Did a KJV translator make use of Codex Vaticanus text?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is an additional section from Christian David Ginsburg on this Joshua 21:36-37 topic.

These important glosses are no part of the Massorah, but record the result of Jacob b. Chayim's own collation. They disclose the fact that some of the model Codices and the Massoretic Annotators not unfrequently differed in their readings, and that Jacob b. Chayim had to exercise his own judgment as to which was the better reading. In this respect a modern editor is not bound to abide by Jacob b. Chayim's decision. A striking illustration of this fact we have in the two verses of Joshua XXI viz 36, 37. We have seen that some of the best MSS and all the early editions without exception have these two verses. Jacob b. Chayim, however, decided to omit them in accordance with a certain School of Massorites, but we are perfectly justified in restoring them on the authority which we have adduced.

Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible
Christian David Ginsburg, 1831-1914
http://www.archive.org/stream/introductionofma00ginsuoft#page/964/mode/2up

1633812110865.png

The Curious Jew
The Second Rabbinic Bible
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/01/second-rabbinic-bible.html

==========================

The main part given by Shoonra above is at:

Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1897)
Christian David Ginsburg
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYgJqQG44PUC&pg=PA178

Starting with:
|
1633813227577.png

==========================
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
I have not claimed to agree with everything Dr. James Price states since I do not agree with his view of the Critical Text.

Overall it remains true that Dr. Price's book is more scholarly than any of the over 100 books by KJV-only authors that I have read. There are plenty of unproven, unscholarly claims and even false claims in KJV-only books.

A unreliable, biased KJV-only advocate has provided no compelling, sound evidence that contradicts my observation that Dr. Price's book is a scholarly book. A biased KJV-only advocate inconsistently and improperly seems to try to smear Dr. Price and attack his honesty when he is likely more honest, trustworthy, and competent than any KJV-only author is.

Would this KJV-only poster suggest that KJV-only authors are not honest the many times that they make claims that are not true?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
You accept everything written by Donald Waite as accurate as true?

What a ridiculous question. You know that I have pointed out errors in Waite's writings.

Clearly readers cannot accept everything that you write as accurate and true since you accept erroneous, untrue KJV-only reasoning and since you may deny the doctrine of the Trinity.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I have not claimed to agree with everything Dr. James Price states since I do not agree with his view of the Critical Text.

Then why did you write as if what Waite said must be accurate and true?
Please ... try to be consistent.
 
Last edited:

Conan

Well-known member
Why did James Price make such an absurd blunder on Joshua 21:36-37?



Since that is in a sense the largest and best-known variant in the Masoretic Text mss. getting that one wrong is strong evidence that his whole presentation is that of a con. Or is he simply totally incompetent and incapable of logical thought?

Do you still want to defend his ridiculous claims, including:

"The text was restored from the ancient versions."


That would mean that nothing you write could be trusted for accuracy.
One, it's not in the Hebrew Text that he is familiar with. It's in all the ancient versions and we know that the KJV translators consulted and were familiar with the Septuagint, Vulgate, and other ancient Versions. I'm sure they had some part to play.

There are no KJVOnly authors that can be trusted for accuracy. Some accuse evil reasons over simple mistakes. If they get something right they get the information from non KJVOnlyist author's.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Then why did you write as if what Waite said must be accurate and true?
Please ... try to be consistent.

I am consistent while you are inconsistent. You do not practice what you preach as you cling to inconsistent KJV-only reasoning.

I did not write as if what Waite said must be accurate and true as you incorrectly allege. You jump to a wrong conclusion.

The truth is that claims made by Waite were being responded to and refuted in a scholarly, logical, non-KJV-only book. Waite's claims were taken honestly to present Waite's own KJV-only position even though his claims were incorrect. Waite's claims are accepted by many KJV-only advocates who have read his many books.

You use bogus, improper carnal smear tactics in your personal attacks.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as does the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they are contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in I Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions.

One, it's not in the Hebrew Text that he is familiar with. It's in all the ancient versions and we know that the KJV translators consulted and were familiar with the Septuagint, Vulgate, and other ancient Versions. I'm sure they had some part to play. There are no KJVOnly authors that can be trusted for accuracy. Some accuse evil reasons over simple mistakes.

Hi Conan,

Questions for you..

Are you claiming that the blunders of James Price on Joshua 21:36-37 are a “simple mistake” ?

Are you saying that James Price was “not familiar” with the Masoretic Text manuscripts and printed editions? Which both strongly support the inclusion of the verses.

