the James Price con job accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations

Steven Avery

Well-known member
October 10, 2021

the James Price edit per mod accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations

The previous thread exposed the James Price edit in relation to Joshua 21:36-37


Joshua 21:36-37 (AV)
And out of the tribe of Reuben,
Bezer with her suburbs,
and Jahazah with her suburbs,
Kedemoth with her suburbs,
and Mephaath with her suburbs; four cities.

Where the
edit per mod included this claim, with blunders and false assertions, including:
"The MT omits the verses"
"The text was restored from ancient versions"


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.

From the previous thread, for catch-up, Post 29 is a good start:

edit

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

Now we go to the root of the James Price pseudo-scholarship con:

King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
James D. Price
http://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC

Three quotes from James Price, emphasis and formatting added:

1) Although the work was a revision, careful comparison was made with the Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew Bibles used were the Rabbinic Bibles of 1519 and 1525,42 and the Hebrew Text in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots.
42 The Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and published by Daniel Bomberg (1524/25). p. 82

2) This second edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible became the standard text for all subsequent Jewish life and for all subsequent printed editions of the Hebrew Bible until 1937. Thus, it was the Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Old Testament. This edition and the Complutensian Polyglot were the Hebrew Bibles used by the translators of the King James Version of 1611. p. 254

3) Two Hebrew Texts Were Used
The King James translators had two printed editions of the Hebrew Bible:
(1) the Second Bomberg Edition of 1525 edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. which is the standard Rabbinic Bible; and
(2) the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot.
The two texts are essentially the same, being early attempts to recover the Masoretic text of ben Asher. The marginal notes in the King James Version indicate that the translators had access to some Hebrew manuscripts. This chapter does not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus. p. 280

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

So in two places James Price says the learned men of the AV used two Hebrew Bible editions. In another place Price says they used four. The truth, as discussed by David Daiches, is that they likely had many more than the four available.

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

"The Hebrew items in James's catalogue should therefore be fairly representative of the material available for English translators at this time. .. a cross-section ... surprisingly varied. There are several Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, of which the two most used by Bodleian readers were almost certainly those in the Complutensian and Antwerp poylglots. ... "


The King James Version of the English Bible: An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 With Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition,
David Daiches, 1968 (p. 165-166).


Edit per mod.

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

Deleted post for personal attacks

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

Here is the basic con job.


Quote box removed.

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

Here from Emanuel Tov we can see a real and solid definition of an emendation.

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2001)
Emanuel Tov
http://books.google.com/books?id=U1UfMyO-RiEC&pg=PA351

The emendation of the biblical text refers to a different process, i.e., the suggestion (invention) of new readings which are not transmitted in the witnesses of the biblical text. The logic behind this procedure can be formulated as follows: at the concluding stage of the procedure of textual criticism scholars compare all the known readings with the intention of gathering information on the changing biblical text, inter alia, its presumed original form, as defined in 3B. If in a particular instance a scholar does not succeed in finding among the extant textual witnesses a reading which, in his opinion, is appropriate to the context—in other words, a detail contained in the original form of the text—the scholar is likely to turn to an alternative method. The scholar may then suggest that an as yet unknown reading was contained in the original form of the text. This suggested reading stands in a special relation to the extant ones in that it is actually conjectured from the known readings. It is therefore called a conjectural (textual) emendation (the procedure as a whole is often denoted with the Latin term divinatio). A conjectural emendation is for the most part a new suggested reading from which all other readings, or at least one of them, presumably developed. The procedure of emending the text thus pertains to the biblical text as a whole, and not solely to 𝔐, that is, one emends all the existing witnesses, and not merely 𝔐.

A proposed emendation is always a reading that is not documented in the known texts. Sometimes, however, scholars suggest a reading which, though they do not realize it, is actually found or reflected in one of the textual witnesses. This is illustrated in Table 1 below for the Qumran scrolls. When such a reading is discovered in one of the ancient sources, it ceases to be an emendation and becomes a variant reading.


Comment removed.

𝔐 = the Majority Text symbol

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

By contrast James Price wants to falsely accuses the Authorized Version of "emendations".

So James Price:


Personal attack removed.

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

Similarly we can discuss the definition used by Jan Krans, who actually discusses two different types of emendations. Neither of which have anything to do with the edit of James Price.

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


To give an analogy.

The Received Text of the New Testament was changed thousands of times in the creation of the Westcott-Hort recension (essentially the Critical Text).


Comment removed for personal attacks

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

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shoonra

Active member
I disagree that the KJV translators used the Complutensian (1516) and the Ben-Hayim (1525) editions. Both those editions would have nearly a century old when the KJV work was started and both editions might be considered "reader un-friendly". They both lack chapter and verse numbers and very bulky. The Ben-Hayim edition was four thick folio volumes, without any clue as to chapter or verse, and only a few Bible verses per page. However there were at least a hundred Hebrew editions published between the Complutensian and the KJV. Some of those editions, especially at the end of the 16th century, had incorporated the chapter and verse numbers from Latin editions, and, moreover, were in a more compact and comfortable format. I think the KJV translators used some of these altho we cannot identify them.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Quote box removed
Your bogus allegations or false accusations against a true Hebrew scholar and Bible translator are wrong.

Dr. James D. Price did not make up his own definition of the word emendation since he in effect gave a definition based on D. A. Waite's definition of "the Masoretic text" and use of "emend." Since he was answering D. A. Waite's book Defending the KJB, James D. Price had to take terms as Waite used or defined them. It would have been wrong to try to impose a different meaning on the terms than the way that D. A. Waite used them, and it is wrong for a KJV-only poster to make false accusations against Dr. Price for using the terms as Waite used them. Waite himself used the term "emend" in the way that Price defined it, proving that it was used before in that way. That fact makes the above assertion factually incorrect. Price was properly dealing with the text that Waite asserted that the KJV translators had before them.

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). By the traditional Masoretic text, Waite was directly referring to the Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim.

Perhaps it is because Dr. Price makes such a sound, compelling case against Waite's supposed scholarly defense of the KJV that KJV-only advocates seem to go to such great efforts to try to smear him. Price showed that according to Waite's own stated claims and reasoning it could be demonstrated that the KJV translators in effect emended the Hebrew text in the Second Rabbinic Bible (according to Waite's assertions).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shoonra

Active member
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I simply state my opinion that the Complutensian and Ben-Hayim seem to me to be unlikely to have been used by the KJV translators for serious practical reasons. As I said elsewhere we are in the dark about Hebrew editions published after Ben-Hayim but some of them were much more convenient to use.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
D. A. Waite's book Defending the King James Bible is likely one of the most widely read and praised KJV-only books. It has been recommended by many KJV-only advocates, and several KJV-only authors have made use of it in writing their own KJV-only books. D. A. Waite is considered perhaps the most scholarly advocate of a KJV-only view.

Yet according to this misleading, mistaken thread, does a KJV-only poster in effect suggest that Waite's defense of the KJV was a "con job" and was "pseudo scholarship"?

Thanks to this KJV-only poster for exposing the truth that Dr. James D. Price soundly demonstrated (by using Waite's terms with the same meaning as Waite used them) that Waite's defense of the KJV is faulty and incorrect.

Did an attempted erroneous KJV-only smear backfire?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I simply state my opinion that the Complutensian and Ben-Hayim seem to me to be unlikely to have been used by the KJV translators for serious practical reasons.

It may not have been practical, but there would be additional evidence that would indicate that they made some use of the Masoretic text by Ben-Hayim.

In some cases, the KJV is said to follow the textual marginal notes in the Masoretic text by Ben-Hayim instead of the reading in the text.

