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.

 

[Logos1560]

You are also ignoring the doctrine of preservation entirely.

I am not ignoring the doctrine of preservation entirely as you falsely allege. I am not defending a reconstructionist model as you incorrectly allege unless you are admitting or suggesting that the process of the making of the Hebrew Masoretic text involved reconstruction and restoration. My entire argument does not depend on extra-biblical authorities.

You may be depending on your private understanding and interpretations that conflict with the actual historical facts. You continue 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.

 

[Logos1560]

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.

KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth, p. 59). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic, p. 31). Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, Part 1, p. 107).

 

[Logos1560]

Is there any other evidence that the Hebrew Old Testament text read and approved by Jesus may not be every letter and every word the same as the post-800 A. D. Masoretic text or as the printed 1524 Masoretic text?

Arthur Farstad indicated that the Masoretic Text and the Targum in Psalm 22:16 read "Like a lion my hands and my feet" while the KJV translators followed the reading of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac "they pierced My hands and My feet" (The NKJV, p. 98). Concerning Psalm 22:16, KJV defender Edward F. Hills asserted that "the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p. 223; Text, p. 370). Edward F. Hills noted that John “Calvin observes [this Masoretic text reading] was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ” (Ibid.).

In his commentary on the book of Psalms, Rabbi Abraham Cohen (1887-1957) wrote: “A.V. and R.V. render they pierce, adopting the reading of the LXX, to accord with the Christological interpretation of the Psalm” (p. 64). Eitan Bar wrote: “In the Masoretic text (the authoritative version of the Hebrew Bible used universally by Jews today), the phrase was altered by the change of a single letter—turning ‘they have pierced’ into ‘like a lion’” (Refuting Rabbinic, p. 13). Gail Riplinger claimed that “in Psalm 22:16, the Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible preserve ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’” (Hazardous, p. 1003). Concerning Psalm 22:16, Lawrence Bednar maintained that “the KJB, like true ancient versions of history, follows the LXX here instead of the normal Hebrew” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 39). Lawrence Bednar asserted: “The Masoretic has, like a lion my hands and my feet, and the LXX amplifies the verse to reveal it as Messianic, rendering, they pierced my hands and my feet” (Ibid.). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The existence of an amplified edition paralleling the standard Hebrew text, and circulated in late pre-New Testament times in an original Septuagint, is indicated by Psalm 22:16” (Evidence, p. 286).

James D. Price listed the Masoretic Text reading at Psalm 22:16 as “like a lion” and gave the KJV’s reading “they pierced” as a justifiable emendation of the Hebrew text supported by most ancient Versions (King James Onlyism, p. 564). David Croteau and Gary Yates wrote: “The alternate reading ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’ comes from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, and is also reflected in the Syriac and Latin Vulgate versions” (Urban Legends, p. 140). James VanderKam and Peter Flint claimed: “The Gospel writers quote from the Greek Bible, which reads, ‘They have pierced my hands and feet’” (Meaning, p. 125). Samuel Davidson asserted: “The Masoretic text and punctuation allow but one sense, ‘like a lion my hands and my feet,‘ but this is thought unsuitable to the preceding context, ‘the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me’” (On a Fresh Revision, p. 38). Concerning this verse, Cunningham Didham maintained that this is an “instance of a superfluous Aleph in the Hebrew, whereby a great testimony in behalf of the Messiah is set aside by the received text” (New Translation, p. 119).

Did the KJV translators translate literally what each or every word of their printed Hebrew Masoretic text says at Psalm 22:16? Since the KJV translators seem to have rejected the Masoretic text reading in this one verse, would the inconsistent and faulty reasoning of KJV-only advocates in effect demand that they use none of a text if it has even one scribal error in it? Was it supposedly incorrect translating if the KJV translators did not translate literally what was before them in their Hebrew Masoretic text at Psalm 22:16? If a professed biblicist questions what the Hebrew stated at Psalm 22:16 and instead accepts the KJV’s emendation based on the Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, etc., does that mean that he questions the entire Hebrew Masoretic text? Would Chris Sherburne say shame on the KJV “for ‘sometimes’ changing the Masoretic Hebrew to agree with the Septuagint” (Enough, p. 105). Does a KJV-only view open the door to textual criticism of the Hebrew Masoretic text at Psalm 22:16?

 

[Logos1560]

Yosef Ofer asserted: “This edition of Miqraot Gedolot [Great Scriptures] [known also as the Second Rabbinic Bible] contains many typographical errors, unacceptable versions and failures to conform to the Masora. But from then on anyone concerned with the Masora had a uniform edition” (Masora, p. 205). Israel Yeivin suggested that Rabbi Menahem di Lonzano in his treatise Or Torah printed in 1618 “corrects many of the printer’s errors in V [Venice Bible edition of 1524-5--Second Rabbinic Bible] and in other editions” (Introduction, pp. 146-147). Page Kelley, Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford wrote: “Lonzano’s work is significant because he discusses errors in the Second Rabbinic Bible which were corrected in subsequent editions” (Masorah, p. 26).

