Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!

Monday, 22 December 2008

On Faith and Reason

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Reason:
6.Logic. a premise of an argument.
7.Philosophy.
a.the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b.the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

XGH, in his ongoing crusade to justify his feelings of insecurity at his lack of faith has devoted his latest blog (his third, and so far more successful than the 2nd), has decided that all Torah-observant Jews are living a lie, and as a result, all liars. His underlying assumptions are quite clear: Nothing the Torah says regarding the origins of the world, the Revelation at Sinai, or the Divine authorship of the book is true. Why? Well, because modern scholarship and archeology have decided that this is so. As a result, since the Torah cannot be true any Jew who has faith in it realy believes in a lie and is therefore a liar, yet the contradiction only deepens because Judaism abhors lying so how can a Torah observant Jew truly exist?
Aesop's fable about the fox and the sour grapes seems particularly apt here. In truth, faith is clearly an elusive thing. What makes one person have faith in something or someone, while another person lacks faith in that same object or person? Why does someone "just know" that the Revelation at Sinai happened despite the secular evidence against it while another equally educated person will decide that since reason demands that there was no revelation, then therefore there was no revelation?
I don't know.
In my practice, I deal with smokers all the time. Some smokers, after being educated in all the risks of the practice, make a motivated decision to quit. Others says they're interested but on further questioning, they're really not. Needing vs wanting is what it boils down to. A person can know they need to quit smoking but not want to. How does one convert a needer into a wanter?
I don't know. I've witnessed people have spontaneous epiphanies and come in desperate for a prescription of Champix while others do so only after the onset of angina or the diagnosis of cancer, and still others never become wanters, even after getting fitted for their oxygen tank. I can only conclude that such desires are internal, based on the inner psychological nature of the person and the graceful intervention of God Himself.
But it also seems to me that this is the case with faith. Only a complete idiot believes that the physical world, all that we can see and touch, is all there is to existence. But that idiot may, when faced with the need to confront the vastness of the unknown and all its frightening possibilities, may conclude that he does not want to engage in such a confrontation. It may change his essential beliefs, it may challenge his foregone conclusions and it may impinge on the self-centred life he has created for himself in which he is the centre of the universe and the pinnacle result of history. The thought that he is part of a greater plan, that he has a role to play in which he might not personally, physically benefit, is frightening to him. So he shuts it out. He denies it. He invents empirical testing that, by its very nature, cannot detect that which he wishes to ignore and then, after the tests comes back negative, shouts out: Hooray! I was right all along!
Such is the person of reason. The spiritual, by its nature, cannot be apprehended or examined by the physical. So the person of reason, beholden to the physical and having rejected all else, tests for the spiritual, fails to find it and concludes, incorrectly, that it's not there.
The person of faith, on the other hand, accepts that the human mind cannot know or detect all things. Even in the physical world, our senses are woefully inadequate. We cannot see vast parts of the spectrum of light. We cannot hear sounds within a large range of frequences. We cannot feel bacteria on our skin. Are they therefore not there?
The person of reason laughs at these examples. Yes, the human eye or ear cannot detect them but we can develop tools that can. And the reply to that is: Is it possible there are physical manifestations in this universe for which no detecting tools have been invented? Again, only a complete idiot would say no. There is always more to discover, more to be learned.
But push the person of reason a little bit further and this "more" has its limits. It is limited strictly to the physical. The spiritual, being non-physical, does not exist for them. And without spirituality, you cannot have faith in God and Torah. You cannot truly believe.
Yet as Rav Soloveitchik points us, the soul of the Jew is designed to want to believe. A state of lack of faith is antagonistic to the Jewish neshamah, it creates a state of discordance that leaves the bearer of the such a soul in a state of discomfort.
There are two ways to deal with such discomfort. One can do a real chesbon hanefesh and come to the proper conclusion - faith is not precluded by reason and it is possible to believe even if reason suggests otherwise. Or one can be stubborn (something Jews are too good at) and continue to insist: No, there is only reason. The spiritual does not exist. I'm right because I says I am and you're wrong because I says you are. They are miserable inside, even as they shout about how happy they are to be free of the "shackles of religion". And because misery loves company they shout out on their blogs and elsewhere over and over again about how right they are, never realizing that their whole argument is a non-starter.
Well I don't believe in people of reason. I believe in God.

