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

logos1560

Well-known member
At Genesis 30:37, it has been claimed that the KJV and other earlier English translations were influenced by Rashi and Kimchi in identifying the Hebrew word luz with "hazel." Louis Rabinowitz asserted: "The wrong identification is largely due to Rashi. Making the common mistake of identifying trees and plants in the Bible with those which grew in his own country [Spain], and disregarding (or being unware of) the fact that neither the hazel nor the chestnut is indigenous to the Middle East, he identifies the luz with the hazel" (Torah and Flora, p. 14). This same mistake has been made by others. For example, Moldenke observed: "One of the most frequent errors into which the non-botanically trained preachers and theological writers have fallen in the past--and, surprisingly, continue to fall even at the present time--is that of identifying the plants of the Scriptures with plants growing naturally in the regions in which these men or women happen to be living" (Plants of the Bible, pp. 4-5). Moldenke claimed: "It was the Authorized Version which perpetuated, and, indeed, in some cases, originated, the mis-identification of Biblical plants with common English ones" (p. 8).

Does the overall evidence support the KJV rendering "hazel" at Genesis 30:37? Louis Rabinowitz noted that "Ibn Ezra quotes Sa'adiah Gaon (10th century) that the luz is none other than the shaked, the almond, since it is so called in Arabic, and Hebrew and Arabic and Aramaic are cognate languages" (Torah and Flora, pp. 14-15). Rabinonwitz maintained that the correct identification of the luz as the almond was already given in the earlier rabbinical literature--in both Talmuds, in the Midrash, and in the Targum (p. 15). M’Clintock and Strong indicated that “this name [luz] was well known to the Hebrews as indicating the almond” (Cyclopaedia, IV, p. 106). Michael Zohary observed: "Since shaked is rendered luz in Aramaic and other Semitic languages, the correspondence between the two is unquestioned. That both of them mean 'almond' is equally sure, especially since luz or lauz is still used by Arabs and Kurdish Jews as the name for the tree" (Plants of the Bible, p. 66). Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia noted that “there can be little doubt that luz, amongst the Hebrews, as amongst the modern Arabs (who call it louz), was one of the names for the almond tree” (I, p. 130). Smith’s Bible Dictionary as edited by H. B. Hackett maintained that “there can be little or no doubt that it [luz] is another word for the almond, for in the Arabic this identical word, luz, denotes the almond” (I, p. 70). In a note, Henry Alford wrote: “The second tree, rendered hazel in A. V., is more probably as given by the Vulgate, Onkelos, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Old Syriac, almond” (Book of Genesis, p. 136). Moldenke pointed out: "It is now generally agreed that the 'hazel' of Genesis 30:37 in the King James Version was actually the almond and not the true hazel" (Plants of the Bible, p. 37). John Balfour affirmed that luz “is considered to be another name for the almond” (Plants, p. 13). Leopold Grindon agreed that luz was another name for the almond (Scripture Botany, p. 237). The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible noted: "The 'hazel' of Genesis 30:37 (KJV) is actually the almond and not the true hazel" (IV, p. 1703). Tristram maintained that “Celsius and all the best authorities, render it ’Almond tree’” (Natural History, p. 358). Robert Tyas asserted that “Bochart, Celsius, Hillier, Jerome, and Dr. Shaw” considered luz to refer to the almond (Flowers, p. 17). Thaddeus Harris agreed that the luz is the “almond” (Natural History, p. 6). Concerning this verse, William Groser asserted: “The word here used is luz, which the Revisers, following the Rabbinical authorities and the analogy of the Arabic name, translate ’almond tree’” (Trees, p. 88).

Wilson's O. T. Word Studies, Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, and Green's Concise Lexicon all defined luz as "the almond tree." Berry's Interlinear Hebrew-English O. T. rendered it "the almond" (p. 118). A Reader’s Hebrew Bible has the note “almond-tree; almond-wood” for this Hebrew word (p. 49). Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary defined it as “almond tree” (p. 963). Green’s Interlinear Bible translated it “the almond” (p. 27). In his 1855 Hebrew and English Dictionary, M. H. Bresslau gave this definition: “an almond or nut tree” (p. 291). Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary asserted that luz was “the almond” (p. 373). The Encyclopaedia Judaica reported that "luz is the less common word for almond or almond tree in Hebrew" (Vol. 2, p. 666). Unger's Bible Dictionary noted that hazel (Gen. 30:37) should be almond (Heb. luz) (p. 1138). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia listed luz under its entry for almond (I, p. 100). The Bible Cyclopaedia edited by William Goodhugh defined this Hebrew word as “an almond tree (Gen. 30:37)” (I, p. 58). Ellicott’s Commentary also identified the Hebrew word luz as being “the almond-tree” (I, p. 116). Moldenke wrote: "Among people as fond of poetic imagery as the Jews, it is not strange that the word 'shaked,' indicating a wakeful or watchful tree, hastening to put forth its blossoms before those of other trees, should have come to be used as a synonym for 'luz,' the almond tree" (Plants, pp. 37-38).

The Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names at the end of the unabridged Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language defined Luz as “almond-tree” (p. 94). David Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia also gave as the definition for its entry Luz (Gen. 28:19) “an almond-tree” (p. 246). People’s Bible Dictionary also has “almond tree” as its definition of “Luz” (p. 145). Believers in their 1842 revision of the KJV translated this Hebrew word at Genesis 30:37 as "almond-tree." The 1864 Jewish School and Family Bible by Abraham Benisch rendered this Hebrew word as “almond.“ The 1917 Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text also translated this Hebrew word as “almond.“ In his 1981 translation based on traditional Jewish sources, Aryeh Kaplan translated it as “almond” (Living Torah, p. 81). The old Wycliffe’s Bible on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles had “almond” at this verse. The Peshitta is also on the KJV-only good line, and Lamsa’s English translation of it has “almond” at this verse. Henry Alford translated it “the almond” in his 1872 edition of Genesis (p. 136). The English translation of Genesis 30:37 in Luther’s German Bible in Luther’s Works has “almond” (Vol. 5, p. 379), but that may be a translation of an edition of Luther‘s Bible revised after his death. The 1602 Valera Spanish Bible has “almendro,” which would be Spanish for almond, at Genesis 30:37. The 1877 Revised English Bible edited by Gotch, Davies, Jacob, and Green has “almond” at this verse. The 1808 translation of the Greek LXX by Charles Thomson also has “almond.“ Both renderings [“hazel” and “almond”] are found in the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bibles.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
An epic Rick Norris fail of Logic 101.
When you have no substance to present, you seem to return to your typical bogus accusation concerning Logic.

Asking you a question is not an epic failure of Logic 101.

On the other hand, your bogus false allegation that the NKJV is supposedly a counterfeit does violate sound logic.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
When you have no substance to present, you seem to return to your typical bogus accusation concerning Logic.
Asking you a question is not an epic failure of Logic 101.

Your “in effect to contradict yourself” was absurd and false, flunking Logic 101.
Yet again.

Placing it in a question does not reduce your logic fail.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Steven Avery flunks logic 101 with his bogus false allegation that the NKJV is supposedly a counterfeit.
Of course. If one has determined that the KJV is their ground for comparison, then anything else is, by definition, bogus. No matter history, logic, or manuscripts, if it does not match the KJV, it is wrong. (KJV-olatry?)

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I am not at all sure that the KJV translators had only two printed Hebrew Bibles to work with, much less the two named. There were several dozen editions available by 1604 and some of them much more reader-friendly; for example, with now-conventional chapter and verse numbers. Both the Complutensian (1517) and the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525) were inconveniently bulky.

Yes, this looks to a James Price blunder.

A source that goes later than Ginsburg, whose material is in this post:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...rew-bible-emendations.6695/page-2#post-843416

Thomas Frognell Dibdin (1776-1847)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Frognall_Dibdin

An introduction to the knowledge of rare and valuable editions of the Greek and Latin Classics: Together with an account of Polyglot Bibles, Polyglot psalters, Hebrew Bibles, Greek Bibles and Greek Testaments; the Greek fathers, and the Latin fathers - 4th edition - Volume One (1827)
Thomas Frognell Dibdin
https://archive.org/details/introductiontokn01dibd/page/n7/mode/2up

Biblia Polyglotta
https://archive.org/details/introductiontokn01dibd/page/n25/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=ThhKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1
p., 1-40

Biblia Hebriaca
https://archive.org/details/introductiontokn01dibd/page/44/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=ThhKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA44
p. 44-81

NOTE:
Pagnini in 1571 is p. 54 and Elias Hutter in 1587 is p.55-56.
Two editions with strong reputations and various printing and formatting advances over the 50-60 years.

The Antwerp / Plantinus Polyglot begins on p.12.

It is quite curious why James Price tried to pretend that they would only use the Second Rabbinic Bible and the Complutensian. Note, no source given, so he either made this up (likely) or was plagiarizing. If he made it up, his book is trash.

The CP would be a particularly questionable edition (read Ginsburg) and was not as close to the Second Rabbinic as James Price asserts. If they wanted to use a Polyglot, the Antwerp would be a more natural choice, far superior to the CP. At least the Rabbinic Bible was strong on the Mikraot Gedolot commentaries, and would likely still be in play.

Personally, I believe Price’s motive it that it fit his whole unscholarly charade of pretending that any differences from the Second Rabbinic Bible were “emendations”, a scheme he used for dishonest, scurrilous attacks against the AV. If Price wrote honestly about their Hebrew Bible resources, he would have had to abandon the charade.

None dare call the James Price book scholarship!
 
Last edited:

Shoonra

Active member
"A commentary edition" does not necessarily point to the Second Rabbinic Bible. Bomberg had subsequently published a third rabbinic Bible, edited by Levita, and I think there was at least one more rabbinic Bible published elsewhere before 1605. Additionally, while I think that the KJV translators probably made major use of conveniently-sized Hebrew editions, at least a few of those editions were largely informed or copied from the text in the Second Rabbinic.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
"A commentary edition" does not necessarily point to the Second Rabbinic Bible. Bomberg had subsequently published a third rabbinic Bible, edited by Levita, and I think there was at least one more rabbinic Bible published elsewhere before 1605. Additionally, while I think that the KJV translators probably made major use of conveniently-sized Hebrew editions, at least a few of those editions were largely informed or copied from the text in the Second Rabbinic.

Yes, I have not checked whether some of the other later editions carry over all the Mikraot Gedolot.

Ironically, in terms of the text, one of the editions that would be the hardest to reconcile with the Second Rabbinic would be the Complutensian. I think they had the Hebrew backwards, and did vowels (and accents, if they had them) in their own quirky ways, and had textual differences. It was not a paragon of long-term Hebrew scholarship :). This is all in Ginsburg.

The texct of editions like Hutter were likely exceedingly close to the text of the Second Rabbinic, with superior formatting. We know that the First Rabbinic was better on the key passages like Joshua 21:36-37 and Psalm 22.

James Price used the quirks of the Second Rabbinic as a wedge to make dishonest attacks against the AV. He played his readers for fools.

Donald Waite has always been weak on this question of the Hebrew text behind the AV (as Peter Heisey and others have pointed out), apparently unwilling to acknowledge the Joshua and Psalm problems. And James Price took advantage of his weakness.

You are well informed on this stuff, and I appreciate your input.
 
Last edited:

Shoonra

Active member
My criticism is not of Price, but of Riplinger who insisted - despite real evidence to the contrary - that the KJV OT was translated from the Second Rabbinic and nothing else. She was seriously confused when she talked about a "Ben-Chayyim text" as positioned against a Ben-Asher text (of which she seemed to know nothing but its name), and at one point was selling Letteris Hebrew Bibles as "Ben-Chayyim" Bibles (she stopped doing that a few years ago).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
My criticism is not of Price, but of Riplinger who insisted - despite real evidence to the contrary - that the KJV OT was translated from the Second Rabbinic and nothing else. She was seriously confused when she talked about a "Ben-Chayyim text" as positioned against a Ben-Asher text (of which she seemed to know nothing but its name), and at one point was selling Letteris Hebrew Bibles as "Ben-Chayyim" Bibles (she stopped doing that a few years ago).

Gail Riplinger likely picked that up from Donald Waite, who has a position that tries to find singular inspired (or preserved scripture originals) Greek and Hebrew-Aramaic texts, since he is against using the word inspired scripture with the AV. His theory has been Scrivener's Greek text designed to be close to the AV and the Ben Chayyim text. So really Donald Waite is likely the source, original error. (The chronology could be checked.) When the problems, like Joshua 21, are pointed out to Waite and the DBS, they just do a dance.

Here is the DBS in 1993
http://deanburgonsociety.org/pdf_News_1-50/News_46.pdf
3. Hebrew Old Testament.
There is also the Hebrew text used by the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. I wish they had the Ben Chayyim Hebrew that underlies the KJB, but so far, they have not been able to get it.

The terminology of the DBS for these texts I think is "God's preserved originals", he may be reluctant to call them inspired as well.

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

James Price took advantage of the DBS error to make absurd attacks against what he claimed were AV "emendations"
.

It got so absurd that James Price even claimed that Joshua 21:36-37 is not in the Masoretic Text, and the learned men of the AV had to go to Latin, Greek or Syriac texts to put the verses in their Old Testament. A total lie, since the verses are abundant in Hebrew manuscripts and editions, as shown in the previous posts. Now this type of deception is all over his book, however Joshua 21:36-37 remains the incredible example of his shenanigans.

In order to make those claims, James Price deceived about the AV source materials as well. That is why Price said they only used the Second Rabbinic and the Complutensian, which is absurd. Crafty is as crafty does.

It would be good for James Price to come clean on this issue. A good start would be the simple question of the sources used by the learned men of the AV. Price is retired, but somewhat active.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
It is clear that several KJV-only authors use the term “the Masoretic text” to refer especially to the one printed edition edited by Chayim.

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). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “”became the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years” and “this is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite declared: “I have personally arrived at a strong conviction that I will not budge from the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text on which our KING JAMES BIBLE is based” (p. 36). Waite commented: “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” (p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years” (Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83).

H. D. Williams indicated that the traditional Hebrew text is “the Masoretic, Ben Chayyim, Second Great Rabbinic (not the first) edition Hebrew text published by Daniel Bomberg” (Word-for-Word, p. xix). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Here we elaborate on inerrancy and uniqueness of the Masoretic Text, specially the Ben Chayyim (Bomberg ed), the basis of the KJB Old Testament and part of the Bible-believer’s Received Text” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 3). Dennis Kwok claimed: “The King James Old Testament is translated from the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text (Ben Chayyim)“ (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 77).

In the introductory “definitions” in the KJV-only book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them that is edited by Kent Brandenburg, this is stated: “the Old Testament text behind the King James Version is the Ben Chayyim MT” (p. 11). Thomas Holland wrote: “It was his [referring to Jacob ben Chayyim] text that was used by the translators of the King James Version for their work in the Old Testament” (Crowned, p. 114). David Cloud referred to “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text” and also referred to “the importance of having all the words of God” … “preserved for us in the Masoretic Hebrew” (Faith, pp. 170, 371). James Sightler maintained that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” “was used for the KJV” (Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 272). Michael Bates wrote: “The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text is the Hebrew Text underlying the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 341). James Kahler wrote: “This work, known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, the Daniel Bomberg edition, or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, is the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the King James Version was translated” (Charted History, p. 10).

