In the past I have had students who think it is at best questionable to believe that material now found in the Old Testament reflects the original instructions that Moses received from God. Additionally some also have similar doubts with respect to the assertion that the canonical Gospels were composed by their traditionally recognized authors, or accurately reproduced by Christian scribes. But for this blog I wish to primarily focus on the Old Testament manuscript evidence since it is relevant to what is now referred to as Second Temple Judaism. First, because of the need for this blog to be brief, I highly recommend that you all take some time and research the copyist practices of Jewish scribes. You will soon discover that the practices and standards of Jewish scribes were by far the most exacting in the ancient world. They were in their times professional copyists of the highest degree whose greatest concern was the preservation of the originals, not the creation of new material or the alteration of what they had received. However, this was not entirely true of the Septuagint—but this is a completely different matter. The LXX, as you should know by now, is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Consequently, the translators of the LXX were faced with a challenge, which was how could they best translated the precise meanings of their ancient texts to those of a different language and culture. This was quite a challenge for them, and it still is a challenge for today’s missionaries as they attempt to translate the Bible into the native tongue of different people groups. As Jewish scribes translated the Hebrew texts into Greek their efforts produced the LXX, which at times changed certain aspects of Hebrew vocabulary and imagery. For example, the LXX has significantly less anthropomorphism, which is attributing human characteristics to God. Why the translators of the LXX chose to do so one can only guess (some have suggested that the translators wanted to avoid giving their pagan audiences the idea that the one true God, who is Spirit, possessed physical attributes). Nevertheless, for these translators it seemed like a necessity so that their Greek translation of God’s word would not produce misunderstandings about the nature and essence of the one true spiritual God to the Greek audiences of their day. This should not alarm us with respect to the doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration because these doctrines affirm these qualities to only the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testament. They do not apply to later copies or translations of these original manuscripts. The fact is that copyists do occasional make errors, but we can identify errors contained in one manuscript as we compare it to copies of other ancient biblical manuscripts. The discipline of comparing multiple manuscripts of ancient works in order to discern the contents of the original autograph is known as “Textual Criticism.” Consequently, it is the many copies of the scriptures themselves that correct and confirm the original text of a specific passage found in the Bible.
Secondly, some assume that the term “scribes” simply means “copyists” or men who only copied documents. This is an incorrect assumption. The fact is that Jewish scribes (also commonly referred to as “lawyers” in the Gospels) were also expert interpreters of the Law, and we know from the Mishnah and Talmud that many of their interpretations became codified and eventually revered by the Pharisees to a status that was equal to that of the Old Testament scriptures. So, for example, Jeremiah 8.8 should not be assumed to mean that the “lying pen of the scribes” refers to their alteration of Old Testament texts, but their written interpretations or commentary of those Old Testament texts. Nevertheless, even if one were to accept the premise that in Jeremiah’s day there were some scribes that altered some manuscripts as they copied them, it should not be automatically assumed that this was the standard practice for all Jewish scribes throughout the era of the Old Testament or even in Jeremiah’s day. In fact, the Old Testament manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls verify that intent and exacting practices of Jewish scribes were to faithfully preserve and transmit what they had received, not to redact or change the manuscripts they were copying to fit their own felt needs or theology of their time. Jewish scribes were not in the business of composing new material or altered what they had received while copying Old Testament manuscripts; instead they faithfully copied what they had received.
We do recognize, however, that while the recording of some of the historical books of the Old Testament (i.e., 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.) that at times the authors of those books compiled their data into single books, but as they did they mentioned some of their source materials, sources that apparently have been lost to us but existed during the composition of some of the historical books now found in the Old Testament (e.g., “the records of the prophet Nathan and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite” (2 Chron 9.29); and “the records of Shemiah the prophet” (2 Chron 12.15); and “the treatise of the prophet Iddo” 2 Chron. 13.22). Some may think that it is sad that these works are not lost. Well yes and no. Some of these sources were not completely lost since they were accurately embedded into the larger historical works that have survived and are now integrated into the historical works in our canonical Old Testament. We know that they were “accurately embedded” and not “redacted” with new meanings since the authors referred to those works as their sources, thus indicating that they existed and were available for inspection and comparison. In other words, the author(s) of 1 and 2 Chronicles referred to some of their sources (which are lost to us) so that the readers of their day could compare their newer works with these older documents and corroborate that they have been accurately preserved in 1 and 2 Chronicles. Thus, the inspired Old Testament authors provided “ancient footnotes” identifying some of the documents that they had relied upon as they composed their larger works. This means that Jewish scribes (i.e., copyists) did not “lie” by creating new books with different meanings than their sources, but they respected and protected their sources, and accurately copied what they had received from them under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. If the author(s) of works such as 1 and 2 Chronicles wanted to redact and create new doctrines concerning God and his will for his people, then the absolute last thing they would have done was to refer their readers to sources that were written by God’s prophets that still existed and, thus possibly revealing their lack of faithfulness to the sources that they had cited.