21 comments:

stone_ said...

I see you found lifeinisrael.blogspot.com :)

That's the only blogspot blog that I actually regularly follow (besides this one of course).

Happy Chanukah!

Garnel Ironheart said...

Have a great Chanukah too. And become a follower. I need a big army for this fight!

Jewish Atheist said...

Yet as Rav Soloveitchik points us, the soul of the Jew is designed to want to believe. A state of lack of faith is antagonistic to the Jewish neshamah, it creates a state of discordance that leaves the bearer of the such a soul in a state of discomfort.

For the record, Jews are vastly more likely to be atheists than almost any other people. Look it up. (I assume it's because of higher IQ and education levels, both of which are correlated strongly with atheism.)

It's one thing to say that "we can't know everything." It's quite another to say the revelation happened. That's just a fairy tale.

If you'd have been born a Mormon, you'd be writing a Mormon blog. If I'd been born a Mormon, I'd be called Mormon Atheist. That's the difference between faith and reason. Faith gets you where you already wanted to be. Reason gets you to the truth.

Jewish Atheist said...

BTW, there's a typo above. You meant "excerpt," not "except."

Rye said...

If Garnel was a mormon.... wow, I'm just imagining his 4 other wives. Well Done Garnel!

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

If you'd have been born a Mormon, you'd be writing a Mormon blog.If I'd been born a Mormon, I'd be called Mormon Atheist. That's the difference between faith and reason. Faith gets you where you already wanted to be. Reason gets you to the truth.

What if a Mormon converts to Judaism? According to your equation he has neither faith nor reason.

David said...

What if a Jew converts to Mormonism (a woman named Marlena Tanya Muchnick has a book and website on the subject)?

According to you, she has faith, right? What makes her new faith any worse than her old one? Soloveitchik's claim that Jewish souls "want to believe?"

Moreover, just claiming that there's more out there than the material world (OK, seems plausible to me) is hardly an argument in defense of the Torah, any more than it's an argument in defense of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Gospels or the collected works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Garnel Ironheart said...

You're comparing apples with oranges. You're confusing the divide between reason and faith with the divide between different faiths.

Reason and faith, like I said, cannot be compared because they work with entirely different rules.

Faiths, on the other hand, al work on the same basic metaphysical principal: God is out there, wants something from us and has a set of rules He wants us to use to get that something. Between faiths, you can argue about legitimacy, who's right, etc.

For example, if you can convince me God spoke to Muhammed, well I'd have to become a Muslim if I want an honest faith relationship with Him. If you can't, then I remain a committed Jew. In either case, people like JA won't be invited to the debate because they can't accept the fundamental rules it involves.

The "If you'd been born a Mormon" argument is old and recycled. Yes, if I'd been born a Moron I'd be defending multiple wives (and their accompanying credit card bills, no doubt). But if I did some soul searching, I might come to the conclusion that proofs to Judaism are greater.

Do people convert out of Judaism? Forget the Moron example, how about the Chief Rabbi of Italy after the Second World War who converted to Catholicism? People will, while looking for spirituality, come to the wrong conclusion quite a bit. But at least they're searching.

Jewish Atheist said...

People will, while looking for spirituality, come to the wrong conclusion quite a bit. But at least they're searching.

They come to the wrong conclusions because they are searching for something to believe in, not searching for what is true. There's nothing to be proud of there.

Garnel Ironheart said...

JA, you're just proving my point. You're so sure they're not searching for what is true? Because you're so sure that there's no God out there to be found, chas v'shalom?

And you have 100% certainty in this from what spiritual source? Because I've already established that limiting oneself to materialist reason is not a way to disprove God's existence.

David said...

"For example, if you can convince me God spoke to Muhammed, well I'd have to become a Muslim if I want an honest faith relationship with Him. If you can't, then I remain a committed Jew."

What would I use to convince you to be a Muslim? Your faith, by your own argument, transcends your reason. You are therefore not susceptible to any form of rational argument on this topic.

"Yes, if I'd been born a Moron I'd be defending multiple wives (and their accompanying credit card bills, no doubt). But if I did some soul searching, I might come to the conclusion that proofs to Judaism are greater."