Steve Combs maintained that “the source text of the King James Bible was the Hebrew Masoretic text edited by Jacob Ben Chayim” (Practical Theology, p. 102). Steven Combs wrote: “I believe that he Greek New Testament Received Text and the Ben Chayim Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament are the preserved word of God in those languages” (Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 15). Phil Stringer favorably cited the statement of the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies that advocates “the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Text of Damiel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim” (Unbroken Bible, p. 33). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable” (p. vi). David W. Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’” (Answers to your Bible Version Questions, p. 178). Tim Fellure claimed that “God raised up Daniel Bomberg and Jacob Ben Chayyim to produce the standard Old Testament Masoretic text” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 125). Tim Fellure asserted that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text stood unrivalled for over four hundred years as the only acceptable Hebrew Bible” (p. 133). Concerning sources used for making the KJV, Tim Fellure wrote: “The primary Old Testament text was Ben Chayyim Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25” (p. 175). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (What’s Wrong, p. 48). An article entitled “How We Got our English Bible” in the fourth edition of The Rock of Ages Study Bible asserted that the KJV “is the only translation based on the ben Chayyim Hebrew text” (p. xxiv). In a 1994 book, Gail Riplinger referred to “the historic ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible, used by the KJV” (Which Bible, p. 47).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is clear that several KJV-only authors use the term “the Masoretic text” to refer especially to the one printed edition edited by Chayim.

Due to the Waite error.
H. D. Williams has been part of the organization.

Nice diversion try.

Plus your quotes are all over the map, as usual.

It did take a few years for some AV defenders to realize that the Ben Hayim has major errors. Two verses missing at Joshua 21:36-37 (where there is a helpful margin note) and Psalm 22:16 and Nehemiah 7:68 omitted are all Ben Hayim textual errors.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
KJV-only advocates have failed to see that KJV-only writings are corrected for their own misleading claims. They try to make excuses for the continued repeating of the same misleading claims even in more recent KJV-only books.

KJV-only advocates dislike and try to misrepresent and smear those who expose the problems with incorrect KJV-only claims. They do not like someone soundly taking a KJV-only claim and applying it consistently and justly in order to demonstrate that it is incorrect.

KJV-only advocates do not correct their own assertions for the KJV that are not true and do not correct their false allegations against the NKJV and other English Bibles.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Edward F. Hills asserted that with the Old Testament text, “it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions” (KJV Defended, p. 224).

Bible scholar Robert Dick Wilson noted that "in the text of our common Hebrew Bibles, corrected here and there by the evidence of the ancient versions and through the evidence from paleography, we have presumptively the original text" (Scientific Investigation of the O. T., p. 69).

Oswald T. Allis wrote: Paradoxical as it may sound, it is yet a remarkable fact that the very errors which are found in the Massoretic Text of the
Old Testament, are a striking witness to the care with which the Jewish scribes safeguarded the text of the Oracles of God which were entrusted to them. Even where it was perfectly obvious that the reading of the text was wrong, they did not venture to change it, but put the reading which
they preferred in the margin" (The Old Testament, p. 168).
 

