Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: the King James Bible learned men translated the Ben Hayim edition of the Masoretic Text

  1. Default the King James Bible learned men translated the Ben Hayim edition of the Masoretic Text

    This myth fas led to confusions and errors galore.

  2. Default

    Many years back I showed the Ben Hayim pic to Shoonra. Here he helps with some detail information.

    Joshua 21:36-37
    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.

    Some detail about Joshua 21:36-37 is on a CARM thread.


    I add that C.D. Ginsburg's Massoretic-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed in 1894 by the Trinitarian Bible Society - and still in print! - provides the text of the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1525 as the main text ...

    What does it have for Psalm 22:16 and Joshua 21:36-37?

    Here is Ginsburg's 1894 edition:;seq=3

    For Psalm 22:17 it has "as a lion" (with a footnote to another verse mentioning a lion) (see also Ginsburg's 1897 Introduction, page 925)

    For Joshua 21:36-37, this edition contains those two verses, beginning "And from the Tribe of Reuben ...." but it has an extensive footnote attesting to the appearance of both verses in numerous early versions, early editions and some early manuscripts. Ginsburg's Introduction has several mentions of these verses, primarily pages 178-179. However, while Ginsburg's edition has the verses, the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1525, compiled by Ben-Chayyim, omitted those verses (apparently the earliest, or one of the earliest, printed editions to omit those verses).

    Early on, Riplinger was a great fan of the Second Rabbinic Bible, which she kept referring to as the Ben-Chayyim text. She had been convinced that the KJV translators had used the Ben-Chayyim edition (even though it would be scarce in England, was printed in four weighty folio volumes but without chapter or verse numbers, etc.). She even was once marketing copies of the 1852 Letteris Hebrew Bible as "a Ben-Chayyim edition" - which was wrong on more than one level; frankly, the 1525 Bible was the one and only Ben-Chayyim edition, other editions were (like Letteris's edition) worked up fresh with little or no reliance on Ben-Chayyim's edition. But of late Riplinger has done a reversal and disparages the Ben-Chayyim edition (it turned out that, contrary to her initial claims, it was demonstrable that the KJV was not a translation of the Ben-Chayyim edition). ...... It is, however, very significant that she has not pointed to another Hebrew edition as the foundation of the KJV OT, it is simply a big mysterious empty set.

    So on at least one two-verse major variant what you wrote earlier has to be corrected.

    The appearance of the two verses, Joshua 21:36-37, in Ginsburg's edition is an exception to his reliance on the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1525. The Second Rabbinic Bible omits the two verses but Ginsburg restored them on this basis of his extensive knowledge of other early editions. In his Introducton to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1897, London, Trinitarian Bible Society) page 965, Ginsburg says "... a modern editor is not bound to abide by Jacob b[en] Chayim's decisions. A striking illustration of this fact we have in the two verses of Joshua XXI, 36-37. We have seen that some of the best mss and all the early editions without exception have those two verses. Jacob b. Chayim, however, decided to omit in accordance with a certain School of Massorites, but we are perfectly justified in restoring them on the authority which we have adduced."

    (Don't be surprised that this passage is not well known; it is not listed in the book's index for Joshua XXI.) These two verses in Joshua resemble First Chronicles 6:63-64.

    The two Joshua verses do not appear in the Leningrad Codex, the Aleppo Codex, the Cairo Prophets scroll by Ben Asher, nor in the Second Rabbinic Bible. As a result several modern editions relegate these verses to a footnote.

    These two verses are lacking in the Second Rabbinic Bible (where there is a footnote referencing the parallel passage in First Chronicles 6), and also the Codex Leningrad and the Cairo Prophets (two mss that Ginsburg did not have an opportunity to study), which lends considerable support to modern editors who provide the missing text in a footnote. The two verses did appear in several early editions - many of them heavily influenced by Christian resources such as the Latin Vulgate - which Ginsburg was quite willing to find fault with on other verses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts