Copyist Errors and Estimations
James Patrick Holding
Many critics are completely indifferent to the principles of textual criticism. They reject all explanations involving copyist error, even though they are of the same type used by textual critics in secular studies to resolve difficulties. And this being the case, we may expose the absurdity of their arguments by seeing what they would result in if carried to their logical conclusion.
The works of Tacitus contain a known numerical error which has been faulted to a copyist mistake. Two geographic locations are described as being 25 miles apart. But we know that the locations are actually 125 miles apart, not 25. Hence Tacitean and classical scholars deduce that a copyist error changed the original CXXV to XXV.
Now using this example, consider what one skeptic's objections do to the science of textual criticism.
The common apologetic defense that somebody copied something incorrectly, is wholly unsupportable in light of the fact that the originals no longer exist. How do they know it was copied wrong?
Likewise, the originals of Tacitus no longer exist. How do we know it was copied wrong?
If the conflict exists in the copies, then it is logical to assume it is present in the originals as well, absent evidence to the contrary.
A notion like this would bring all texual criticism to a screeching halt. So then: It is logical to assume that the error in Tacitus was in the original? We have no evidence to the contrary --- not even a variant or other document with another number, as we have in the Bible in most cases.
...the apologists can hardly argue copyist errors to explain contradictions, then assert inerrancy in all other parts of the Bible.
So we can not use a copyist error to explain Tacitus, then assert his reliability elsewhere? the argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Our writer says more on this subject which is highly repetitive and simply polemical --- i.e., calling such explanations a "gimmick" or an "excuse" --- but the bottom line is that there are certified textual-critical methods for resolving such problems in any ancient text, and our subject is not even remotely informed of these. As further proof, let's look at these statements from the Biblical Errancy newsletter, first from issue #105. The author quotes a Christian author as saying, "...there are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of them those are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the NT where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of faith. Note the problem is not that we don't know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading." To this, he replies that the authors:
...admit that there are at least 10,000 places in which manuscripts supposedly duplicating the alleged originals contradict one another. That's a lot of conflict for what is supposed to be God's perfect word.
Hold the phone! This says nothing about places where the 10,000 manuscripts contradict "each other" -- this speaks of 10,000 variants. A variant is counted as any place where any manuscript differs from any other manuscript. This means that if the same exact spelling error is found in 100 manuscripts at the same exact place that counts as 100 variants. This is the same illicit counting of variants that we have found in the likes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Continuing:
Secondly, since the alleged originals no longer exist and with so much disagreement among the allegedly accurate copies, there is no way scholars can ever know for sure what the originals actually said. Any version on the market must be a product of educated guesses, consensus, and weighing the validity of manscripts.
Secular textual critics, who operate under the same basic rules as biblical ones, would be very surprised to hear that there is "no way" to know "for sure" what original said. Of course, one might wildly speculate that a given work by Tacitus on history was once a guide for dental hygiene practices, but the level of certainty for recovery is far, far higher than the implication above insists.
And so, how do we discover a copyist error? An overriding supposition in textual criticism assumes error in copying before assuming error in the original --- this is simply good manners. It is arrogant and presumptuous to assume error upon the creator of a work, as it is far more likely, given the time and the number of hands an ancient document has usually passe through, that a copyist erred. This is so whether we have corroborating evidence or not.
The second factor is, indeed if there is corroborating evidence supporting what appears to be a more correct reading. For Tacitus, all we have is the mere fact that the 2 locations referenced are known to be about 125 miles apart. But we have better evidence for most Biblical problems of this sort. Take these verses from the KJV, where they have not been corrected with text-critical principles:
1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Which is correct? Textual critics have determined that the second is correct, and 1 Kings has been hit by a copyist error, citing as support:
The reading found in 2 Chronicles.
Archaeological data indicating that 4000 would be an appropriate number of stalls for a nation the size of ancient Israel, whereas 40,000 would be very excessive.
4000 comports better with the number of horsemen.
There is sufficient explanation for a change. Tekton associate Eric Vestrup notes that there is a reasonable probability that a scribe copied incorrectly, for "40" is spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-yodh-mem with "4" being spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-heh , the only difference being the plural "-im" ending in "40" while "4" has the singular feminine ending.
Compare this now with our skeptic's own commentary in the 127th issue of the BE newsletter when a fellow skeptic pointed out the high probability of a copyist error in this instance:
First, although the alleged originals no longer exist, there are thousands of manuscripts claiming to be accurate copies of the alleged originals. When scholars decided to write the following versions--KJ, RS, ML, AS, NASB, MT, LV, JB, NIV, TEV, NWT, and etc.--they went through either some, many, most, or all of the manuscripts, compared what was said in each, reached a common consensus, and chose to use 40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9:25. In order for there to have been a copyist error, the same incorrect figure had to have been copied in scores if not hundreds and thousands of manuscripts, certainly not one or two. Are you saying hundreds, if not thousands, of copyists made precisely the same error when they copied 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25 from the autographs? They not only copied incorrectly but made the same erroneous change?...What do you think are the odds of that happening?...The attempt by biblicists to pawn this problem off on one lone copyist or scribe in some monastery somewhere who happened to make one simple mistake is rather amusing, in light of the fact that thousands of manuscripts are involved with the same verse.
