The Great "She" Bible

[Deacon]

I just finished up teaching Ruth this morning in Adult Sunday Bible Study.
I didn't mention the curiosity of Ruth 3:15.
Thought I'd bring it up here instead.

Ebay offer: 1613 FOLIO King James Bible SHE Textually Complete RARE True Second Edition 1611 [LINK]

Yours for only $13,500.00 US!

King James 'She Bible' worth £50k found in village church [LINK]
A King James "She Bible" dating from 1611 and worth £50,000 has been discovered in a village church in Lancashire.
The Bible, which will be be displayed at St Mary's Parish Church in Gisburn in the Blackburn diocese on Saturday, was found by parish clergy Rev Anderson Jeremiah and Rev Alexander Baker.
It is known as the She Bible because Chapter 3 verse 15 of the Book of Ruth incorrectly reads: "And she went into the citie." This was an error introduced to the King James Bible of an earlier edition which had other errors, but which is known as the "He Bible" because this line from Ruth is correct.
The Antiquarian Booksellers' Association has authenticated the find. The Bible is rare, and other editions exist at Oxford and Cambridge universities and at Salisbury, Exeter and Durham cathedrals.

Text Comparison - Ruth 3:15b
AV 1611 | Ru 3:15b ...and he went into the citie.
‎AV 1732 | Ru 3:15b ...and fhe went into the city.
AV 1873 | ‎Ru 3:15b …and he went into the city.
1901 ASV | ‎Ru 3:15b …and he went into the city.
‎‎NRSV | ‎Ru 3:15b …then he went into the city.
NASB95 | ‎Ru 3:15b Then she went into the city.
ESV | ‎Ru 3:15b Then she went into the city.
NLT | ‎Ru 3:15b Then he returned to the town.
NKJV | ‎Ru 3:15b Then she went into the city.
HCSB | ‎Ru 3:15b … and she went into the town.
NET | ‎Ru 3:15b Then he went into town,
‎NIV | ‎Ru 3:15b Then he went back to town.

So... WHO WENT TO TOWN?

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

He did. The better Hebrew is masculine. The Vulgate and Syriac versions, including Castellio, Coverdale, and various other translators, but not Luther, have assumed that it should read וַתָּבְאֹ, "and she went," instead of וַיָּבְּאֹ, "and he went."

 

[wpe3bql]

So... WHO WENT TO TOWN?

I'm sure that "the former Bruce Jenner" would be able to tell you. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[wpe3bql]

The "Wicked" Bible Sells For Nearly $90,000

I recall reading that in 1631 a Bible was produced in which the word "not" was omitted from the text of Exodus 20:14.

I'm sure that a few eyebrows were raised when they read that version of the Seventh Commandment! :tonofbricks:

At any rate, I read that a copy of this so-called "Wicked Bible" was sold at an auction for close to $90,000.

Who said that there's not much money nowadays for just one mistake in the Bible

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He did. The better Hebrew is masculine. The Vulgate and Syriac versions, including Castellio, Coverdale, and various other translators, but not Luther, have assumed that it should read וַתָּבְאֹ, "and she went," instead of וַיָּבְּאֹ, "and he went."

Can you throw any further light on that? I notice that the various versions are split down the middle, so it can't be quite as simple as your post suggests. There is a centre column note in my NKJV which says, Many Hebrew MSS, Syriac, Vulgate She. Masoretic Text, Targum, He.

The NKJV tends to follow the KJV in giving priority to the M.T., so it's surprising to see them going against it. They must feel that they have good reason for doing so, and I notice that the ESV does the same.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can you throw any further light on that? I notice that the various versions are split down the middle, so it can't be quite as simple as your post suggests. There is a centre column note in my NKJV which says, Many Hebrew MSS, Syriac, Vulgate She. Masoretic Text, Targum, He.

The NKJV tends to follow the KJV in giving priority to the M.T., so it's surprising to see them going against it. They must feel that they have good reason for doing so, and I notice that the ESV does the same.

All this from an electrical supply house guy.....?!?.....Really???:laugh:

 

[Deacon]

Data Dump

Can you throw any further light on that?