Israel Yeivin maintained that Rabbi Shelomo Yedidyah Norzi [Jedidiah Solomon Norzi] (1560-1616), author of Minhat Shay, “deals with the errors in the best editions of his day—particularly in V (relying heavily on Menahem di Lonzano’s corrections to the Torah of that edition)” (Introduction, p. 147). Israel Yeivin pointed out that Norzi’s book was printed “as a commentary to the Bible below the text in the Mantua edition of 1742-4” and “in most ‘Rabbinic’ Bibles” (Ibid.). Israel Yeivin claimed that Norzi’s book “is considered the final authority in matters of textual tradition” (Ibid.). Barry Levy wrote: “One of the most informative lists of sources used to fix the Bible text as that of Yedidiah Solomon Norzi” (Fixing, p. 21). Barry Levy noted: “Norzi admitted that he did not even try to handle fully the spelling problems in the postpentateuchal books” (p. 9). Barry Levy wrote: “Kabbalah’s importance to Norzi can be sampled via a brief perusal of his introduction, which is nicely seasoned with quotations from the Zohar” (p. 135). Yosef Ofer asserted: “Since 1742 [Norzi’s] Minhat Shai has been the predominant influence, to this day many hundreds of [Hebrew] editions have used it” (Masora, p. 206).

Since all printing errors in the 1524-5 Second Rabbinic Bible may not have been identified and corrected until 1618 or until 1742, did the KJV translators follow any of them?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Yosef Ofer asserted
Arthur Farstad indicated
Israel Yeivin maintained
Rabbi Shelomo Yedidyah Norzi wrote
Gail Riplinger claimed
James D. Price listed
Lawrence Bednar maintained
Rabbi Abraham Cohen wrote
James VanderKam and Peter Flint claimed
Barry Levy noted

All you have are extra‑biblical sources, which means you have nothing but the opinions of men and diversions. And because you rely on nothing but the opinions of men, you have established nothing at all. You are not presenting textual facts. You are presenting the opinions of later editors, later printed editions, later scholars, and later catalogues. None of these define the doctrine of preservation, and none of them determine what the Masoretes actually did. You are treating extra‑biblical authorities as if they carry biblical authority. They do not.

Preservation is not established by Yeivin, Levita, Norzi, Ofer, Kelley, Price, Lanier, Ross, Law, Longenecker, or any other post‑Masoretic writer. Preservation is established by Scripture’s own testimony and by the actual Masoretic practice: the written consonantal text was transmitted, not reconstructed; the reading tradition was preserved, not invented.

Your citations describe what later observers thought about the text. They do not redefine the text, they do not overturn preservation, and they do not establish a reconstructionist model. Extra‑biblical opinions are not the standard of truth. Scripture is.

Until you address preservation on biblical grounds rather than on the accumulated opinions of later editors, there is nothing further to debate.

 

[Logos1560]

All you have are extra‑biblical sources, which means you have nothing but the opinions of men and diversions.

You merely try to dismiss and avoid strong documented evidence and verifiable facts. The observation of the sources cited may carry more weight than your opinions and your diversions away from the facts. You are presenting your opinions about the Hebrew Masoretic text instead of providing any documented evidence that proves your opinions to be true.

I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I accept preservation on biblical grounds. The Bible teachings concerning preservation do not suggest that God is responsible when men omit words in copying, add words in copying, or change words in copying. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. According to these scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the pure words of God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Bible teachings concerning preservation do not suggest that God is responsible when men omit words in copying, add words in copying, or change words in copying.

If man preserved Scripture, your conclusion would follow. But Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word, down to the number of the noun (“seed” vs. “seeds”) and down to the smallest stroke (“jot and tittle”). Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture do not redefine preservation as requiring perfect scribal behavior. They define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

The Masoretes transmitted the text they received.

You do not prove your opinion or assertion to be true. God does not say that what you claim or assert is what was preserved is identical to the same exact words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

In addition, you are skipping over the long period of time from the original giving of the Old Testament to the time of the Masoretes around 600 to 800 A. D. It is in the period from the destruction of the Temple in A. D. 70 until the making of Aquila's Greek New Testament around A. D. 130 or 140 when some Jews may have introduced some changes to the Hebrew text. The text the Masoretes received may have already been revised or changed during the period from around A. D. 70 until around A. D. 140.

