anywhere from ~1600 BC to ~1200 BC. I think most conservative Biblicist chronologers (and even others like David Rohl) would place the Exodus in the 15th century BC. I've never seen anyone claim it back to 3000 BC.cmow
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Hey AMW, OT..but: I want to apologize for a snappy, sarcastic comment I made in response to a past comment you made about the PR moves of Hungarian ID sympathizers. I felt you were being nit-picky but You did make a good point about the title of that post. and lets be honest we all have our nit-picky moments in this debate. ;) I had no right to respond in that manner.MedsRex
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
If he's not a Messianic Jew, I'm pretty sure I know what he'll say. Also, you can look up the meanings of Hebrew names online to compare with the translations posted here. I just checked out Enoch and it came back "devoted, dedicated." My guess is there's little to no scholarly backing to it. (But then, my Christianity is suspect b/c I'm a TE.)AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Ms. O'Leary, I wonder if you can ask the Rabbi (the Reb) to confirm, or to disconfirm, this; The New Testament Hidden In Genesis - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193378 The Gospel in Genesis by Chuck Missler - article http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/ excerpt: Hebrew English Adam Man Seth Appointed Enosh Mortal Kenan Sorrow; Mahalalel - The Blessed God Jared Shall come down Enoch Teaching Methuselah - His death shall bring Lamech The Despairing Noah Rest, or comfort. That's rather remarkable: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest. the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis! Perhaps the 'Reb' can comment???bornagain77
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
No doubt about it; the extant Hebrew manuscripts show an impressive consistency. But the extant Hebrew manuscripts only get you to about the time of Christ, which is about 3000 years after Moses. I'm asking what the evidence is that the manuscripts were copied as conscientiously throughout that 3000 year period. Or what the evidence is that the original manuscripts actually date back that far. You know, for a crowd that likes to crow about gaps in the fossil record . . .AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
In his book "The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?" (IVP, 2001) Walter C Kaiser Jr. States: "The history usually begins by affirming that the most important witnesses to the original text of the Old Testament are found in the Hebrew manuscripts. There are three major sources for these Hebrew witnesses: (1) the Masoretic Text, a Hebrew text preserved by a group of scholars known as the Masoretes (A.D. 500-1000); (2) the Samaritan Pentateuch; and (3) the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Judean Desert at Qumran. The greatest witness of the three is the Masoretic Text, distinctive largely because of the system of notes and signs the Masoretes designed to preserve the integrity of the text. Normally the term Masoretic Text (hereafter MT) is restricted to a particular manuscript that came from the tenth-century A.D hand of Aaron Ben Asher. It is a text that reflects his analysis of hundreds of medieval manuscripts (hereafter MSS). The accuracy of the MT was validated when some of the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS), dating from the first and second century B.C., were found to reflect essentially the same text we have inherited from the Masoretes and the text set forth in Ben Asher's tenth-century A.D. Hebrew Bible." (pg. 42) So essentially, if you look over 1,000 years of manuscript history, there is no significant difference between the DSS and the MT. This is really astonishing when you consider that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not available to the Masoretes.CannuckianYankee
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Also, I realize that the Septuagint is in Greek, not Hebrew. But presumably the scribes would still have tried to be careful to preserve the Hebrew meanings in as exact and intact a manner as possible.AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
That's all very interesting, but two things. First, there are textual variants between the Septuagint, Masoretic Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls. More than just six letter differences, and not just alternative spellings of the same word. They're not wildly different from each other; but there is variation. Second, he only gives textual evidence for consistency of transmission for the last 2000 years. The other 3000 years are waved away by saying this would only have to happen 30 - 40 more times. What is the evidence that this same level of care was taken during that period?AMW
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply