• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scripture copying before the printing press

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Is it true that when somebody was writing the Bible before the printing press came out , that if they made a mistake, they would have to start all over?

That's what I heard, but it doesn't sound true to me. I mean, I understand they had no erasers, and the text was considered most sacred, but it took like 10 years to write out a Bible back then.

I couldn't imagine the agony a person would have to go through starting all over lol. :mad::p

I hear that rule was especially true with Jews like and theTorah scrolls, so I'd especially like to hear from Jews like @RabbiO or those familiar with the history of making new Torah scrolls back then. Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
AFAIK copying scripture was a sacred assignment given to skilled copyists, and every section was copied so meticulously that they not only counted every word, but also every letter.

I also understand that there were perhaps, ways to correct mistakes back then so I wouldn't think it was a 'start from scratch' issue in every case. Maybe a start over of that section if the mistake warranted it.

In the book of Acts, Peter spoke to a crowd in the temple area, telling them: “Repent . . . get your sins blotted out.”
(Acts of the Apostles 3:11, 19) The expression ‘get blotted out’ comes from a Greek verb that means “wipe out, erase.” So I believe that they did have ways to correct small mistakes. And yes it would have taken a long time to make one copy.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You are talking about Art of a higher order than most. So, no mistakes they were not "merely" copiests. Not un Like a professional concert violinist of the highest order. The text was held to be sacred as it echoes down kind of, into fantasy modern culture.

No sacredness of it today. The only thing sacred is are our obsene cut and paste bs. As performed constantly here on RF to justify our delusions across spectrum.

Sacred, there is no sacred, except for opinion today. We just dress that up with bible quotes, believe or not believe, to make it appear extra special. Thats all nothing more. Pitiful.
 
Last edited:
There are an awful lot of hoops and fences that must be jumped through and over just to become a Torah Scribe. I am not about to get into that, but I will say that Jews take our Sacred Writings very seriously.

There has never been a point in time that xianity ever took their documents seriously. Just read through the 5800+ existing Greek Manuscripts of the canonical xian texts. You don't have to be a Papryologist, Codicoligist or Paleographer to see that every single one of them are doctored up all over the place.

Out of over 5800 extant Greek Manuscripts of the xian texts there is not a single one that the text has not been tampered with.

Generally, it takes a Torah Scribe 1.0 - 1.5 years to copy a Torah Scroll; working a standard work day.

They had entire assembly lines to copy the xian texts. There is no such thing, ever, as one single person taking 10 years to copy a bible.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Is it true that when somebody was writing the Bible before the printing press came out , that if they made a mistake, they would have to start all over?
They would probably just remake that page, also keep in mind that this was done by hand and errors did occur that made it into the bibles and especially the earlier versions.

From what I could figure out, there are around 3 or 4 times the amount of errors in the bibles that we have, than there are words in it. Around 400000 mistakes, however only around 20000 of them are considered important ones, as some of these can change the meaning of verses depending on what bible you translate from. The rest are merely typos etc.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
There are an awful lot of hoops and fences that must be jumped through and over just to become a Torah Scribe. I am not about to get into that, but I will say that Jews take our Sacred Writings very seriously.

There has never been a point in time that xianity ever took their documents seriously. Just read through the 5800+ existing Greek Manuscripts of the canonical xian texts. You don't have to be a Papryologist, Codicoligist or Paleographer to see that every single one of them are doctored up all over the place.

Out of over 5800 extant Greek Manuscripts of the xian texts there is not a single one that the text has not been tampered with.

Generally, it takes a Torah Scribe 1.0 - 1.5 years to copy a Torah Scroll; working a standard work day.

They had entire assembly lines to copy the xian texts. There is no such thing, ever, as one single person taking 10 years to copy a bible.
Okay. Thanks
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Scripture copying before the printing press

The Evangelists wrote in Greek rather than in Hebrew...at that time only the capital letters of the Greek alphabet were used in writing, without diacritics, punctuation, or separation between words. Lower case letters appeared only in the ninth century, together with spacing between words. Punctuation marks were introduced only with the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The present separations of chapters was introduced by Cardinal Hugo in the 13th century.

“WOMANWITHOUTHERMANISNOTHING.” Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Let us now separate the words. “Woman without her man is nothing,” that seems better doesn’t it? But without punctuation, what is being said here? “Woman without her man, is nothing;” or “Woman! Without her, man is nothing.”

How many truths now remain hidden because erroneous punctuation was used in later copies?

 

sooda

Veteran Member
AFAIK copying scripture was a sacred assignment given to skilled copyists, and every section was copied so meticulously that they not only counted every word, but also every letter.

I also understand that there were perhaps, ways to correct mistakes back then so I wouldn't think it was a 'start from scratch' issue in every case. Maybe a start over of that section if the mistake warranted it.

In the book of Acts, Peter spoke to a crowd in the temple area, telling them: “Repent . . . get your sins blotted out.”
(Acts of the Apostles 3:11, 19) The expression ‘get blotted out’ comes from a Greek verb that means “wipe out, erase.” So I believe that they did have ways to correct small mistakes. And yes it would have taken a long time to make one copy.

The copyists weren't always literate themselves.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Scripture copying before the printing press

The Evangelists wrote in Greek rather than in Hebrew...at that time only the capital letters of the Greek alphabet were used in writing, without diacritics, punctuation, or separation between words. Lower case letters appeared only in the ninth century, together with spacing between words. Punctuation marks were introduced only with the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The present separations of chapters was introduced by Cardinal Hugo in the 13th century.

“WOMANWITHOUTHERMANISNOTHING.” Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Let us now separate the words. “Woman without her man is nothing,” that seems better doesn’t it? But without punctuation, what is being said here? “Woman without her man, is nothing;” or “Woman! Without her, man is nothing.”

How many truths now remain hidden because erroneous punctuation was used in later copies?

John 19:25; Standing close to the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.. . . . . .incorrect.

Standing close to the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. . . . . . . . Correct.
 
Top