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"
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.
===========================================
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
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"
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.
===========================================
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:
. This is all in Ginsburg.