Shoonra

Active member
{quoting from the Dean Burgon Society newsletter}
Here is the DBS in 1993
http://deanburgonsociety.org/pdf_News_1-50/News_46.pdf
3. Hebrew Old Testament.
There is also the Hebrew text used by the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. I wish they had the Ben Chayyim Hebrew that underlies the KJB, but so far, they have not been able to get it.
The first two editions of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1909 & 1912) were edited by Rudolph Kittel, using as his basic text the text of the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525) edited by Ben-Chayyim (with a few, very minor, changes). So, yes, the Stuttgart Bible Society was "able to get it." The third edition, edited by Paul Kahl, introduced the use of the Leningrad Codex (1009), the oldest dated and complete massoretic mss Bible, supposedly copied conscientiously from a copy produced by Moses ben Asher (still used in the newer editions of Biblia Hebraica and in the editions distributed by the Israeli Defense Forces to enlisted personnel and by the Israeli Bible Society). The Ben-Chayyim (Second Rabbinic Bible) text was also the basic text of C.D. Ginsburg's 1894 critical edition for the Trinitarian Bible Society and his second and expanded edition for the B&FBS (ca. 1915). All of these can still be purchased. The differences between the Second Rabbinic and the Leningrad texts, considering the size of the OT, are very few and very slight.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted: “The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it. Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ‘TR’” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111). In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that “deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text” (p. 116). Arthur Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (p. 34). Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). James D. Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223). The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii). While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they still followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Therefore, KJV defenders jump to a wrong conclusion when they claim a different Hebrew text was used for the NKJV’s Old Testament. R. B. Ouellette’s claim that “a completely different Old Testament text was used” in the making of the NKJV is simply not true (A More Sure Word, p. 57). KJV-only author James Rasbeary also alleged that the NKJV “used a different Hebrew text than which was used to produce the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong with the RSV, p. 48). Charles Kriessman’s book has the same corrupt tree chart from Waite’s DKJB that listed the NKJV on its claimed corrupt tree of Bibles (Modern Version Failures, p. 130).

KJV-only advocates were incorrectly claiming that the NKJV was translated from a different Hebrew text than the KJV was and they were claiming that the KJV was translated from the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

James D. Price soundly and properly took KJV-only claims and applied them consistently to demonstrate that they were incorrect.
There was nothing dishonest in applying KJV-only claims consistently in order to show that they were wrong. Dr. Price clearly explained what he was doing, and he defined and explained his terms so that they should be no misunderstandings.

Any KJV-only advocate who alleges that to be dishonesty is the one who is not being honest and right and is bearing false witness against a honest Bible scholar who presented a sound demonstration that proves certain KJV-only claims to be incorrect.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The first two editions of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1909 & 1912) were edited by Rudolph Kittel, using as his basic text the text of the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525) edited by Ben-Chayyim (with a few, very minor, changes). So, yes, the Stuttgart Bible Society was "able to get it." The third edition, edited by Paul Kahl, introduced the use of the Leningrad Codex (1009), the oldest dated and complete massoretic mss Bible, supposedly copied conscientiously from a copy produced by Moses ben Asher (still used in the newer editions of Biblia Hebraica and in the editions distributed by the Israeli Defense Forces to enlisted personnel and by the Israeli Bible Society). The Ben-Chayyim (Second Rabbinic Bible) text was also the basic text of C.D. Ginsburg's 1894 critical edition for the Trinitarian Bible Society and his second and expanded edition for the B&FBS (ca. 1915). All of these can still be purchased. The differences between the Second Rabbinic and the Leningrad texts, considering the size of the OT, are very few and very slight.

Ira Maurice Price (1856-1939) referred to the Van der Hooght edition as the textus receptus.

Biblical World (1911)
The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament
Ira Maurice Price
http://books.google.com/books?id=tLcNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA247

The first subsequent edition of the Hebrew text which commanded the attention and confidence of scholars was that of Van der Hooght, which was published at Amsterdam in 1705. though it was practically a reprint of the Athias-Leusden edition (Amsterdam. 1667). This was so favorably regarded that it was soon recognized as a kind of lexlus receptus of the Old Testament, and has been used as the basis of the editions of Houbigant (Paris, 1753), Kennicott (Oxon., 1776), Hahn (1832), Letteris (Vienna. 1852). This last was reprinted in large clear type by the British and Foreign Bible Society (Berlin, 1866), and by Wiley & Sons of New York (1872-75). The first Hebrew Bible printed in America was published by William Fry of Philadelphia in 1814, from the Hebrew text of Van der Hooght, the Hebrew lexlus receptus.

Everardus van der Hooght (1642-1716), the Last of the Christian Hebraists in the Dutch Republic
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41482682?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

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

Price speaks highly of the Second Rabbinic Bible and discusses the various available editions, without mentioning the three verses absent in the Second Rabbinic.