Having your cake and eating it too, I see. The "proofs" of Judaism are woefully inadequate, and you allow as much when you insist that your own faith takes precedence over your reason.

"People will, while looking for spirituality, come to the wrong conclusion quite a bit. But at least they're searching."

But you can only say that their conclusions are wrong based on faith. And they, too, have faith. So, how is an independent person supposed to evaluate whether your unreasonable faith is any better or worse than anyone else's unreasonable faith? Heck, if their conclusions are less reasonable than yours, that just means that they have more faith than you, which, by your own argument, would lead to the conclusion that they must be right and you must be wrong.

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

Berrrinliant response OTD! Straight from a purely scientific mind such as yours. I am honored that you have deigned to respond to my humble comment (which effectively demolished JA's false dichotomy.)

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

But you can only say that their conclusions are wrong based on faith. And they, too, have faith. So, how is an independent person supposed to evaluate whether your unreasonable faith is any better or worse than anyone else's unreasonable faith?

Once again, you are only allowing faith or reason to apply and never allowing a combination of the two.

The Jewish take is that faith takes over only after reason hits its limitations.
Other religions fail on reason even BEFORE reason has reached its limits. Judaism does not.

Despite what you may characterize it, this is not a convenient on/off manipulation of reason for the sake of protecting a prori faith in Judaism.
It's only applying reason to areas where reason itself says it's justified but no further.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

OTD, I am trying to avoid banning anyone from this blog. Even SJ behaves when he visits but you're really trying my patience.
I still don't know why you come to this blog if you hate me so much. (Really, I think you subconsciously hate yourself and insist on taking out your insecurities on me but you could see a psychiatrist for that instead, you know)
I realize you're taking an English course but you should really speak with your professor because you're clearly not picking the language up very well. Or rather, you've picked up the wrong language too well.

> The Jewish take is that faith takes over only after reason hits its limitations.
Other religions fail on reason even BEFORE reason has reached its limits. Judaism does not.

I like this statement although the obvious objection is that any other religion will make the exact same claim. However, that too can be overcome.

Most other major Western religions rely, at their base, on a personal revelation. Paul, Moe and Joe Smith, for example, all were supposedly spoken to by God who then revealed new tidbits to them which resulted in their respective religions.

Judaism, on the other hand, started with a personal revelation (the Burning Bush) but only as a prelude to a national one. Why? Because the entire people have a share in the holiness of the nation not as followers but as active participants in the faith.

Now one can deny any act of revelation which is where the reason vs faith debate comes in. But once faith has been established, a new set of reasoning, based on the fundamental principles of the faith emerges. It is this reasoning that non-believers probably find the most annoying since they lack faith and have therefore used their reasoning to developing an entirely different set of views. But lacking faith, they are like people with blindness who cannot appreciate the beauty of a sunrise.

DrMike said...

Thanks for clearing him of Garnel. He was really starting to get annoying. I mean, I know you feel sorry for him but he really pushed that too far.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

Yeah, well it had to be done but I still do feel sorry for him. I hope he can find a different obession instead of focusing on me all the time.

stone_ said...

Rye said...
If Garnel was a mormon.... wow, I'm just imagining his 4 other wives. Well Done Garnel!


- They'd all be Sherut Leumi girls

David said...

"The Jewish take is that faith takes over only after reason hits its limitations."

Not really. The Jewish take (at least, as Garnel has explained to me elsewhere) involves occasionally stating that one's reason is wrong and that one's faith is right (being m'vatel one's daas to daas Torah, I believe it's called).

"Other religions fail on reason even BEFORE reason has reached its limits. Judaism does not."

I suppose that depends on where you arbitrarily set the limits of reason, doesn't it? It seems like you've set them right at the boundaries of Jewish faith. And, for the record, whence your knowledge of all these other religions and their shortcomings?

"Despite what you may characterize it, this is not a convenient on/off manipulation of reason for the sake of protecting a prori faith in Judaism."

Are you sure? Because that's exactly how I'd characterize it.

Child Ish Behavior said...

There is no Faith, there is no Reason. All that exists is actionable belief. Which is why Doing Mitzvos Makes God Real, and doing avayros makes atheists. What good is faith to a person who sins but anguish, it is a better coping mechanism to deny.

