'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 1)
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Sun, 12 Apr 1998 16:15:35 -0700 (00892444535, 35314B17.637@bright.net)
Matthew Bell wrote:
>
> This post is sent in answer to those who ask my reasons for using the KJV
> over modern translations. It is in three parts (thanks Farrell), and is
> edited to reduce its size. I would of course appreciate any comments on
> the content.
>
> Thanks
> Matt Bell
>
> THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
> By Dr. D.A. Waite
>
> 'Dr. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of
> the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon
> Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in
> classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek
> Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors
> in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher
> certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible,
> Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced
> more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects.The following study
> is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible, which is
> available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey
> 08108. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: (1)
> SUPERIOR TEXTS (HEBREW ANDGREEK); (2) SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS; (3) SUPERIOR
> TECHNIQUE; and (4)
> SUPERIOR THEOLOGY.
>
> <snip>
>
> Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible:
>
> #1: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS. The first
> reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior texts, both Hebrew
> and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions
> of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek.
>
> THE KJV HAS A SUPERIOR O.T. HEBREW TEXT. There are two basic textsin
> existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one,
> edited by Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA
> HEBRAICA (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well
> as in the Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS) (1967-77) with all of
> their suggested footnote changes. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our
> KJV is based is also available. It is called the Daniel Bomberg
> edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry this Hebrew
> Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in
> 1866. It has the Masoretic Hebrew text in the center and the King James
> Bible in the margins. This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the fact,
> Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that texts
> and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad
> Manuscript (B19a or "L"). He used this because he claimed it was the oldest
> single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about 1008 A.D.
>
> Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their
> footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page. This adds up
> to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text.
> One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used
> as the basis for the O.T. in all modern versions, as can be shown by
> reading their introductory pages. How many of these changes in the Hebrew
> text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000? How about
> 20,000? 10,000? How about 5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you would
> like to accept 500 changes?
>
> If you do not start with an absolute, where there is no doubt, you're going
> to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you
> stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We
> don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must
> have an absolute.
>
> My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that
> underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but
> that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to
> anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have
> the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every
> Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He
> would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand
> generations."
>
> The New Versions attempt to "CORRECT" The Hebrew Text in at Least 19
> different ways. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way.In effect,
> the new version "translators/paraphrasers" might say, "Oh, I don't want
> to take this Hebrew word here. I want to take the Septuagint (LXX) reading
> instead." But the Septuagint (LXX) version for the most part is worse than
> a Living Version. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. It is rotten.
> Its text is corrupt. Even the ISBE article, (the International Standard
> Bible Encyclopedia) on the Septuagint (LXX) states that it has a very
> tattered and inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE is no friend of the
> King James Bible's text. The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new
> versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error.
>
> Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at
> all. It is pure conjecture. They might say, "I don't have any proof, but I
> think it sounds better this way." When this is done, they often
> print in the footnote an "L" which stands for "legendum," meaning in Latin,
> "which read." I remember Dr. Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas
> Theological Seminary. He has written many books,
> including Unger's Bible Dictionary. He was an apt and humble man, though he
> reminded me of an "absent-minded professor" at times. He taught us Isaiah
> in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way
> that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, "Why did you
> read it that way? It doesn't read that way in the Hebrew text?" Dr. Unger
> replied, "Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed
> it." Dr. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph.D. work. He
> was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Perhaps
> Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. What
> was Dr. Unger doing? He was "CORRECTING" the Hebrew text by conjecture.
>
> Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Syriac Version. Some "CORRECT" the
> Hebrew with just "a few Hebrew manuscripts" rather than the entire
> Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text. Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Latin
> Vulgate. Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the Dead
> Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems. Problem #1: How do you know which
> Hebrew manuscripts this
> heretical cult (called the Essenes) took with them when they left the
> temple of Jerusalem and went to the area of the Qumran caves? Problem
> #2:How do you know the methods they used and the accuracy with which they
> copied and recopied those manuscripts? It just so happens that the Dead Sea
> Scrolls, probably 99% of the time, did concur with the Hebrew text that
> underlies the King James Bible. But, in the places where they don't, we
> should stick to the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.
>
> Some, like the NIV, use "quotations from Jerome" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew
> text. Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jew, to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some
> use a "variant Hebrew Reading in the margin" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
> Some use "words in the consonantal text divided differently" to "CORRECT"
> the Hebrew text. Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan
> Pentateuch, or Symmachus to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use the Hebrew
> Targums, Theodotion, or the "Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms" to
> "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for
> the Hebrew Word of God? Was he there? Still others use a "different set of
> Hebrew Vowels" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use "an ancient Hebrew
> scribal tradition" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA of
> Kittel or Stuttgartensia to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. These
> are 19 of the different methods that other English versions have used to
> "CORRECT" the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus
> changing the very Words of God!
>
> God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The
> Jews were to be the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew text. God did not give
> that privilege and responsibility to any other race or people. "What
> advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much
> every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of
> God" (Ro. 3:1,2).
>
> It was the Hebrew O.T. text that God preserved, not some text in Greek,
> Latin, or Syriac, or any of these other documents. It must be Hebrew. There
> were eight or more important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew
> scribes who copied and recopied the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text. These rules
> were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of the Hebrew text was
> preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent in the copying and
> recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. That's why I believe that we should
> not change any of the Hebrew Words of God that underlie the KJV.'
>
> <snip>
> END OF PART ONE
HELEN:
Matt, the early Christian fathers and the New testament used the Greek
text called the Septuagint when they quoted the OT, which is very
different from any version of the Masoretic Hebrew OT text. Are you
saying the NT and the early church fathers were wrong to do this? The
reason so many scholars like the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew OT is because it
is closer to the Greek Septuagint used in the NT and therefore makes the
NT authors look slightly less foolish. I think your author Waite, should
first explain why he thinks the NT authors used the Greek Septuagint OT
before he gets into a petty dispute over which Masoretic Hebrew texts is
the more correct.
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net