Valuable additions to the available number of Hebrew Bibles which appeared during the next eighty years were the Third Rabbinic Bible, 1547-48; the Fourth Rabbinic Bible, 1568; and the so-called Antwerp Polyglot of 1569 72, issued under the patronage of Philip II. hence sometimes called Biblia Regia, edited by Aries Montanus.

There was thus an abundance of editions of the Hebrew Bible at hand for the translators of the Authorized Version. But all those that appeared subsequently to the Second Bomberg edition (1524-25) are based on that text, or are of value in so far as they conform to the collations of the Massorah printed in that work.

Scrivener says:

Respecting the Hebrew text which they (the revisers] followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the differences between early printed Bibles are but few. The Complutensian Polyglot, however, which afforded them such important help in the Apocrypha, was of course at hand, and we seem to trace its influence in some places.............Yet the Compiutensian throws no light on the readings in many other passages, where some other text must have been before the translators.

The abundance of marginal notes, already mentioned, testifies to the presence in the hands of those translators, of several editions of Hebrew texts, as well as those of the other prominent versions in other languages. But no scholar up to the present time has been able specifically to put his hand on any edition of the text of the Hebrew Bible and say: “This was the text from which the translators of the King James Version translated the Old Testament.” p. 249-251
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). .... In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim,

You are not paying attention.

There are at least three incredibly important spots where the NKJV does NOT follow the Bomberg text. Either they did not check the text, or they are incompetent, or they are lying.

The two verses in Joshua 21:36-37 and the verse of Nehemiah 7:68 refute the ignorant statements of Farsted and Price above. The Bomberg omits those verses. Psalm 22:16 is another.

It seems that you are not interested in the truth, your goal is to post errant snippets from others.

You used to post the following:

Arthur Farstad claimed that "Joshua 21:36-37 is lacking in the Masoretic text," but it was added to
the KJV from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions (The NKJV: In the Great Tradition, p. 96).

Which I pointed out was false in 2008.
This is a more specific part of this blunder brigade quoting from Farsted and Price.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is how this blunder was written in the Arthur Farsted book, 1989 and later editions.

The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition - (1989)

Ancient Versions
Sometimes an early translation will have a reading that represents an ancient Hebrew text now lost, but apparently original. For example, Joshua 21:36, 37 is lacking in the Masoretic text. Yet the passage is found in the KJV because the missing verses were supplied from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, as well as from the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 6:63, 64. - p. 96 in 1989 edition.

Notice that the Rick Norris absurd excuse that James Price is making up his own definition of the word emendation and the term Masoretic Text is nonsense in both the James Price and the Arthur Farsted books. Farsted was not trying to pull the chicanery of reinventing those words when he wrote the above in 1989.

There was no "ancient Hebrew text now lost". Total nonsense.
The verses are not lacking in the Masoretic text.
They were in the AV from the Hebrew tradition, not foreign language verssion.

Rick Norris should be concerned about factual accuracy.

James Price actually has an overlapping set of blunders in his KJV-Onlyism section.

King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
by James D. Price
https://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA284

Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as docs the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they arc contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions and a parallel passage. p. 284

The Masoretic Text includes the verse in hundreds of manuscripts and most printed editions.

Thus, the AV did not need foreign versions to "add" the verses.

Only a minority number of Masoretic Text mss. lost the verses.

The text was not restored from ancient versions (that would lead to translational differences) it was simply taken from Masoretic Text sources.

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

Farsted and Price both blundered on the question of editions used by the learned men of the AV, making a totally bogus claim. Above I showed you Price, Farsted actually added the First Rabbinic Bible (usually dated to 1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot :).

For the Old Testament, the translators used the rabbinic Hebrew Bibles of 1519 and 1525 and the Hebrew texts found in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots.

Price contradicts himself in various places.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If the NKJV was an honest translation endeavor, would the men putting out propaganda for their version give us blatant falsehoods like those above?

(To be fair to the gentleman who has passed, it is possible that Arthur Farsted was snookered by Jame Price into believing and repeating false, fabricated claims against the AV text.)
 
Last edited:
Top