James Price blunders on supposed emendations in the Masoretic Text by the AV

Steven Avery

Administrator
the James Price con job accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...sing-the-av-of-hebrew-bible-emendations.6695/

CARM may remove a couple of urls

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


October 10, 2021

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

The previous thread exposed the James Price con job 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 James Price con included this claim, full of blunders and false assertions.
"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:

CARM - Did a KJV translator make use of Codex Vaticanus text?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/did...-codex-vaticanus-text.4005/page-2#post-341046

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

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).

Longer quote on previous thread:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/did...-codex-vaticanus-text.4005/page-2#post-444701

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

James Price lied about what was available (and gave confusing, contradictory information) for the sole purpose of calling well supported readings in the Authorized Version, even those supported by Masoretic Text editions and manuscripts ... "emendations".

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

Here is the basic con job.

"Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus."

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

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.

Scholars are aware of the fact that conjectural emendations are hypothetical, and, therefore, sometimes alternative suggestions are made for emending the text. For some examples, see pp. 357-362. Scholars also realize that sometimes no emendation is acceptable, at which point they are likely to be content with merely stating that the text is corrupt.

𝔐 = the Majority Text symbol

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

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

So James Price:

1) lies about the resources available to the learned men!
2) makes up his own faux definition of the word emendation! Never used before or after.
3) lies about the actual evidences for the variants, as we saw with Joshua 21:36=37.

A total triple con!

Designed to falsely accuse the AV!

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

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 con 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).

NOBODY would be so skewed as to claim that those changes were "emendations". Anyone who tried to make that claim would be received only with laughter and derision, quite properly.

And laughter and derision is the proper response to the James Price con job.

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

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
That is an absurd definition. Only a textual imbecile would take false definitions to accuse the Authorized Version of conjectural emendations on well-supported Masoretic Text entries.

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


1626558179239.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
A Response to D. A. Waite's Criticism of the New King James Version (1995)
James D. Price
http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/A_Response_to_Waite.doc
No Joshua 21:36-37

NKJV Preface
https://books.google.com/books?id=9HpnBFHswvwC&pg=PR11

King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
https://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC
https://books.google.com/books?id=q_FOA2t8xEsC
20 pages
Joshua 21 p. 284 and 563
http://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA284
Chart to Review after Flip
http://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA563

A Critical Answer to James Price's King James Onlyism
Donald Waite
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Answer-James-Prices-Onlyism/dp/1568480636
I bought 2011

A Response To Don Waite’s A Critical Answer to James Price's King James Onlyism: A New Sect
by James D. Price (May, 2014)
http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Price_responds_to_Waite.pdf
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Price_responds_to_Waite.pdf
No Joshua 21

Textual Differences Between Bomberg and BHS
James D. Price
https://shkola.of.by/textual-differences-between-bomberg-and-bhs.html
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...riations.doc&usg=AOvVaw2GokiQoVGqAbFquiulK0Un
no Joshua

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

The Preservation of Scripture (2000)
by William W. Combs
https://christianpublishinghouse.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/the-preservation-of-scripture.pdf

What's the Scoop on the New King James Version? (2009)
Kent Brandenburg
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-scoop-on-new-king-james-version.html
James Price supports CT - Scott Jones

Response to James Price - REVIEW - Ecclesiastical Text
Theodore P. Letis
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/price_below_value.pdf

ARE THERE MISTAKES IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?
H. D. Williams, M.D., Ph.D.
http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/PDFs/ARE THERE MISTAKES IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE.pdf

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

Steven Avery

Administrator
This is planned to be rounded out and placed here
https://forums.carm.org/threads/did...-codex-vaticanus-text.4005/page-2#post-341479

Dr. James D. Price clearly and honestly presented his definition of emendation as a sound, proper, scholarly response to actual KJV-only claims.

Here is an example of his ongoing blunders and confusion, still on his web site.

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.


A Response to D.A. Waite's criticism of the New King James Version (1995)
James D. Price

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.

In all there are 144 similar places where the KJV translators wrongfully followed some textual authority other than the Jacob ben Chayyim text13 In all these places the NKJV corrected the KJV to bring it into conformity with the readings of the Jacob ben Chayyim Masoretic text.


