Hebrew text that underlies the KJV

[Logos1560]

In the thread entitled KJVOnly vs Latin Vulgate Only

the Hebrew texts that underlie our King James Bible.

Which is the specific Hebrew text that underlies every word of the KJV's Old Testament?

Does the KJV present a literal word-for-word rendering for every word of the original language Old Testament text?

Does the KJV never follow the marginal reading in that Hebrew text or does the KJV sometimes follow the marginal reading?

Does the KJV ever depart from the reading in the text of the Hebrew Masoretic Text to follow some other source?

Do you agree with these KJV-only authors' claims about the Hebrew text that underlies the KJV?

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). 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). 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” (Faith, p. 170). 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). 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 Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’” (Answers, p. 178). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (What’s Wrong, p. 48).

 

[Yeshua1]

In the thread entitled KJVOnly vs Latin Vulgate Only

Which is the specific Hebrew text that underlies every word of the KJV's Old Testament?

Does the KJV present a literal word-for-word rendering for every word of the original language Old Testament text?

Does the KJV never follow the marginal reading in that Hebrew text or does the KJV sometimes follow the marginal reading?

Does the KJV ever depart from the reading in the text of the Hebrew Masoretic Text to follow some other source?

Do you agree with these KJV-only authors' claims about the Hebrew text that underlies the KJV?

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). 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). 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” (Faith, p. 170). 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). 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 Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’” (Answers, p. 178). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (What’s Wrong, p. 48).

Has there ever been a single Hebrew text recognized as the 'standard text?"
Did the Kjv use just 1 text, and did they translate exactly word forword from it?

What is difference between OT textsd they used, and the NKJV team used?

 

[Dr. Bob]

85% of the AV1611 was "borrowed" word-for-word from other translations. So looking for THE single Hebrew text would be a challenge; much of the work came from the Vulgate, the Geneva, etc
The Lorde is my shephearde, I shall not want.
He maketh me to rest in greene pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.
He restoreth my soule, and leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse for his Names sake.
Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.
Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine aduersaries: thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, and my cuppe runneth ouer.
Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercie shall followe me all the dayes of my life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.

No, this isn't AV translated from Hebrew. This is Psalm 23 in the Geneva.

Interesting topic. Will keep tabs on it.

 

[Yeshua1]

85% of the AV1611 was "borrowed" word-for-word from other translations. So looking for THE single Hebrew text would be a challenge; much of the work came from the Vulgate, the Geneva, etc
The Lorde is my shephearde, I shall not want.
He maketh me to rest in greene pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.
He restoreth my soule, and leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse for his Names sake.
Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.
Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine aduersaries: thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, and my cuppe runneth ouer.
Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercie shall followe me all the dayes of my life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.

No, this isn't AV translated from Hebrew. This is Psalm 23 in the Geneva.

Interesting topic. Will keep tabs on it.

Are the KJVO aware that a majority of their version was taken and lifte ddirectly from prior versions, so wouldn't that make also those versions to have to be said to be a perfect version by their own logic?

 

[Logos1560]

85% of the AV1611 was "borrowed" word-for-word from other translations. So looking for THE single Hebrew text would be a challenge; much of the work came from the Vulgate, the Geneva, etc

It is true that the KJV is more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles than it is an original new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

According to typical KJV-only all-or-nothing reasoning, if the KJV translators could not believe every word in the Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, or Tyndale's Bible, does that mean they could not believe one word in them and should not have borrowed many renderings from them?

If the KJV translators did not accept every word in one particular edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, does it mean they could not believe one word in it?

If the KJV translators followed the marginal readings in an edition of the Hebrew Masorectic Text in any places instead of the actual reading in the text, does that mean that other words in the text should also not be trusted?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is true that the KJV is more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles than it is an original new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

According to typical KJV-only all-or-nothing reasoning, if the KJV translators could not believe every word in the Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, or Tyndale's Bible, does that mean they could not believe one word in them and should not have borrowed many renderings from them?

If the KJV translators did not accept every word in one particular edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, does it mean they could not believe one word in it?

If the KJV translators followed the marginal readings in an edition of the Hebrew Masorectic Text in any places instead of the actual reading in the text, does that mean that other words in the text should also not be trusted?

Does that also mean tht the versions like geneva/Bishop were only 85 % word of god, rest "bogus?"

As KJV team took over all the "real" parts of them?

 

[Rippon]

Does that also mean that versions like the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles are only 85 % the Word of God,and that the rest of the contents are"bogus?"

Did the KJV team use only the "real" parts of them?

I said as much yesterday on the thread Makers of KJV as Bible Revisers. It seems to the mindest of KJVO folks that the KJV revisers were able --with super-dooper discernment powers --to magically extract the perfect parts of prior translations --to come up with the entirely perfect KJV. (Though the perfect KJV needed modifications way up to Blayney's edition in the late 18th century.)

 

[Logos1560]

today's KJV is not Blayney's 1769 edition

(Though the perfect KJV needed modifications way up to Blayney's edition in the late 18th century.)

No present edition of the KJV is identical to Blayney's 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Most of today's KJV editions are based on Blayney's 1769, but they are not identical to it. There are a few present KJV editions that are based on Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge edition, not Blayney's. The 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions of the KJV edited by David Norton are also not based on the 1769.

Over 300 to 400 modifications have been made to the KJV since 1769.

Over 200 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many present KJV editions.

There are at least 100 places where Blayney's 1769 Oxford differs from most present KJV editions in either LORD vs Lord or GOD vs God.