Dead Sea Scrolls
4QRuth(a) (=2Q16) Content: Ruth 2:13–23; 3:1–8; 4:3–4, Significance: The text generally agrees with the MT. Supports the qere (i.e., the marginal reading in the MT) of Ruth 3:3.
4QRuth(b) (=2Q17) Ruth 3:13–18, Significance: The text and orthography generally agree with the MT.
4QRutha (=4Q106), Content: to be published in DJD 12, Date: uncertain
4QRuthb (=4Q107), Content: Ruth 1:1–2, 12–15, Date: uncertain

Various Commentaries...

וַיָּבֹא הָעִיר, “Then he went up to the city.” The majority of modern translations (e.g., JB, NAS, NEB, NJPS, RSV, TEV) and many recent commentators adopt the reading “she went up” here, a reading attested by a considerable number of Hebrew MSS, Syr., and Vg. But the MT reading of the masculine, referring to Boaz, is clearly to be preferred (cf. NRSV). In the second place, as Rudolph (56) and Sasson (98) have observed, such an emendation means that a very short clause beginning ותבוא would both close v 15 and open v 16, an inelegant redundancy hardly to be expected from a writer whose mastery of style has been evident throughout. Second, the main actor in the preceding sequence of clauses has been Boaz, so it is entirely expected that our narrator will finish describing what Boaz did before turning to tell of Ruth’s actions. Indeed, without this clause, we would hear nothing about any further actions of Boaz until the opening clause of the next act in 4:1.
Bush, F. W. (1998). Ruth, Esther (Vol. 9, p. 179). Dallas: Word Biblical Commentary.

************

This scene closes on a confusing note. According to the Masoretic text, the last sentence in v. 15 has Boaz going back to the town. This is unexpected, not only because Ruth is the one who has just been preparing to leave the threshing floor, but also because Boaz has more work to do there. Recognizing this problem, the Syriac and Vulgate versions have changed the masculine verb form (wayyābōʾ) into a feminine form (wattābōʾ), a reading followed by most modern translations. The NIV (also NRSV) is surely right in preserving the masculine, however, not only on the principle of lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading is preferred), but also as the narrator’s way of highlighting Boaz’s eagerness to resolve the issue that has been raised overnight. The narrator assumes the audience/reader knows that Ruth will have left after Boaz had poured the grain on the cape and placed it on her shoulder. But without a statement concerning Boaz, there is no transition from his location at the field in chap. 3 to his presence in town in chap. 4.
Block, D. I. (1999). Judges, Ruth (Vol. 6, pp. 698). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

*************

Of modern translations only Dhorme and NAB make Boaz the subject of the event. Compare NAB: “he poured out six measures of barley, helped her lift the bundle and left for the city.” Of modern commentators only Gerleman seems to be in favor of this more difficult reading. The feminine preformative is found in 17 manuscripts Kennicott and in 37 manuscripts de Rossi and is further supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate. However, Barthélemy favors the more difficult reading with a “C” evaluation, page 133.
Waard, J. de, & Nida, E. A. (1991). A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth (2nd ed.). New York: United Bible Societies.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks for that! :wavey:
Very interesting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

All this from an electrical supply house guy.....?!?.....Really???:laugh:

I'm retired now, so I can spend my time in self-improvement. :tongue3:

 

[Deacon]

I'm just a nurse....

**************

Robert Alter's translation is "...and she came into the town." and he makes no comment on his choice. (Strong as Death is Love, 2015)

The book of Ruth is strongly chiastic. I've not seen anything supporting the use of "she" based upon this but I wonder...

An Adjusted Symmetrical Structuring of Ruth [LINK] by A. Boyd Luter and Richard O. Rigsby, Liberty Univ. 1996.

Rob

 

[rsr]

I would guess that most KJVs in the pews today have "she" because the 18th century Oxford/Cambridge editions read that way. In e-Sword, for example, the KJV 1611 has "he" but the KJV with Strong's has "she." Biblegateway also has "she."

I've read, but can't verify, that some Zondervan KJVs have "he" based on Scrivener. David Norton's new Cambridge edition follows suit.

Jack Lewis, writing in Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible, said it is not entirely certain whether the "he" or "she" Bible was the first edition, and "To add to the confusion, some sheets of one edition were bound with sheets of the other edition in some copies."