Christian Ginsburg gave examples where the KJV adopted in its text the Keri reading of the margin of the Masoretic text instead of the text reading. For example, Ginsburg maintained that the KJV “adopts the Keri” at Judges 20:13 where “the Massorah tells us the [Hebrew] word sons of, has dropped out and directs us to supply it in reading” (Introduction, p. 313). Ginsburg claimed that at 2 Kings 19:31 “the direction in the Keri [is] that [the Hebrew word] of hosts, should be supplied here in reading,” and he noted that the KJV “adopts the Keri” (p. 314). Ginsburg asserted that “many MSS., early editions, and the Versions have the Keri in the text” at this verse (p. 314). Scrivener also listed some examples where he maintained that the KJV adopted in its text the Keri reading from the marginal notes [1 Sam. 27:8, 2 Sam. 13:37, 1 Kings 22:48, 2 Kings 20:4, 2 Kings 23:33, Ezra 2:33, 46, Job 6:21, Job 33:28, Ps. 9:12, Ps. 10:12, Prov. 17:27, Isa. 65:4, Jer. 2:20, Ezek. 25:7, Dan. 9:24, Zech. 11:2] (Authorized Edition, pp. 41-42).

In addition, there are also cases where the translation decisions of the KJV translators are said to be influenced by the Jewish commentaries printed in the Second Rabbinic Bible.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
As I said elsewhere we are in the dark about Hebrew editions published after Ben-Hayim but some of them were much more convenient to use.

There was also a third edition of a Rabbinic Bible printed by Bomberg.

David Norton observed that KJV translator Laurence Chaderton [First Cambridge company--1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon] owned “a two-volume third edition of Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible (1547-9)” and its “annotations and marks cluster in the part that the first Cambridge company worked on” (KJB: a Short History, p. 70). This could indicate that this Hebrew Bible edition was used in the making of this part of the KJV‘s Old Testament.
 

Shoonra

Active member
The Bomberg Bible of 1547 was four folio volumes and it had the verses (every fifith verse) numbered <G.F. Moore, The Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible, 12 Jl. of Biblical Literature (1893) page 76>. The Antwerp Polyglot (1569-72), four volumes of the OT, similarly had all the verses numbered <p.77>. I can find out nothing more about the Bomberg edition of 1547. Ginsburg <Intro. p. 26> says Aria Montanus was the first to introduce chapter numbers (using Hebrew letters for the numerals) in a "splendid edition" (with an interlinear Latin translation) published by Plantin as a one-volume folio in Antwerp in 1571. It seems to me that this is the probable terminus for whatever Hebrew editions were used by the KJV translators.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Ben-Hayim edition was four thick folio volumes, without any clue as to chapter or verse, and only a few Bible verses per page.

The Mikraot Gedolot was a major resource for the learned men of the AV. That is why the thick volumes. If not Ben Hayim, what would they use for the MG? The 1547 edition was likely the same text, so that would matter little.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). By the traditional Masoretic text, Waite was directly referring to the Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim.
The very next sentence made by Waite in his book clearly shows that my above statement about what he said is correct.

D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself.
As we’ve pointed out before, the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE is the traditional Masoretic text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1524-25” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).

James D. Price's statement "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280) could easily be understood to be derived from Waite's own two statements [that were in agreement with other similar assertions by Waite that have been accurately quoted], and it would be using the noun "emendations" in the same sense as Waite clearly used the verb "emend". Waite accused other English Bible translations of emending or making emendations to the traditional Masoretic text in the 2nd Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayyim, and Price shows that the makers of the KJV in effect did the same thing, exposing the error in Waite's allegations.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The very next sentence made by Waite in his book clearly shows that my above statement about what he said is correct.

D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself.
As we’ve pointed out before, the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE is the traditional Masoretic text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1524-25” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).

What Waite said was INCORRECT!
Obviously. Just look at the Joshua verses to start.

Why do you claim that is correct?
Are you once again claiming that if Donald Waite says it, it must be right?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Quote box removed
I did not say what Waite claimed was correct and must be right. What I clearly posted was the correct assertion that my statement about Waite's claim was correct, not that what Waite claimed was correct.