Blayney's 1769 Oxford has some editing or printing inconsistencies in the use or non-use of hyphens or in the presenting of some words as two separate words in some cases but as one compound word in other cases, and it has some inconsistencies in the use of capital letters.

Some other places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

[robycop3]

The AV translators worked under the set of rules that their boss, Archbishop bancroft, made up & got approved by KJ. Now, KJ's main interest in the new translation was the removal of the marginal notes found in the Geneva which questioned the "automatic Divine right of kings" & said it was OK to rebel against a tyrant. Now, while the Bishop's Bible was more to KJ's liking, one of Bancroft's rules was that the translators follow the older versions as much as possible, with the Geneva being mentioned, and to retain the old "ecclesiastical" words such as "Church" rather than "congregation", etc.
The AV men mighta copied the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 from the Bishop's Bible; the Geneva has "the passeoeur" in Acts 12:4, while the Bishop's has "Easter".

But I don't think there's any question that the AV1611 was made largely from earlier versions, generally changing only certain spellings to reflect the ones used in 1604. I'm not criticizing the AV for that; why change the translation of a given passage when the translator's own knowledge sees it is correct?

 

[Logos1560]

Now, while the Bishop's Bible was more to KJ's liking, one of Bancroft's rules was that the translators follow the older versions as much as possible, with the Geneva being mentioned,

That is not entirely correct. The KJV translators were not actually instructed to follow the older versions as much as possible. They were actually instructed to follow the Bishops' Bible as much as possible, and in effect to follow one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles only when it was more in agreement with the original language texts than the Bishops' Bible was.

The first rule given the makers of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

The fourteenth rule stated: "These translations to be used where they agree better with the text then the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [Great], Geneva."

 

[Logos1560]

marginal notes become text in KJV?

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob
85% of the AV1611 was "borrowed" word-for-word from other translations.

Some of the text of the KJV could even be said to be borrowed from the marginal notes of the Hebrew text or from the marginal notes in other translations.

The KJV translators sometimes followed readings found in the marginal notes of the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the actual reading in the text.

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

The KJV translators may have sometimes followed the reading in the marginal note in a translation.

John Eadie maintained that sometimes “the margin of the Bishops’ [Bible] [becomes] the text of the Authorized, as in Galatians 6:12, 2 Peter 1:20” (English Bible, II, p. 221). The marginal note in a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ at Galatians 6:12 for “carnally” in its text is “Or, in the flesh.” This same Bishops’ edition’s marginal note for “motion” in its text at 2 Peter 1:20 is “or, interpretation.” The 1560 Geneva Bible did have “in the flesh” in its text at Galatians 6:12 so that the 1611 KJV could have been following it. Ward Allen also referred to “words from the margin of the Bishops’ Bible which have influenced the king’s translators,” and he gave three examples (Coming, pp. 45-46). In one of those examples (Luke 5:21), for “think” in its text the Bishops’ Bible has a marginal note “reason,” which is in the text in the KJV.

H. Wheeler Robinson contended that sometimes the margin of the Geneva Bible became the text in the KJV (Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, p. 206). The marginal note of the 1560 Geneva Bible at Deuteronomy 3:17 [“Or Ashdoth-Pisgah”] seems to have become the text of the 1611 KJV while the marginal note of the 1611 [“Or under the springs of Pisgah, or the hill”] seems to have come from the text of both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible. The marginal note “Or scorpions” at 1 Kings 12:11 in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ Bible was used in the text of the KJV. The 1535 Coverdale’s, 1537 Matthew’s, and 1540 edition of the Great Bible did have “scorpions” in their text at 1 Kings 12:11 where the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1568 Bishops’ Bible have “scourges.”

 

[Yeshua1]

[/I]

Some of the text of the KJV could even be said to be borrowed from the marginal notes of the Hebrew text or from the marginal notes in other translations.

The KJV translators sometimes followed readings found in the marginal notes of the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the actual reading in the text.

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

The KJV translators may have sometimes followed the reading in the marginal note in a translation.

John Eadie maintained that sometimes “the margin of the Bishops’ [Bible] [becomes] the text of the Authorized, as in Galatians 6:12, 2 Peter 1:20” (English Bible, II, p. 221). The marginal note in a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ at Galatians 6:12 for “carnally” in its text is “Or, in the flesh.” This same Bishops’ edition’s marginal note for “motion” in its text at 2 Peter 1:20 is “or, interpretation.” The 1560 Geneva Bible did have “in the flesh” in its text at Galatians 6:12 so that the 1611 KJV could have been following it. Ward Allen also referred to “words from the margin of the Bishops’ Bible which have influenced the king’s translators,” and he gave three examples (Coming, pp. 45-46). In one of those examples (Luke 5:21), for “think” in its text the Bishops’ Bible has a marginal note “reason,” which is in the text in the KJV.

H. Wheeler Robinson contended that sometimes the margin of the Geneva Bible became the text in the KJV (Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, p. 206). The marginal note of the 1560 Geneva Bible at Deuteronomy 3:17 [“Or Ashdoth-Pisgah”] seems to have become the text of the 1611 KJV while the marginal note of the 1611 [“Or under the springs of Pisgah, or the hill”] seems to have come from the text of both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible. The marginal note “Or scorpions” at 1 Kings 12:11 in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ Bible was used in the text of the KJV. The 1535 Coverdale’s, 1537 Matthew’s, and 1540 edition of the Great Bible did have “scorpions” in their text at 1 Kings 12:11 where the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1568 Bishops’ Bible have “scourges.”

So the marginal notes were "scripture", and Bibles like Geneva were 85% word of god, per KJVO?