FOLLOWED BY SHOONRA AND MY POST
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
2009 FFF
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-cassidy-embarasses-himself-t5190.html#p62931

James Price emendation accusation bungling incompetence

Thus not only did Kennicott reference about 150 Hebrew Masoretic Text manuscripts with the verses, Samuel Davidson says that inclusion of the two verses is the majority reading of the Masoretic Text manuscripts. "the greater number of MSS. contain them... they are of the best quality... in several of great antiquity... Most editions have them." A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (1852, p. 424)

Thus either James Price was very ignorant of the actual Masoretic Text manuscript situation, or he was being very deceptive in accusing the learned men of the AV of an emendation, of using non-Hebrew sources to emend the Masoretic text.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...t_tracking={"tn":"R"}&form=MY01SV&OCID=MY01SV


Steven Avery
The Preface to the NKJV is by James Price, and is very unreliable, as his "scholarship" got mixed in with his anti-AV agenda.. Simply look at Joshua 21:36-37, Nehemiah 7:68 and Psalm 22:16 and you will find 3 major variants where the Ben Hayim text is not followed by the AV or the NKJV.
.
As an example of the abject confusion of James Price, look at how he calls the inclusion of Joshua 21:36-37 an "emendation" .. even though it is in most Masoretic mss. (Ben Hayim has omission with margin note.)
.
You follow James Price (or Donald Waite on the AV side) on this and you will never have the picture in focus.


Buck Daniel
Steven, you show your ignorance when you state "he calls the inclusion of Joshua 21:36-37 an "emendation" .. even though it is in most Masoretic mss." The NKJV footnote states, "Following Septuagint and Vulgate (compare 1 Chronicles 6:78,79); Masoretic Text, Bomberg, and Targum omit verses 36 and 37."

Steven Avery
Read his book, Bro Daniel

King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
James D. Price
https://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA284
.
Notice that it is in a section called "Textual Emendations in the AV". bogus.
.
Most Masoretic text mss contain the verses, the NKJV note is also baloney.
.
Joseph, generally speaking, the NKJV is James Price, in these types of things.


Steven Avery
.
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"these two verses, are thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter, are happily preserved in no less than 149; MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott, and upwards of 40; collated by De Rossi."
Adam Clarke again referencing Kennicott:
See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54."


Steven Avery
.
Daniel, I am not sure where your numbers come from for the Joshua text, and how many were examined by Kennicott..
.
If you go to the book by Christian David Ginsburg, he points out whether the two verses are included in the printed editions (invariably he indicated under the edition) and generally they are included in the printed Masoretic Text editions.
.
With hundreds of mss including the verses, and most of the printed editions, it is pretty obvious that the claim of an emendation is totally bogus.
.
James Price made this claim only be creating a one-time-only private definition of emendation. None dare call this scholarship.


Steven Avery
.
Here you can see from Ginsburg that Soncino 1488, a key edition, has the verses in the text:
http://www.archive.org/stream/introductionofma00ginsuoft...
.
The Felix Pretensis edition (Rabbinic Bible #1) had the text, as indicated here:
http://bible.zoxt.net/ginz/_1029.htm
.
And then the Ben Hayim omission was reinstated in a Boberg Bible.
.
The Ben Hayim omission is discussed here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/introductionofma00ginsuoft...
.
Also Ben Hayim has an important margin note that discusses the variation in mss.
.
Ginsburg
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYgJqQG44PUC&pg=PA178
"omission .. in some MSS...they are found in some of the earliest dated MSS" Much detail in p. 178-180
.
As for you claim that Kennicott is not talking about the mss, we would need his dissertation, p. 400 and on, which I have not yet found. However, Ginsburg is making it clear that the text was in many mss.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
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

1633812365020.png


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

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://forums.carm.org/threads/did...-codex-vaticanus-text.4005/page-4#post-447474
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...of-hebrew-bible-emendations.6695/#post-458009
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...of-hebrew-bible-emendations.6695/#post-458120

This unreliable KJV-only poster ignores and dodges the fact that 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 as this bogus allegation incorrectly tries to suggest.

Wake up, Rick.
You are flunking Hebrew Bible 101.

Hebrew Bibles are Masoretic Text editions.

Note Christian David Ginsburg:

Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897
Christian David Ginsburg
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/830/mode/2up
"Soncino 1488 .. it has the two verses.."

If you want books of the Hebrew Bible that differ from the Masoretic Text you can find them in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Once we get to the Masoretes, the traditional Tiberian, as well as the Babylonian and Palestinian paintings and focalization, are all part of the Masoretic tradition.

Thank you, Rick.
Your claim gave me a good laugh and shows why your writing on these issues is totally unreliable. Quote-mining, no understanding.

1633976841007.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM - 2022
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...rew-bible-emendations.6695/page-2#post-843416

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.