Norman Geisler and William Nix asserted: “About the year A. D. 100 a revised edition of the standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament was established” (General Introduction, p. 505). Frank Moore Cross noted: “These studies seemed to establish that in the first century CE, the rabbis had fixed an authoritative Hebrew text, chosen arbitrarily from the more or less fluid textual traditions alive in the pre-Christian period, and that this official text in effect destroyed all variant lines of tradition in normative Judaism” (Ancient Library, p. 125). Page Kelley, Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford wrote: “The consonantal text which is the basis of the Masoretic text (M) attained ascendancy over other Hebrew textual traditions during the Second Temple period and became authoritative by the second century C. E.” (Masorah, p. 31).

While during the period 200 B. C. until 100 A. D., there existed a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text that was later standardized into the post-A. D. 800 Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide clear evidence that there also existed another Hebrew text that is the presumed Hebrew source for the old Greek Septuagint.

One additional evidence of an apparent revision or redaction of the Hebrew text as indicated by Christian Ginsburg and others and one evidence of the existence of a pre-A.D. 100 old Greek Septuagint would be Aquila’s Greek Old Testament translation made around A. D. 125 to 140. S. Douglas Woodward claimed: “That the rabbis felt it necessary to see a new Greek Bible produced to change what the LXX recorded proves that the LXX was real and existed beforehand. It was exactly because the LXX had become the Christian Bible in the first century that the order went out early in the second century to recreate a new Greek Bible with Akiba’s changes baked in” (Septuagint, p. 231). The Jewish Encyclopedia maintained that Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph wished “to emancipate the Jews of the Dispersion from the domination of the Septuagint” (Vol. I, p. 306). In the introduction to his English translation of the Septuagint, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton wrote: “The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century [A. D.] was that of AQUILA” (p. v). Lancelot Brenton noted: “His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint; his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus” (Ibid.).

William Whitaker (1547-1595) asserted that Aquila “translated the scriptures of the Old Testament into Greek, but not with faithfulness or sincerity, but with a depraved and perverse intention of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of Christ” (Disputation, p. 123). Francis Turretin claimed that Aquila “translated the Old Testament in order to corrupt the prophecies concerning Christ” (Institutes, Vol. I, p. 124). In 1752, John Jackson (1686-1763) wrote: “From these corrupt Hebrew copies, Aquila was employed to make a new Greek translation in opposition to that of the LXXII used by the Christians, in which, as Epiphanius, who was learned in the Hebrew tongue, tells us, he perverted the readings of several texts out of opposition to the version of the LXXII and to invalidate the prophecies concerning Christ” (Chronological, Vol. I, p. 93). William Hales wrote: “Aquila is charged by Epiphanius with wrestling Scripture, contrary to the interpretation of the Septuagint version, to a different sense, in order to invalidate the testimonies concerning CHRIST” (New Analysis, p. 276). K. H. Jobes and Moises Silva wrote: “Aquila eventually undertook a new Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that (a) was based on the recently standardized Hebrew text; (b) sought to correct perceived deficiencies in the LXX, including those that affected Jewish-Christian disputes; and (c) adopted a very literalistic approach that possibly reflected certain rabbinic methods of interpretation” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 408).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Norman Geisler and William Nix asserted:

William Whitaker (1547-1595) asserted

Frank Moore Cross noted:

Lancelot Brenton noted:

Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton wrote:

The Jewish Encyclopedia maintained

William Hales wrote:

Page Kelley, Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford wrote:

Douglas Woodward claimed:

The words of men.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word, down to the number of the noun (“seed” vs. “seeds”) and down to the smallest stroke (“jot and tittle”). Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture do not redefine preservation as requiring perfect scribal behavior. They define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

The words of men.

Your response is the words of a man. I have not questioned what God has done. You keep trying to create strawman distortions of my scripturally-based position.

According to what specific measures or objective standards, do you suggest that you are the one who determines or identifies where God's words are preserved every letter and every word perfect?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your response is the words of a man. I have not questioned what God has done. You keep trying to create strawman distortions of my scripturally-based position.

According to what specific measures or objective standards, do you suggest that you are the one who determines or identifies where God's words are preserved every letter and every word perfect?

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word, down to the number of the noun (“seed” vs. “seeds”) and down to the smallest stroke (“jot and tittle”). Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.


The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture do not redefine preservation as requiring perfect scribal behavior. They define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.


Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe.

That is not my argument as you incorrectly allege and repeat. Your repeating your strawman misrepresentation does not make it become true. Your bogus accusations seem to be a diversion.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That is not my argument as you incorrectly allege and repeat. Your repeating your strawman misrepresentation does not make it become true. Your bogus accusations seem to be a diversion.

Your very words:

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

 

[Logos1560]

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

My very words do not say what your strawman misrepresentation says.

Are you rejecting the truths stated in the verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) to which I appealed?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My very words do not say what your strawman misrepresentation says.

You clearly said that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the claim that preservation depends on scribal accuracy. You are now denying the conclusion of your own premise. That is tergiversation. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am quoting your own.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation fails when a scribe omits, adds, or changes a word. Scripture teaches the opposite. Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.