Hebrew Masoretic Text vs the KJV

[logos1560]

In a recent post in another thread,

The Masoretic readings which the King James Bible is based on are inerrant. The King James Bible is based upon the Ben Chayyim text except in the following two passages: Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. Those are the only two exceptions.

According to what consistent, just measures or on what sound basis can you claim that a certain edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525 was "inerrant" if you at the same time claim that it was missing three whole verses and thus had textual errors?

Are those places {Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68] actually the only ones where the KJV differs from the text of that edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text?

Are you unaware of the places where the KJV emended the text of that edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text by following the marginal reading, by adding words from parallel passages not present in the Hebrew text at the place where they are added, or by following other textual sources?

 

[logos1560]

Arthur Farstad indicated that the Masoretic Text and the Targum in Psalm 22:16 read "Like a lion my hands and my feet" while the KJV translators followed the reading of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and  Syriac  "they  pierced  My  hands  and  My  feet"  (The  NKJV, p. 98).  Concerning Psalm 22:16, KJV defender Edward F. Hills asserted that "the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p. 223).  KJV-only author Gail Riplinger claimed that “in Psalm 22:16, the Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible preserve ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’” (Hazardous, p. 1003).  Samuel Davidson asserted:  “The Masoretic text and punctuation allow but one sense, ‘like a lion my hands and my feet,‘ but this is thought unsuitable to the preceding context, ‘the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me’” (On a Fresh Revision, p. 38).  Concerning this verse, Didham maintained that this is an “instance of a superfluous Aleph in the Hebrew, whereby a great testimony in behalf of the Messiah is set aside by the received text” (New Translation, p. 119). 

Did the KJV translators translate what their printed Hebrew Masoretic text says at Psalm 22:16 or is this another exception that refutes the KJV-only claim quoted in the opening post of this thread? 

Since the KJV translators seem to have rejected the Masoretic text reading in this one verse, would the inconsistent and faulty reasoning of KJV-only advocates demand that they use none of a text if it has even one error in it?  Was it supposedly bad translating if the KJV translators did not translate what was before them in their Hebrew text at Psalm 22:16?

 

[logos1560]

J. Scott Porter asserted that “the Hebrew text of the passage (Ps. 16:10) instead of ‘thy Holy One’ reads in the plural number, ‘thy holy ones,’ or as it is almost universally rendered in our English version, ‘thy saints’” (Principles, p. 208).  Porter contended that Jacob ben Chayyim in the Second Rabbinical Bible in 1525 was the first to print the Hebrew word in the plural number, and noted that he included a marginal note that indicates “that the letter which makes the difference was superfluous“ (p. 209).  Porter observed:  “The translators of our authorized version have in this [Ps. 16:10], as in several similar instances, abandoned the Masoretic reading, and followed, as I conceive, a purer text” (p. 211).  At Psalm 89:19, James D. Price listed the Masoretic Text reading as “holy ones” which is emended to “holy one” in the KJV (King James Onlyism, p. 571). 

    At Judges 10:4, James D. Price maintained that the Masoretic Text “reads ‘they had thirty donkeys,’ whereas the King James Version reads ‘they had thirty cities,’ following the Aramaic Targum and the other ancient versions” (King James Onlyism, p. 284).  Price suggested that “apparently the Masoretes erroneously supplied the consonants for the word for ‘cities’ with the vowels for the word for ‘donkeys’ as found in the preceding line--a slip of the copyist’s eye” (Ibid.). 

    At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35.  Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190).  The word “garrisons” in italics at 1 Chronicles 18:6 may be supplied from 2 Samuel 8:6.  Again the KJV translators in effect altered the Masoretic Text by adding "the first" in italics at 1 Chronicles 24:23 perhaps influenced by the example of the Latin  Vulgate and 1 Chronicles 23:19 when these words were not in the Masoretic text.  At 2 Chronicles 35:11 in the KJV, the Masoretic Text reading "sprinkled" is amended to "sprinkled the blood" in agreement with the LXX, Latin Vulgate, and Syriac Versions.  The KJV put the Keri marginal reading [“into the middle court”] in the text at 2 Kings 20:4 and put the Masoretic textual reading in its 1611 marginal note: “or, city.“  At 2 Samuel 5:8, the clause “he shall be chief and captain” is added from 1 Chronicles 11:6.  The words “his hand” at 2 Samuel 6:6 may be borrowed from 1 Chronicles 13:9.  At 2 Samuel 8:3, the KJV "follows the Keri" [the marginal reading] instead of the textual reading of the Masoretic Text by inserting "Euphrates" (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 310).  Ginsburg maintained that the KJV followed the example of the Latin Vulgate by inserting "mine eye" at 1 Samuel 24:10 (p. 291).  At 2 Samuel 8:4, the word “chariots” in “a thousand chariots” is likely added from 1 Chronicles 18:4.  The added words in italics [“he lift up his spear”] at 2 Samuel 23:8 may come from 1 Chronicles 11:11.  At Numbers 20:26, the words in italics [“unto his people”] may be added from Numbers 20:24.  “Thorns” in italics at Judges 2:8 may be taken from Joshua 23:13. 

