Our Scriptural Confidence

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Old Testament text kept by the church for hundreds of years was the old Greek Septuagint.

Your entire argument depends on extra‑biblical textual‑critical authorities. You cite Gordis, Bednar, Lucianic recensions, Qere/Kethib theories, and Septuagint reconstruction hypotheses. None of these are biblical or ecclesial authorities.

The early churches did not treat the Septuagint as the preserved text. They used it because it was the only Greek OT available, but they consistently deferred to the Hebrew. Jerome rejected the Septuagint’s authority.

The preserved text is the text kept, used, preached, and transmitted by the churches. That is the Masoretic Hebrew tradition, not the reconstructed Septuagint. Qere/Kethib does not undermine preservation; it is a scribal notation, not a corruption.

Preservation is ecclesial, not academic. The churches kept the Hebrew text. Modern scholars reconstruct the Septuagint. Those are not the same thing.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

For the Old Testament text, the KJV is based on this Hebrew Masoretic text imperfectly kept by the Jews.

The Masoretic text was not perfectly kept by the Jews; it was perfectly kept by God, who used the Jews as His instruments, and the final custodians of that providential line were the Ben Asher family of Tiberias, Moses ben Asher and his son Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. Preservation is the work of God, not the achievement of scribes. The Masoretes did not create a text; they transmitted the text God preserved. Qere and Kethib do not represent corruption; they are simple scribal notes that record the received reading. The Septuagint was never regarded by the churches as the preserved Old Testament; it was used because it was available, not because it was authoritative. The preserved line is the Hebrew text that the churches kept, used, preached, and transmitted, not the reconstructed Greek text promoted by modern textual critics.

 

[Logos1560]

The Masoretic text was not perfectly kept by the Jews; it was perfectly kept by God, who used the Jews as His instruments, and the final custodians of that providential line were the Ben Asher family of Tiberias, Moses ben Asher and his son Aaron ben Moses ben Asher.

You seem to close your eyes to the clear verifiable facts that prove that the Hebrew Masoretic text was not perfectly preserved or kept by the Jews. Your seeming attempts to avoid or deny actual verifiable facts will not make them go away.

Three whole Old Testament verses [Joshua 21:36-37; Nehemiah 7:68] are not found in Ben Chayyim’s Hebrew Masoretic Text edition. Robert Gordis (1908-1992) wrote: “In almost fifteen hundred passages, the Masorah demands that one word be written [Kethib] in the text, while another word must be read [Qere] in its stead” (Biblical Text, p. 2), and the KJV sometimes followed the Qere marginal readings. Elias Levita as translated by Christian Ginsburg listed “the fifteen instances in which the textual reading has one word and the marginal reading two” as the following: Gen. 30:11; Exod. 4:2; Deut. 33:2; 1 Chron. 9:4; 1 Chron. 17:12; Neh. 2:13; Job 38:1; Job 40:6; Ps. 10:10; Ps. 55:16; Ps. 123:4; Isa. 3:15; Jer. 6:29; Jer. 18:3; Ezek. 8:6 (Massoreth, p. 193, footnote 34). In this same footnote, Elias Levita noted: “The eight instances in which the reverse is the case, that is, the text having two words, and the margin one word, are as follows:” Jud. 16:25; 1 Sam. 9:1; 1 Sam. 24:9; 2 Chron. 34:6; Isa. 9:6; Isa. 44:24; Lam. 1:6; Lam. 4:3 (Ibid.). Christian 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). Christian 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). Christian Ginsburg asserted that “many MSS., early editions, and the Versions have the Keri [Qere] 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 [Qere] 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).

Barry Levy observed: “The historical fact that numerous conflicting readings existed [in the Hebrew OT text]– and that many still exist – cannot be made to disappear” (Fixing God's Torah, p. 159).

