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

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

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

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

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
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.


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
 
Top