So -- is this "straining at a gnat" or, as Scrivener prefers, "straining out a gnat?"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So -- is this "straining at a gnat" or, as Scrivener prefers, "straining out a gnat?"

I think it is. Both Ruth and Boaz end up back in town. In the great scheme of things we don't have to worry too much about which one is being referred to.

BTW, "out" is better than "at." Think tea-strainer.

 

[TCassidy]

Interesting rabbit trail.

Matthew 23:24:

Wiclif - 1380: blinde leders clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel.

Tyndale - 1525: Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll.

Great Bible - 1539: ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camell.

Geneva Bible - 1560: Ye blynde guydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel.

Bishops Bible - 1568: Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.

Rheims - 1582: Blinde guides, that straine a gnat, and swallow a camel.

It looks as if the KJV translators followed the Rheims Catholic version while adding the word "at."

They certainly, for whatever reason, departed from the reading of the Bishop's Bible, which the KJV was a revision of.

 

[rsr]

It looks as if the KJV translators followed the Rheims Catholic version while adding the word "at."

Perhaps. Yet even the DR's "strain" can be construed as "strain out," but certainly not "strain at."

Moreover, David Norton, in his 2011 "A Textual History of the King James Bible," (for the 400th anniversary of the first edition) says that the Oxford English Dictionary has citations showing that "strain at" was previously used to denote "strain out" and the KJV translators adopted a contemporary idiom. (Gasp!) Thus, he says, it is not a mistranslation.

Whether it was a wise one is open to question. The OED also shows that the phrase was already by 1609 -- by Shakespeare, no less -- misconstrued as involving intense effort. I also am not able to determine whether the OED quotations were available to Scrivener.

I am unable to quote the OED. I will have to go to the library, because I don't have $295 lying around to access it online. And I am intrigued by Norton's book, though, again, I don't have the extra hundred bucks or so to acquire it. I must check with interlibrary loan. Norton's work seems exhaustive, perhaps on par with Scrivener.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I am unable to quote the OED. ...

Maybe this will work; see post #29 by Antenna Farmer. The whole thread is worth reviewing.

https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35381&highlight=gnat&page=3

 

[rsr]

They would seem to be the ones. And little did I know that the OED thesaurus was online for free.

a1592 R. Greene Mamillia (1593) ii. sig. B3v, Most vniustly straining at a gnat, and letting passe an elephant.
1597 Bp. J. King Lect. Jonas xxi. 284 They haue verified the old proverbe, in straining at gnattes, and swallowing downe camelles...

The OED also suggests that as early as 1609 that "strain at" had come to mean something else, possibly exemplified in Shakespeare's use in Troilus and Cressida, that is, to make a violent effort. The earliest quotation supporting "strain at" to mean "strain out" appears to be from 1592, according to the OED.

Thus, I think that Norton is correct that "strain at" meant "strain out" to the Translators, but that usage passed out of currency fairly quickly, so much so that later revisers adopted "strain out" uniformly.

 

[Logos1560]

It is known as the She Bible because Chapter 3 verse 15 of the Book of Ruth incorrectly reads: "And she went into the citie."

There were also some other differences between a 1611 She Bible and a 1611 He Bible.

In an appendix in his 2005 book entitled A Textual History of the KJB, David Norton listed the differences between a 1611 She Bible and a 1611 He Bible.

Following the 1611 “She” edition, the 1873 Cambridge edition of the KJV by Scrivener has “possession“ for “possessions“ (Gen. 47:27), “ye shall“ for “shall ye“ (Lev. 18:30), “thou shalt“ for “shalt thou“ (Num. 10:2), “the valleys“ for “valleys“ (Deut. 8:7), “it is true“ for “it be true“ (Deut. 17:4), “she rose“ for “she arose“ (1 Kings 3:20), “bondman“ for “bondmen“ (1 Kings 9:22), “maidens“ for “maids“ (Job 19:15), “thine hand“ for “thy hand“ (Isa. 64:8), “mine hands” for “my hands” (Isa. 65:2), “mine hand” for “my hand” (Jer. 25:15, Ezek. 6:14), “with the sword“ for “by the sword“ (Ezek. 31:18), “in pieces“ for “to pieces“ (Dan. 2:34), and “they be drunken“ for “they are drunken“ (Nahum 1:10)..