    Gleason Archer maintained:  "First Samuel 13:1 as preserved in the Masoretic or Received Text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 171).  Archer wrote that 2 Samuel 21:19 is a "traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5" (Ibid., p. 179).  F. H. A. Scrivener pointed out that the KJV translators used italics for some words that they introduced into the text from parallel places of Scripture.  As examples, Scrivener listed  some  instances  in  2  Samuel:  5:8  with  a  clause  from  1 Chronicles 11:6, 6:6 with a word from 1 Chronicles 13:9, 8:4 with a word from 1 Chronicles 18:4, 21:19 with words from 1 Chronicles 20:5, and  23:8  with  words  from  1  Chronicles 11:11  (Authorized  Edition, p. 64).

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The Masoretic readings which the King James Bible is based on are inerrant. The King James Bible is based upon the Ben Chayyim text except in the following two passages: Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. Those are the only two exceptions.

Psalm 22:16 is another large Ben Hayim problem.

According to what consistent, just measures or on what sound basis can you claim that a certain edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525 was "inerrant" if you at the same time claim that it was missing three whole verses and thus had textual errors?

This is actually a fair question from Rick.

And these omissions and errors are essentially a demolition of the Waite-style "Ben Hayim perfection" position.  As far as I can tell, that claim only arose from Donald Waite in the last decade, maybe two.

If it is any earlier, it might be in TBS material. However, their 2005 statement is worded more cautiously.

Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture
http://www.tbsbibles.org/basis/doctrine-of-holy-scripture-2

The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524–25 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. This text underlies the Old Testament in the Authorised Version. ... Approved and signed by the General Committee at its meeting held on 17th January, 2005, and including amendments approved by the General Committee at its meeting held on 21st November, 2005 (with amendment to section on ‘Ancient Versions’ April/May 2006).

Before recent years the Ben Hayim was referenced as one of the sources used by the learned men of the AV.

The rest of the post from Rick has errors and misrepresentations, however this is the first point of consideration. 

The AV perfection and defense positions are not based on Ben Hayim perfection. As our Bible purged out  Ben Hayim errors.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[logos1560]

In the 1800's, the KJV was revised or edited concerning its use of LORD/Lord and GOD/God based on a different edition of the Hebrew text than the certain edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525.  That later 1700's edition may have been based on Chayyim's earlier edition, but it had a different editor and may have had a few differences.

Concerning the LORD/Lord variations in KJV editions, Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837:  “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48).  Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used?  The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators. 

Was this person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837:  “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48).  Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used?

You should know that the learned men of the AV used many editions, so your question as phrased is irrelevant.

The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators. Was this person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases?

Hard to say.  We don't even have the name of "this person".

Steven

 

[logos1560]

The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators.

Was this person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases?

Hard to say.  We don't even have the name of "this person".

It would be KJV-only advocates who tend to suggest that the editing decisions of this unidentified person based on a different edition of the Hebrew text and as introduced in the 1829 or 1835 Oxford edition of the KJV have to been assumed to be correct.

It is true that the name or identify of some persons who introduced changes or made editing decisions in KJV editions is unknown.  Are they still blindly trusted by advocates of a modern, man-made KJV-only theory?

 

[Steven Avery]

It would be KJV-only advocates who tend to suggest that the editing decisions of this unidentified person based on a different edition of the Hebrew text and as introduced in the 1829 or 1835 Oxford edition of the KJV have to been assumed to be correct.

Far too conjectural and convoluted. Are you trying to make an argument against our AV-PCE?

It is true that the name or identify of some persons who introduced changes or made editing decisions in KJV editions is unknown.  Are they still blindly trusted by advocates of a modern, man-made KJV-only theory?[/color] The names of some Bible authors are unknown.  Does that mean that a faithful acceptance of the books is blind? I trow not.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Far too conjectural and convoluted. Are you trying to make an argument against our AV-PCE?

What is conjectural, convoluted and downright absurd is the designation AV-PCE. Self-appointed guardians in Australia have set themselves in the place of God. HE is the guardian of the preservation of His word. God did not set or approve any man to be the guardian of His word.

So... let's be honest. Stop using the silly AV-PCE designation and just call it the Bibleprotector KJV 2007.