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, Israel Yeivin (1923-2008) as translated by E. J. [Ernest John] Revell (1934-2017) wrote: “It is now been shown however, that although this edition is quite close to the original ben Asher tradition, it in fact represents a mixture of traditions derived from a few MSS written not long before the edition was printed, and consequently differs from the original ben Asher tradition in many minor details” (Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, p. 15). Gergely Juhasz wrote: “For his edition, Bomberg relied on fourteenth and fifteenth-century manuscripts that mainly followed the Ben Asher text but also showed certain influences of the Ben Naphtali text” (Arblaster, Tyndale’s, p. 94). In an introductory article to a facsimile edition of The Leningrad Codex, Victor Lebedev wrote: “It is well known that the first editions of the Hebrew Bible were based on fourteenth- to fifteenth-century manuscripts reflecting a mixture of the Ben Asher and the Ben Naphtali traditions” (Freedman, p. xxv). Page Kelley (1924-1997), Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford maintained that “these manuscripts [used by ben Chayyim] represented a mixture of traditions, which were further mixed in ben Chayyim’s text (and Masorah)“ and that “the Second Rabbinic Bible is not viewed as a pure ben Asher text” (Masorah, p. 25). Bleddyn Roberts noted: “It is a sobering thought that it is but recently that we have come to realize the hybrid nature of this Hebrew text” (OT Text, p. 90). Emanuel Tov asserted that “it has been demonstrated” that the second Rabbinic Bible “does not reflect any specific manuscript” (Textual Criticism, p. 46). Emanuel Tov wrote: “No single source has been found from which the editors of the first two Rabbinic Bibles could have derived their biblical text” (p. 78). Paul Wegner maintained that the Second Rabbinic Bible “was thought to be a good representative of the Ben Asher text, but it is now viewed as a mixture of various traditions from manuscripts shortly before the time it was [published]” (Student’s Guide, p. 162).

Bleddyn Roberts wrote: “The ben Chayim text does not follow any manuscript or authority in detail, and therefore shows an eclectic text. It has been shown that though a Spanish manuscript was the basis, the text frequently deviates from it, and the divergent readings reveal traces of ben Naphtali and both Ma’arbae (Western) and Madinhae (Eastern) readings” (Old Testament Text, p. 88). Bleddyn Roberts added: “The text of ben Chayim was substantially that of the ben Asher recension, but, based on young and sometimes corrupt manuscripts, it included occasional foreign matter that showed adherence to the ben Naphtali and other recensions” (pp. 90-91). In his foreword, Aron Dotan claimed: “Their desire to rely on Ben Asher’s text was never more than a pious wish, for the text was only known by hearsay. All the evidence about Ben Asher’s readings was second- or third-hand. It derived from masoretic remarks in biblical manuscripts, from the writings of the grammarians and Masoretes, and the lists of differences between Ben Asher and his opponent Moses ben David ben Naphtali” (Biblia, pp. viii-ix). Norman Gottwald maintained that “Ben Chayyim used Tiberian manuscripts but he worked eclectically, drawing now from one and now from another manuscript” (Hebrew Bible, p. 121). Barry Levy wrote: “J. Penkower has demonstrated the impact of kabbalistic thinking on Jacob ben Hayyim’s handling of the Masorah” (Fixing, p. 135).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Concerning this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, Israel Yeivin (1923-2008) as translated by E. J. [Ernest John] Revell (1934-2017) wrote: “It is now been shown however, that although this edition is quite close to the original ben Asher tradition, it in fact represents a mixture of traditions derived from a few MSS written not long before the edition was printed, and consequently differs from the original ben Asher tradition in many minor details” (Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, p. 15). Gergely Juhasz wrote: “For his edition, Bomberg relied on fourteenth and fifteenth-century manuscripts that mainly followed the Ben Asher text but also showed certain influences of the Ben Naphtali text” (Arblaster, Tyndale’s, p. 94). In an introductory article to a facsimile edition of The Leningrad Codex, Victor Lebedev wrote: “It is well known that the first editions of the Hebrew Bible were based on fourteenth- to fifteenth-century manuscripts reflecting a mixture of the Ben Asher and the Ben Naphtali traditions” (Freedman, p. xxv). Page Kelley (1924-1997), Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford maintained that “these manuscripts [used by ben Chayyim] represented a mixture of traditions, which were further mixed in ben Chayyim’s text (and Masorah)“ and that “the Second Rabbinic Bible is not viewed as a pure ben Asher text” (Masorah, p. 25). Bleddyn Roberts noted: “It is a sobering thought that it is but recently that we have come to realize the hybrid nature of this Hebrew text” (OT Text, p. 90). Emanuel Tov asserted that “it has been demonstrated” that the second Rabbinic Bible “does not reflect any specific manuscript” (Textual Criticism, p. 46). Emanuel Tov wrote: “No single source has been found from which the editors of the first two Rabbinic Bibles could have derived their biblical text” (p. 78). Paul Wegner maintained that the Second Rabbinic Bible “was thought to be a good representative of the Ben Asher text, but it is now viewed as a mixture of various traditions from manuscripts shortly before the time it was [published]” (Student’s Guide, p. 162).