Our skeptic here displays incredible indifference to the actual process of textual composition in ancient times and the matter of textual "families". He has envisioned a single original which was the source of all copies, when in fact the lack of materials and skilled scribes in ancient times dictates that there were very few copies made to begin with, so that there is no instance of a single scribe transcribing the same error into hundreds, thousands, etc. manuscripts. What there would be is a single scribe making the error once, an error which is then preserved as successive single manuscripts are transcribed, until such time as mass copying procedures and schools existed -- and then, the error is preserved in thousands of manuscripts. It happened with Tacitus, and it happened with the Bible.
Second, even if there were a copyist mistake, you could never be sure which figure was copied incorrectly. Was it the 40,000 figure that should have been 4,000 or the 4,000 figure that should have been 40,000? Because you could never know for sure, you might just as well expunge these two parts of the Bible. One is definitely incorrect, and you'll never know which.
This is of course nonsense, as we have seen above. Beyond that, should we expunge that part of Tacitus that contains the numerical error?
Third, and very important, is the fact that the manuscripts contradict one another, and until the original is produced, the contradiction stands. Biblicists are asking us to ignore a contradiction staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the contradiction stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the contradiction is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove a contradiction exists in manuscripts which biblicists can't even prove existed. Biblicists, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no contradiction in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing.
So, likewise, the error "stands" in Tacitus -- and I could say: "Greco-Roman historians are asking us to ignore an error staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the error stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the error is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove an error exists in manuscripts which Greco-Roman historians and textual critics can't even prove existed. Greco-Roman historians and textual critics, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no error in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing." It would be amusing to see our skeptic reel out this spiel before an audience of professional historians and textual critics.
These things said, we can now look a bit further at some related statements in issue #66 of the BE newsletter which further show how little our skeptic knows about the processes of textual criticism. In addition to repeating some of the same errors as alluded to above, our subject writes:
In addressing the first question in prior issues we noted that although there are thousands of manuscripts with similar and nearly identical texts, there were also thousands of variations. Because of the great number of differences, one would not be wise to assume there must have been a common source.
This glittering generality is derived, clearly, quite uncritically from skeptical sources like Stanton who refer to tens of thousands of "blunders" in the received text -- without any analysis of what these "blunders" consist of, whether or not they are obvious, whether they appear in one manuscript over and against several hundred that offer a more sensible and clearly correct reading, etc. It is an "in the air" objection and nothing more.
...(E)ncyclopedias and cookbooks also bear a remarkable resemblance and one might assume they, too, had a common source. Although it is correct to say that the degree of similarity between biblical manuscripts is significantly higher than that between most encyclopedias and cookbooks, the difference is one of degree, not kind.
The difference is much greater than this, of course, and it is the height of incompetence to compare modern books in reference to ancient documents conceived prior to the advent of today's communication and exchange processes. This, too, is merely an "in the air" objection designed to convince our subject's more gullible readers that he has some relevant knowledge of the subject. (One wonders, is our subject suggesting that each different manuscript, rather than being derived from a common source, was, like a cookbook or an encyclopedia, each derived from an independent source that went out and did its own research and composition? The comparison implies a host of questions about what it is exactly he is trying to argue here. It is well enough that he goes no further into specifics; it would badly upset the apple cart!)
We therefore conclude that our subject's arguments in this arena are profound nonsense, not worthy of further attention. Tekton associate Eric Vestrup adds this comment on our subject's methodology:
Our subject makes several snide comments about those who resort to textual problems to harmonize conflicting texts. And the student must indeed be careful not to wash real problems in Scripture away by the plastic elastic "copyist's error" solution. Yet, skepticism of our subject's flavour might do itself a favour and investigate the reasonableness of the hypothesis that a transcriptional error has in fact occurred. It is easy in any field to throw questions around and it is quite easy to make one's opinions so forceful that the reader somehow excuses the one with the forceful opinion from having to investigate whether the opinion is actually well-founded. We students of these problems should not be rattled by emotional ejaculations that have no basis in facts. As there are good problems in Scripture to take our lifetimes up, we should realize that skeptical bluster will froth and foam in large quantities over other passages, even if this one gets solved eventually. Right now, as stated, there seem to be two somewhat reasonable conjectures for this difference in accounting, the oft-attacked "copyist error" being in my opinion the better of the two. The student can be reasonably satisfied [without further facts] at these conjectural solutions. But, if these solutions are not correct, I am personally at a loss to explain the difference.
Now an additional note, however, on approximations. No Tacitean scholar would assert that Tacitus was in error because the distance between the locations was 123.5, or 124.7, or 126.2 miles apart, rather than precisely 125. The capability of precision measurement devices is a relatively recent developement, so that approximations and round-offs can not be regarded as errors. A general comment should be made about many Biblical enemies' approach to numerical discrepancies such as these. It is irresponsible to take the standards of accountancy that demand an exact agreement to the penny and apply them arbitrarily to ancient documents, many millenia old. This is not the right way in which to understand a document. Instead, harping on small differences between two slightly different numbers in parallel accounts is nothing but cultural and chronological chauvinism.
http://www.tektonics.org/copyisterrors.html