• It has been authorized by no one.
• It has not followed ANY known KJV to the word.
• It is a capricious compilation by a twenty-something, self-proclaimed "guardian".
• It cannot be found, except on his website and a handful of places.

 

[prophet]

Far too conjectural and convoluted. Are you trying to make an argument against our AV-PCE?

What is conjectural, convoluted and downright absurd is the designation AV-PCE. Self-appointed guardians in Australia have set themselves in the place of God. HE is the guardian of the preservation of His word. God did not set or approve any man to be the guardian of His word.

So... let's be honest. Stop using the silly AV-PCE designation and just call it the Bibleprotector KJV 2007.

• It has been authorized by no one.
• It has not followed ANY known KJV to the word.
• It is a capricious compilation by a twenty-something, self-proclaimed "guardian".
• It cannot be found, except on his website and a handful of places.

I agree that man is not in charge of preservation.
If it was left to us, the AV would have slipped off the scene in the 1860's.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Would you agree that the PCE is an excellent representation edition of the AV? 

Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

I believe this is the proper representation of the AV1611.
Newer editions do not have the same elegance of this first edition and are just modern watered down representations of the original.
The modern versions of the KJV are not the same and do not have the character and dignity of the first edition.
You can have what ever one you want, but I will stick with the original genuine AV1611.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

 

[Ransom]

Would you agree that the PCE is an excellent representation edition of the AV? 

Before we can "agree," Stevie, we need to know why one might believe in the one-man-show "PCE's" supposed excellence.

Certainly you don't expect anyone to believe the PCE is "excellent" merely because you called it "excellent" and asked if we agree. If you have reasons for asking whether we would agree to this, please enlighten us, if you can, and with a minimum of filibustering (i.e. none of your usual).

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Just to straighten out confusions by quote-snippets given selectively:

Arthur Farstad indicated that the Masoretic Text and the Targum in Psalm 22:16 read "Like a lion my hands and my feet" while the KJV translators followed the reading of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and  Syriac  "they  pierced  My  hands  and  My  feet"  (The  NKJV, p. 98).  Concerning Psalm 22:16, KJV defender Edward F. Hills asserted that "the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p. 223).  KJV-only author Gail Riplinger claimed that “in Psalm 22:16, the Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible preserve ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’” (Hazardous, p. 1003).  Samuel Davidson asserted:  “The Masoretic text and punctuation allow but one sense, ‘like a lion my hands and my feet,‘ but this is thought unsuitable to the preceding context, ‘the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me’” (On a Fresh Revision, p. 38).  Concerning this verse, Didham maintained that this is an “instance of a superfluous Aleph in the Hebrew, whereby a great testimony in behalf of the Messiah is set aside by the received text” (New Translation, p. 119). 

Did the KJV translators translate what their printed Hebrew Masoretic text says at Psalm 22:16 or is this another exception that refutes the KJV-only claim quoted in the opening post of this thread? 

Since the KJV translators seem to have rejected the Masoretic text reading in this one verse, would the inconsistent and faulty reasoning of KJV-only advocates demand that they use none of a text if it has even one error in it?  Was it supposedly bad translating if the KJV translators did not translate what was before them in their Hebrew text at Psalm 22:16?

Psalms 22:16 
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:
they pierced my hands and my feet.

The pure Bible reading (accepted in virtually all Christian Old Testaments) of "pierced my hands and my feet" was an ultra-minority Masoretic text reading that has incredibly strong internal support as well as support in the Masorah and the traditional Hebraics, as well as the versional lines, and recently discovered, the DSS. (I've even seen indications that it was a "hot button" issue at the time of the Rabbinic Bibles.)

Notice that Rick does not tell you what he believes is the pure word of God .

If his point is that some AV defenders wrongly claim the AV fully follows the Ben Hayim, then I say "amen" and will join with Rick in offering correction.

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Here Rick is quoting erroneous information, a common problem:

Psalms 16:10 
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:27 
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 13:35 
Wherefore he saith also in another psalm,
Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

J. Scott Porter asserted that “the Hebrew text of the passage (Ps. 16:10) instead of ‘thy Holy One’ reads in the plural number, ‘thy holy ones,’ or as it is almost universally rendered in our English version, ‘thy saints’” (Principles, p. 208).  Porter contended that Jacob ben Chayyim in the Second Rabbinical Bible in 1525 was the first to print the Hebrew word in the plural number, and noted that he included a marginal note that indicates “that the letter which makes the difference was superfluous“ (p. 209).  Porter observed:  “The translators of our authorized version have in this [Ps. 16:10], as in several similar instances, abandoned the Masoretic reading, and followed, as I conceive, a purer text” (p. 211).