Bleddyn Roberts wrote: “The ben Chayim text does not follow any manuscript or authority in detail, and therefore shows an eclectic text. It has been shown that though a Spanish manuscript was the basis, the text frequently deviates from it, and the divergent readings reveal traces of ben Naphtali and both Ma’arbae (Western) and Madinhae (Eastern) readings” (Old Testament Text, p. 88). Bleddyn Roberts added: “The text of ben Chayim was substantially that of the ben Asher recension, but, based on young and sometimes corrupt manuscripts, it included occasional foreign matter that showed adherence to the ben Naphtali and other recensions” (pp. 90-91). In his foreword, Aron Dotan claimed: “Their desire to rely on Ben Asher’s text was never more than a pious wish, for the text was only known by hearsay. All the evidence about Ben Asher’s readings was second- or third-hand. It derived from masoretic remarks in biblical manuscripts, from the writings of the grammarians and Masoretes, and the lists of differences between Ben Asher and his opponent Moses ben David ben Naphtali” (Biblia, pp. viii-ix). Norman Gottwald maintained that “Ben Chayyim used Tiberian manuscripts but he worked eclectically, drawing now from one and now from another manuscript” (Hebrew Bible, p. 121). Barry Levy wrote: “J. Penkower has demonstrated the impact of kabbalistic thinking on Jacob ben Hayyim’s handling of the Masorah” (Fixing, p. 135).

Your entire argument depends on extra biblical authorities. Every name you cite, including Yeivin, Revell, Juhasz, Lebedev, Kelley, Mynatt, Crawford, Roberts, Dotan, Gottwald, Levy, Tov, and Wegner, belongs to the modern textual critical guild. None of these voices represent biblical authority, apostolic authority, ecclesial authority, or the doctrine of preservation. You are defending a reconstructionist model by appealing to reconstructionist scholars, which is circular.

You are also ignoring the doctrine of preservation entirely. Scripture teaches that God preserves His words in passages such as Psalm 12, Isaiah 40, and Matthew 5. Preservation is a divine act, not a human reconstruction. The believing community receives the preserved text rather than rebuilding it from scattered traditions. Your sources assume that the text was not preserved and therefore must be reconstructed. That assumption is never proven from Scripture.

Further, you are confusing scribal variation with textual corruption. The Masoretic tradition includes Qere and Kethib, orthographic notes, accentual marks, and marginal Masorah. These features are scribal aids, not inspired text. They do not represent corruption of the consonantal text. They represent the normal transmission of a preserved text through human hands. The Masoretes did not invent the Hebrew Bible. They transmitted the text they received.

Your citations concerning mixtures, eclectic readings, hybrid traditions, and multiple manuscripts do not touch the doctrine of preservation. They describe the Masoretic tradition rather than the inspired text. The underlying consonantal text, which Christ and the apostles affirmed, is the preserved text. The Masoretes were instruments of transmission rather than editors creating a new recension.

In short, your entire argument depends on extra biblical authorities, you are ignoring the doctrine of preservation entirely, and you are confusing scribal variation with textual corruption.

Until you address the doctrine of preservation itself, your citations cannot answer the actual issue.