Your bogus claims would bear false witness as you improperly attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not say nor claim.

You tried to misrepresent Waite and say that he used a scholarly definition of emend when the facts and accurate quotations demonstrate that Waite used the verb "emend" in the same way that Price used the noun "emendations," and Price soundly did that in order to expose the errors in Waite's allegations against other English Bibles and in his assertions for the KJV.

The truth remains that Dr. James D. Price took what Waite himself claimed to be the standard correct Hebrew Masoretic OT text and demonstrated that that Masoretic text edition was in effect emended by the makers of the KJV. It is clear that Dr. Price made a much sounder case for what he wrote than Dr. Waite did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You tried to misrepresent Waite and say that he used a scholarly definition of emend when the facts and accurate quotations demonstrate that Waite used the verb "emend" in the same way that Price used the noun "emendations,"

Nonsense. You did not give to the context, so I came to a reasonable conclusion, albeit one I should have held back. You are falsely impugning my motives.

It turns out that Waite, as usual in these discussions, was wrong.
Price was more wrong, as described in the next post.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The truth remains that Dr. James D. Price took what Waite himself claimed to be the standard correct Hebrew Masoretic OT text and demonstrated that that Masoretic text edition was in effect emended by the makers of the KJV. It is clear that Dr. Price made a much sounder case for what he wrote than Dr. Waite did.

Donald Waite has an errant, even absurd, position, that is easily refuted. It is often refuted by sounder AV men like Peter Heisey, who points out to him the errors in the Ben Hayim text. With that factual knowledge, how can you place the Ben Hayim over the AV? Waite always dodges the question, which is extremely clear and simple. (Similarly, the Trinitarian Bible Society is questioned, although they try to avoid the absurd claims of Waite.)

James Price was MORE unsound, because he used the same error (which he knew was an error) for con man accusations against the Authorized Version. He could have simply done like Peter Heisey, and pointed out that the Donald Waite position was not logical or sensible or consistent. Instead, he took the con man approach to try to attack pure readings in the AV.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Quote box removed

Here was your claim.
Is it still your position?


This edit per mod t the quotation specifically and directly stated "Masoretic text", not Hebrew text. The earlier printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament text are not called the Masoretic text so the quotation would not refer to them; therefore, those Hebrew text editions would not make the statement false ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
If it was wrong, which it was, then James Price was a con man to pretend it was right to accuse the AV of emendations.
Your reasoning is wrong, and your bogus allegation could be considered a con.

In order to demonstrate that Waite and his KJV-only claims are incorrect in his book, it was proper and sound for Dr. Price to use the terms emend and Hebrew Masoretic text in the same way Waite had used them. Price made a sound case for his points while Waite did not.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Crafty con KJV-only advocates may try deliberately to deceive believers into accepting human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching and bogus unproven allegations against doctrinally-sound believers since they have deceived themselves into believing blindly or mindlessly claims for the KJV that are not true.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Quote box removed
There is no need to answer your unproven, inconsistent, misleading allegations of blunder. Because you may inconsistently allege blunders does not mean there were any actual blunders on the part of Dr. Price. You have likely not even read completely his book as you take things out of context and misrepresent them. You may be more guilty of blunders in making your misleading allegations and negative, personal attacks than the one whom you inconsistently accuse.

The claimed blunders would be the responsibility of KJV-only author D. A. Waite, whose incorrect KJV-only reasoning was soundly exposed by Hebrew scholar and Bible translator James D. Price. There is no con in the sound exposing of Waite's inconsistent, erroneous KJV-only claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
Quote box removed
Perhaps you merely show that you do not know what total nonsense is.

Inconsistent, unjust KJV-only allegations would be total nonsense.
KJV-only use of carnal smear tactics would be total nonsense.
KJV-only use of fallacies would be total nonsense.
KJV-only use of double standards may be total nonsense.
A great deal of human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is nonsense.
Believing assertions for the KJV that are not true would be total nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top