In fact, the Masoretic Text mss are split, and there is strong auxiliary confirmation that the singular is the pure Bible text.

Classical Journal (1813)
http://books.google.com/books?id=WmkSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA437
p. 437-438 - p. 438 discusses the Masoeretic note and the split in the mss.

Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key: Anglo-Jewry's Construction of Modern Jewish Thought(2000)
David P. Ruderman
http://books.google.com/books?id=30kN_nSt2sUC&pg=PA37

... the supposed Masoretic reading of Psalm 16:10, a text discussed by Kennicott in the first volume of his Dissertations and highly promoted by him as an example of how his correcting methods came to the aid of Christian faith. Kennicott had charged that the Masoretic text adds an additional yud in the word hasidekha, meaning "your faithful ones" in the plural, rather than the singular "your faithful one." The import of this deliberate Masoretic alteration was supposedly intended to obscure a clear reference to the resurrection of Jesus. In reality, there was no substance to the charge since the Bomberg Bible pointed the word in the singular and a Masoretic note in the margin indicated clearly that the extra yud was superfluous. 

Thus, in this verse the AV is following the Ben Hayim and a well-supported Hebrew tradition in a verse with a variant in the Masoretic tradition.

Rick often offers quotes that he should know are simply errant information.

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Psalms 89:19 
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst,
I have laid help upon one that is mighty;
I have exalted one chosen out of the people.

  At Psalm 89:19, James D. Price listed the Masoretic Text reading as “holy ones” which is emended to “holy one” in the KJV (King James Onlyism, p. 571). 

This is simply the typical James Price blunder, there was no emendation, the Masoretic mss are split.

The Messiah in the Old Testament (1995)
Walter C. Kaiser
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh05l5tdW5UC&pg=PA121

"Most manuscripts also read the singular here..."

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[logos1560]

  At Psalm 89:19, James D. Price listed the Masoretic Text reading as “holy ones” which is emended to “holy one” in the KJV (King James Onlyism, p. 571). 

This is simply the typical James Price blunder, there was no emendation, the Masoretic mss are split.

You failed to demonstrate that your accusation of supposed "blunder" against Dr. James Price is correct. 

It is actually obvious that you seek to misrepresent and distort what was stated since you have been informed before how James D. Price stated that he used the term "Masoretic Text" in his book.  You know that he used the term in the same way that some KJV-only advocates have used it.  Thus, you know that he used the term "Masoretic Text" to refer to a particular printed edition of the Hebrew text and not to Hebrew manuscripts and you have been informed how he used the term "emendation" in his book; therefore, you should know that you are improperly misrepresenting him.

Dr. James D. Price wrote:  "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280).

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

It is a blunder and worse, it is totally totally deceptive, to redefine a word with a known and accepted definition, to your own private one-time-use throwaway definition (never used outside the KJV-Onlyism book of Price) ...  just to make an argument of "emendation" against the AV. 

People understandably think of many emendations (often called conjectural emendations) as improper, understandably.  The modern versions have many them, considering the Masoretic text as corrupt, the AV does not.  Thus the Norris deception is even greater.

In fact, Rick, your bogus attacks using "emendation" were exactly the purpose of James Price, you are the willing stooge.  Since you know that by accepted textual theory there is no emendation involved.  You become the willing accomplice in deception.

It is even worse since the redefinition is not even based on the AV praxis.  This is defended as only what some recent AV defenders said about the source of the AV. There were wrong, and James Price even knows they are wrong, he has published that fact.  So the foundation is error upon error upon deception.

Thus ... charlatan writing by James Price, and his accomplice Rick Norris.

====================== 

As additional proof of the desire to deceive, note that when Rick Norris quotes Price on this, he does not tell his readers that the James Price accusation of emendation only means:

a) that the AV does not follow the Ben Hayim there

And

b) the AV has solid support IN THE MASORETIC TEXT tradition for the verse

c) nobody else in the textual world would ever call this an emendation (except Norris the parrot)

====================== 

If Rick properly informed his readers of the special (and false) meaning of the word, then he could use the quote.  He does not, because he wants to deceive the readers.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Hi,

It is a blunder and worse, it is totally totally deceptive, to redefine a word with a known and accepted definition, to your own private one-time-use throwaway definition (never used outside the KJV-Onlyism book of Price) ...  just to make an argument of "emendation" against the AV. 

Steven: Have you provided us your definition of an emendation? Last time this was discussed, you refused.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/77172-kjvos-i-e-averys-moving-definition-emendation.html

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]It is a blunder and worse, it is totally totally deceptive, to redefine a word with a known and accepted definition, to your own private one-time-use throwaway definition (never used outside the KJV...[/quote]

See also: "wine"