"One can do a real chesbon hanefesh and come to the proper conclusion - faith is not precluded by reason and it is possible to believe even if reason suggests otherwise." All the chesbon hanefesh in the world is useless, if you don't want to do the mitzvos.

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

Are you sure? Because that's exactly how I'd characterize it.

Yes I'm sure.
The limits of reason are based in common sense and very intuitive.

Other religions insist of faith right up front. Judaism's faith is earned by its explicit promotion of human faculties of reason and logic, openness to inquiry, and has survived rigorous rational interrogation.

Anonymous said...

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of Biblical writings (Lane Fox 1991:99-106; Tov 1992:115).
What you will find, prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the oldest manuscripts of the Torah dated from well into the Christian era (around the ninth century CE I think) matching up to the Masoretic text you use today. In addition to this there was Samaritan Torah, and the Greek Septuagint, both of which are fairly close to the Masoretic overall, but do have a number of clear differences (more than simple vowel changes). However, since then, there has been the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This dates the manuscript evidence back to around the second century BCE.

So, how do they match up? Like the other two I mentioned, close, but certainly not identical. In fact, in some cases the Dead Sea Scrolls versions confirm the alternate version as opposed to the Masoretic edition, or they differ from all of them. This indicates a fluidity to the text, though it's substantial form had it's shape by them. Again, some of the changes are minor, some aren't.

Before this time period archeology doesn't have much to say one way or the other. I did read tonight about the discovery about the discovery of some silver scrolls used as amulets containing the Priestly blessing from Numbers that may go back to around 600 BCE, so that is interesting, but not a complete manuscript as such.

Anyhow, the rabbis themselves in history have recognized that the current Torah has undergone alteration at the hands of the scribes. This is called tikkun Soferim. What they did is that in certain places they felt the text needed "correction" to avoid what they considered to be theological problems, so they'd substitute different words/expressions of their choosing.

--------------------------------

But what do we do if there are discrepancies between all the Torah scrolls.

Here is rabbinical insight on the subject:

Maimonides (Rambam), Hilkhot Sefer Torah 8, 4:
Since I have seen great confusion in all the scrolls [of the Law] in these matters, and also the Masoretes who wrote [special works] to make known [which sections are] "open" and "closed" contradict each other, according to the books on which they based themselves, I took it upon myself to set down here all the sections of the Law, and the forms of the Songs [i.e. Ex.15, Deut.32], so as to correct the scrolls accordingly. The copy on which we based ourselves in these matters is the one known in Egypt, which contains the whole Bible, which was formerly in Jerusalem [serving to correct copies according to it]. Everybody accepted it as authoritative, for Ben Asher corrected it many times. And I used it as the basis for the copy of the Torah Scroll which I wrote according to the Halakha.


If you think Maimonides' testimony was grim, wait 'til you read the rest:

RaMaH (R. Meir Ben Todros HaLevi) in his introduction to Masoret Seyag LaTorah:
...All the more so now that due to our sins, the following verse has been fulfilled amongst us, "Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, Even a marvelous work and a wonder; And the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the prudence of their prudent men shall be hid"(Is. 29:14). If we seek to rely on the proofread scrolls in our possession, they are also in great disaccord. Were it not for the Masorah which serves as a fence around the Torah, almost no one would find his way in the controversies between the scrolls. Even the Masorah is not free from dispute, and there are several instances disputed [among the Masorah manuscripts], but not as many as among the scrolls. If a man wishes to write a halakhically "kosher" scroll, he will stumble on the plene and defective spellings and grope like a blind man through a fog of controversy; he will not succeed. Even if he seeks the aid of someone knowledgeable, he will not find such a one. When I, R. Meir HaLevi Ben Todros of Spain, saw what had befallen the scrolls, the Masorah lists, and the plene and defective spelling traditions, due to the ravages of time, I felt the need to search after the most precise and proofread codices and the most reliable Masoretic traditions, to resolve the conflicts. The newly-produced scrolls should be abandoned in favor of older, more faithful ones and among these the majority of texts should be followed as commanded in the Torah to decide any controversy, as it is written: "After the multitude to do..."(Ex. 23:2).