Lastly, some students seem to think that the “phone game” is an accurate analogy of how most material in the Old Testament was predominantly preserved (that is with respect to post-Moses era), and some even think this analogy also applies to the New Testament. I recently listened to a lecture by a “scholar” named Bart Ehrman who actually used the phone game to ridicule and mock anyone that believes that the canonical Gospels are reliable historical documents that preserve factual data on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. It is his conjecture that the sources for the Gospels were only oral rumors that were shared over several decades by multiple people who neither saw nor heard Jesus’ teachings, or witnessed any of the events they were relaying to others. Liberal scholars similar to Ehrman assert a historically inaccurate “3-stage” development of the Gospels that employs stages that are chronologically separated. These scholars conjecture that there was first an oral stage, and as the first generation of Christians were close to dying out, then the second generation of Christians began to preserve their “traditions” in snippets commonly referred to as “pericopes,” and then lastly these became collated and redacted into what we know as our canonical Gospels. The problem is that this is not supported by the historical data found within the New Testament, as well as what is also observable in other external historical records. These records demonstrate that these different stages of development all existed simultaneously, that is within the same common generation. For example, clearly it was the apostle Peter that preached the first Christian sermon at Pentecost in the mid AD 30s, but it was also the apostle Peter that was the eyewitness source who personally conveyed to Mark the data found in Mark’s Gospel, which Mark composed while Peter was still alive sometime in the mid AD 50s (cf., Papias ca. AD 110). Consequently, we don’t reject the concept of a 3-stage development of the canonical Gospels, but only the inaccurate chronology of it proposed by scholars who reject the clear historical data that contradicts their misguided and biased theories.
Consequently, the “phone game” is a very poor analogy with respect to understanding the transmission of teachings found in the Old Testament and their texts, as well as the accounts concerning all that Jesus did and taught. The Old Testament was not transmitted solely through an oral medium. As early as the time of Moses important documents and covenants were preserved in writing. If one will do a simple word search for the term “to write” in the Pentateuch one will discover many references to commandments and teachings that Moses himself personally wrote (remember, he was a member of Pharaoh’s family and court; consequently, he received a superior education and was literate; i.e., he could both read and write). Moreover, God through Moses ordered the people of Israel to preserve in writing the commandments that Moses received directly from God. So, yes, oral transmission of the Law was a common educational practice throughout ancient Jewish history, but all oral transmissions could be checked and verified against what had been preserved in writing. Jesus himself, as well as his opponents, referred to the Law as “the writings of Moses” (cf., Mark 10.3-9, 12.19-26; Luke 20.28 & 37; John 5.46). Consequently, the assertion that the phone game is a good analogy of how the original commands and events of the Old Testament were preserved is a terribly inaccurate assertion. And this is also equally as important with respect to understanding the development and integrity of the New Testament since the same attitude of Jewish scribes toward the original manuscripts of the Old Testament also later influenced Christian scribes as they copied the original manuscripts of the New Testament (remember, the origin of Christianity is thoroughly Jewish).
Lastly, the original manuscripts of the Gospels are not the product of anonymous rumors from people that may or may not heard Jesus’ teachings or saw the miracles he performed, but they are the product of those who either walked with Jesus during his entire public ministry and were his hand picked students (i.e., Matthew and John), or were the close associates of the apostles of Jesus (i.e., Mark and Luke). Consequently, the canonical Gospels are not the product of anonymous hearsay and constantly evolving communal rumors, but directly from eyewitnesses who were personal disciples of Jesus or those who knew and interviewed known disciples and followers of Jesus. So next time someone brings up the “phone game” concerning the Bible and especially the Gospels you are well defended in correcting them as to why this does not apply to what we know about the literature that documents the teachings, deeds, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Doc.
Copyright, © by Monte Shanks, 2013