=====

Do you believe that the two verses in the AV were “restored from the ancient versions”?

Is it correct to say “The MT omits the verses” ?
When most of the mss. and printed editions contain the verses

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
See Logos 1560 #51 above for the facts.

Nice try.
Rick Norris does not answer such questions.

And I was hoping you might do better.
Note that I was asking you about quotes that you put in your post. :)

And I fully understand your unwillingness to follow up on what you wrote.
 

Conan

Well-known member
Nice try.
Rick Norris does not answer such questions.

And I was hoping you might do better.
Note that I was asking you about quotes that you put in your post. :)

And I fully understand your unwillingness to follow up on what you wrote.
What I wrote stands. There is nothing untrue about my post, quit acting like there is.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Nice try.
Rick Norris does not answer such questions.
Should insincere questions that misrepresent or distort, questions that may be intended to entrap or snare, questions that improperly imply evil motives, questions that involve use of a fallacy of false dilemma or other fallacies, or invalid questions that assume as true premises that have not been proven to be true be answered?

Do you incorrectly try to suggest that questions establish or determine truth when they do not?

Because someone may allege that they do not receive proper, sound responses to their unconvincing or unproven claims in their posts does not mean that such a self-serving allegation is true.

No one prevents you from attempting to prove your opinions to be true.
 

Shoonra

Well-known member
It would appear that a multitude of massoretic mss and a multitude of printed editions (but I cannot say "a majority" on my own, altho others speak of a majority of mss and eds) contain the two verses in Joshua; but the Leningrad Codex and the Ben-Hayim edition do not. Ginsburg and others give persausive reasons why the two verses ought to be kept in the text notwithstanding these two eminent examplars that omit them. Many (I believe "most") printed editions now - including Ginsburg, Letteris, Snaith, Koren, Biblia Hebraica Wittenburg, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgart, and others, but not the Jerusalem Crown or Breur - set forth the two verses, some in the main text (e.g. Ginsburg) and some as a footnote (e.g. Letteris and Koren). I wish this could be settled.
 

Conan

Well-known member
The verse belongs, not because it’s in the KJV, but because it’s in the original Hebrew, as testified by the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate. It’s missing from some important Hebrew editions because of eye skip. No doubt the testimony of the ancient versions helped sway the KJV translators to make the right decision.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Very easy to do in exposing the James Price con jobs.
Only in your subjective, biased KJV-only imagination that blindly chooses to believe the con of KJV-only assertions that are not true. You did not at all prove your allegations to be true.

Since KJV-only advocates deceive themselves by believing assertions for the KJV that are not true, they have no sound basis for making allegations against believers.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Only in your subjective, biased KJV-only imagination that blindly chooses to believe the con of KJV-only assertions that are not true. You did not at all prove your allegations to be true. Since KJV-only advocates deceive themselves by believing assertions for the KJV that are not true, they have no sound basis for making allegations against believers.

Personal attack removed.

Why don't you comment on Joshua 21:36-37?
The questions are above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
The fact that KJV-only posters choose to deceive themselves by believing assertions that are not true concerning the KJV is a matter of serious important substance concerning whether other of their unproven claims should be blindly accepted.

Perhaps that fact may explain why KJV-only advocates seem to throw out their wild allegations imputing the motives and intentions of doctrinally-sound believers who disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.

Do KJV-only advocates present anything of substance from the Scriptures that states their non-scriptural only claims for the KJV?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It would appear that a multitude of massoretic mss and a multitude of printed editions (but I cannot say "a majority" on my own, altho others speak of a majority of mss and eds) contain the two verses in Joshua; but the Leningrad Codex and the Ben-Hayim edition do not. Ginsburg and others give persausive reasons why the two verses ought to be kept in the text notwithstanding these two eminent examplars that omit them. Many (I believe "most") printed editions now - including Ginsburg, Letteris, Snaith, Koren, Biblia Hebraica Wittenburg, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgart, and others, but not the Jerusalem Crown or Breur - set forth the two verses, some in the main text (e.g. Ginsburg) and some as a footnote (e.g. Letteris and Koren). I wish this could be settled.
It is settled. The verses are scripture. They are omitted in some mss.and editions, including Ben Hayim.
 

Conan

Well-known member
Readers may see that blah-blah is nothing of substance when coming from a person who does not post substantively on the thread issues.
Logos 1560 always post facts and useful information. Perhaps you do not like his post's because he is not KJVOnly.
 
Top