It gets darker:

R. Yom Tov Lippman Milhausen, in his work Tikkun Sefer Torah:
Because of our many sins, the Torah has been forgotten and we can not find a kosher Torah scroll; the scribes are ignoramuses and the scholars pay no attention in this matter. Therefore I have toiled to find a Torah scroll with the proper letters, open and closed passages, but I have found none, not to mention a scroll which is accurate as to the plene and defective spellings, a subject completely lost to our entire generation. In all these matters we have no choice [i.e. we are halakhically considered anusim]; but how to write the correct forms of the letters we do know and their laws are like that of tefillin. Thus if we allow the ignorant scribes to continue to follow their usual practices [in shaping the letters], here we sin on purpose [mezidin].

Don't really think so. Who knows what Maimonides and the two other Rabbis didn't disclose to the general public. Maimonides, in fact, when writing to the Jews of Yemen, lied to them by saying that there exist no discrepancies at all between all the Torah scrolls of the world, not even in vowelization. Obviously, this was to keep their faith up. Disclosing what he knew to them could've really shaken their faith. Do you know why he said that there existed no differences even in vowelization? It is because the Yemenite Jews were exposed to the polemics of the Muslims regarding the Torah's authencity.

---------------------------------

Since the earliest complete manuscript of the Masoretic edition of the Torah is very, very late (around the 9th century CE), there's no way at this point that it could be "proven" to be the authentic one. One might ask that were the extreme care and precision you mention that Jewish scribe have practiced in regards to writing the Torah in fact true, why the need them for the Masoretes to have come up with their own edition in the first place? And that as late as the post-Christian time period?

Anyhow, as I mentioned before, what we do mainly have from prior to the very late Masoretic texts are the LXX in Greek, the Dead Sea Scrolls material and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In comparing these to the current Masoretic, while substantially much of it is the same, there are notable differences. And if it can be shown that the earlier texts agree on something, that that agreement disagrees with the Masoretic, but that this alternate version makes more contextual sense, then it is a pretty good argument for demonstrating that in that instance the Masoretic is the one that has been changed. Now, does this "prove" the genuineness of the alternate sources? No, of course not. All it proves is that the alternate is what was common amongst Jews around the second century BCE. In terms of the actual Mosaic text itself, or a Torah version from before this late time period, other than possible short fragments you don't have any.

So, some comparisons then. Taken from here:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

MT = Masoretic Text
DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q referring to the fourth cave at Qumran)
LXX = Septuagint
SP = Samaritan Pentateuch


QUOTE
1&2 Samuel

For the past two centuries textual critics have recognized that the Masoretic Text (MT) of 1&2 Samuel has much textual corruption. The Samuel MT is shorter than the LXX and 4QSama. The Samuel MT has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems. Certain phrases and clauses go against the Hebrew grammar rules. Parallel passages vary from each other (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.227-8).

In 1952 Roland De Vaux and Lankester Harding found manuscripts of Samuel under three feet of debris in Qumran Cave 4. 4QSama shows that the Old Greek Bible (LXX) was based on a Vorlage similar to 4QSama. Josephus agrees with 4QSama in 6 places against the MT and LXX. Josephus, 4QSama, and LXX share about three dozen readings against the MT (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.229).

Where the book of Chronicles parallels 1 Samuel, the readings of Chronicles follow 4QSama rather than the MT 42 times. Only one time does Chronicles agree with the MT. Over 100 times 4QSama does not agree with any ancient reading (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.230-31).

The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these.

One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says:

"Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts.

1 Samuel 14:30

There is a mis-division of words here in the MT. The 4QSama divides it differently which makes better sense. The MT has hkm htbr rather than hkmh hbr in the 4QSama.

1 Samuel 14:47

There is a singular instead of a plural noun in 4QSama. 4QSama is the better reading.

1 Samuel 15:27

There is an omission of the subject in the MT. According to 4QSama Saul is the subject who grabbed the garment, not Samuel.

1 Samuel 17:4

How tall was Goliath? The MT says, "six cubits and a span" while 4QSama says, "four cubits and a span." People don't usually grow to be over 9 foot tall, so the "four cubits"(7 feet) seems the most reasonable height of Goliath.