This makes total sense. And I believe that James Price was only looking for cheap debating tricks against Waite, historical truth was of no concern. Btw, the Complutensian has the verses!

This phony unsourced claim of James Price of the two editions was part of the trickery.
Ironically, he mentions the AV following manuscripts, but, other than the Complutensian, never mentions editions like:

Soncino 1488 - "it has the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz 36 and 37"
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/830/mode/2up

Pesaro 1510-11 (Soncino) "This edition has the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz. 36, 37 with the proper vowel-points and the accents."
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/880/mode/2up

Complutensian Polyglot - Alcala 1514-1517 This edition has the two verses in Josh XXI, viz. 36, 37. - p. 917
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/906/mode/2up
The Naples Bible (1491—93), however, is not the only printed edition which the editors of the Cornplutensian utilized for the construction of their text. I was fortunate enough to discover amongst the MSS. in the famous Library of the Escorial the two volumes of the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491 which wore actually used as printers-copy for the Polyglot. - p. 923

First Rabbinic Bible of Felix Pretensis , published by Bomberg, Venice 1516-1517
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/924/mode/2up
"This edition has the two verses in Josh. XXI, viz. 35,36. They are not only furnished with the vowel points and the accents, but various readings of some of the words are recorded in the margin in exactly the same way as in the rest of the text." p. 943

Bomberg 3rd edition - 1525-1528 - "reinstated the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz 36 and 37"
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/974/mode/2up

The next three I do not have specific information on our verses.

Stephanus Hebrew Bible 1539-1543
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalcy00eadi/page/74/mode/2up
In the years 1539-1514 Robert Stephens printed his edition of the Hebrew Bible, in four quarto volumes; and in 1544-1546, his very beautifully
printed edition, in seven volumes sixteenmo.

Antwerp Polyglot - (Plantin Polyglot) - 1568. 1573
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantin_Polyglot

Elias Hutter - 1587 - quote from same url
In 1587 was printed at Hamburgh the edition of Elias Hutter, in large characters.
https://digitalcollections.lmu.edu/documents/detail/12247

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

In their back and forth, Donald Waite only complained that he seemed to be putting Bomberg and the Complutensian on an equal footing, he did not point out the actual shoddy scholarship from James Price about what was used by the learned men of the AV.

Second Rabbinic Bible, Jacob B. Chayim, 1524-1525 is here:
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/956/mode/2up
... 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 Massorltes, but we are perfectly justified in restoring them on the authority which we have adduced.1
1 Vide supra, Part. II, chap. VI, p. 178 &c.
p. 965

Christian David Ginsburg discussion
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYgJqQG44PUC&pg=PA178

Moreover these two verses are given in the text of all the early editions: The first edition of the Prophets, Soncino 1485—86, has them; so also the first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition, Naples 1491 — 93: the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 1511; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517: and in the three quarto editions of Bomberg, Venice 1517, 1521 and 1525- Jacob b. Chayim was the first who omitted these verses in the editio princeps of his Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah 1324—23- (he also mentions many early manuscripts)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM

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

p. 54
1660465441721.png


p. 55-56
1660465634025.png

1660465662956.png



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:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"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.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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

Administrator
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.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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.)

Similarly, can any claim of Rick Norris be trusted, when he stands behind all the blatant falsehoods documented above?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is a spot on p. 220 where James Price gives a more truthful definition of "The Masoretic Text".

1660566950758.png

The Masoretic Text Is the Hebrew Majority Text

The Hebrew text of the Old Testament supported by the majority of Hebrew manuscripts is known as the Masoretic Text, discussed in Chapter 12. Thus, the Hebrew Majority Text is the Masoretic Text. The difference between the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) and the Majority Text for the Hebrew Bible is minute. For this reason, one seldom hears of a Hebrew Majority Text.

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

Note: add to the previous post, a cryptic acknowledgment that the learned men of the AV used other Hebrew sources. Price says "manuscripts" but printed editions would be more likely the sources.

The marginal notes in the King James Version indicate that the translators had access to some Hebrew manuscripts. p. 280

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

Also, here is a spot where Price mentions some of the other editions available to the learned men of the AV.

The first edition of the complete Hebrew Bible was printed in 1488 in Soncino, Italy. Other complete editions were printed in Naples (1491-93), in Brescia (1494), and in Pesaro (1511-17).

Price omits later important editions, including Pagnini in 1571 and Elias Hutter in 1587.
 
Last edited:
Top