1 Samuel 26:22

The MT preserves two variant readings by combining them while the 4QSama just records the one correct word. The MT has an ungrammatical reading.
Biblical Texts that need to be changed as a result of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Genesis 1:9

4QGenk has added "and dry land appeared" indicating that the longer reading of the LXX is from an ancient Hebrew text that the MT lost by haplography. The LXX addition says, "and the waters below heaven gathered into their gathering place and dry land appeared" (See Charlesworth, 2000, p.200).

Genesis 4:8

Genesis 4:8 leaves us with the unanswered question about What did Cain say to Abel? The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX have what Cain said. The LXX says, "Let us go out into the field." 4QGenb does not have this reading, but scholars think the sentence dropped out because of scribal error (Ibid., 15).

Exodus 1:3

4QExodb in Exodus 1:3 has "Joseph and Benjamin" while the MT, SP, and LXX have only "Benjamin." Frank Cross thinks 4QExodb reading should be preferred (Ibid., 201-203).

Deuteronomy 32:8

4QDeutj and the LXX say, "according to the number of the sons of God" while the MT and SP say, "according to the number of the sons of Israel." "Sons of Israel" does not make sense here. This is probably a theological change. The 4QDeutj and the LXX seem to preserve the older reading that implies a god, or guardian angel for each nation.

Joshua 8:34-35

4QJosha locates the paragraph about Joshua's construction of an altar (Joshua 8:30-35, MT) at the beginning of Joshua 5. The LXX locates this paragraph at Joshua 9:7-8. Josephus follows the 4QJosha tradition which is probably the earliest or original order of Joshua.

Judges 6:6-11

4QJudga is different from the MT and the LXX in that it lacks Judges 6:7-10. These missing verses are said to be a literary insertion added by an editor. Here is clear evidence of scribal expansion of the MT.
Psalms

There are a number of additional Psalms in the DSS than in our Bible. Psalms 1-89 are basically the same as ours in the DSS (Psalm 32, and 70 are absent). From Psalm 91 on there are radical differences in arrangement, and/or in different Psalms that have never been seen before (Psalm 90 is not preserved). There are a total of 15 different Psalms which are not included in our present Bible, nine of which were completely unknown. None of the Psalm scrolls found has our present day arrangement of the Book of Psalms.

Psalm 22

Psalm 22:17 in the MT "like a lion are my hands and feet" which does not make sense. The LXX and 5/6HevPs read "They have pierced my hands and feet."

Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" verse is missing in the MT and KJV. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out.

Ezekiel

The oldest known texts of Ezekiel are from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll Bible states, Small fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel were found at Qumran and another atop Masada. All of them and the traditional Masoretic Text fairly uniformly attest the same textual tradition. Only seven minor variants are clearly preserved, though reconstruction according to spatial requirements indicates that in two places (5:13 and 23:16) the scrolls may have had a shorter text than the Masoretic Text" (page 407).


Now regarding the earlier mentioned tikuune soferim:


QUOTE
Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression ("Scripture has used euphemistic language," i.e. to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathy).

Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue.

The term tikkun Soferim has been understood by different scholars in various ways. Some regard it as a correction of Biblical language authorized by the Soferim for homiletical purposes. Others take it to mean a mental change made by the original writers or redactors of Scripture; i.e. the latter shrank from putting in writing a thought which some of the readers might expect them to express.

The assumed emendations are of four general types:

* Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g., the substitution of ("to bless") for ("to curse") in certain passages.

* Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton; e.g. substitution of "Elohim" for "YHVH" in some passages.

* Removal of application of the names of false gods to YHVH; e.g. the change of the name "Ishbaal" to "Ishbosheth."

* Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at Jerusalem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic#Tikkune_Soferim

--------------------------------

I also found this list, which gives substantially more cases of agreement between the LXX and the DSS in distinction to the Masoretic: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spappendix.htm

:::::: (there's around 200 or so instances listed on there where the LXX and the Masoretic disagree in the Torah, yet the DSS supports the LXX version). Your argument sounds like "The Torah tells us not to change the scripture, therefore, we never would have done it", even though the documentary evidence clearly shows that's exactly what happened, and your own past scholars have admitted as much ("Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue..)