Yuku free message boards

In Michael Sproul's book, God's Word Preserved: A Defense of Historic Separatist Definitions and Beliefs, he cites in a footnote the data from Dr James A. Price of Tennessee Temple regarding the differences between the Ben Asher and Ben Chayyim texts.

If one disregards the mere use or non-use of vowel-letters (the matres lectionis) which do not affect meaning, the end result is only a very few places where meaning actually is different between the two types of Massoretic text. None of these affect doctrine.

I don't have the book at hand, but on the internet I found what appears to be an accurate list claiming nine (9) places of difference:

"The ben Chayyim and the ben Asher, differ in only nine places that would affect translation: 1 Kings 20:38; Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12."

www.puritanboard.com/foru...ote=155940

One more tidbit pertinent to the KJVO disparagement of the Ben Asher text as opposed to Ben Chayyim (even with only 9 translatable differences!) is the level of misleading and misdirecting propaganda that emanates from the KJVO side on this manner. Compare, for example, the declamations of D.A. Waite on this matter (from his pamphlet, "Four Reasons for Defending the King James Bible", available at various locations on the internet). Note how Waite cleverly *diverts* the discussion from the almost exact identity of both texts to the "footnotes" -- almost of all which relating to versional and manuscript readings appeared in earlier *Ben Chayyim* critical editions as well (Waite conveniently does not mention this fact!):

=========================

"A. THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS A SUPERIOR OLD TESTAMENT
HEBREW TEXT

"1. The Two Competing Hebrew Old Testament Texts.

"There are two basic texts in 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 KING JAMES BIBLE 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 unquestioned Hebrew text for the next 400 years. Nobody questioned it. In fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that text in his BIBLIA HEBRAICA.

[COMMENT: and those 1906/1912 editions also contained the same critical footnotes to which Waite now misdirects his readers, and thereby attempts to change the focus of the argument:]

"It was not until 1937, that he switched Hebrew 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.

[COMMENT: But surprise of surprises, so also did the 1906/1912 Ben Chayyim editions! Why does Waite not tell his readers this tidbit? But now the propaganda machine revs up magnificently:]

"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 Old Testament in virtually 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?

[COMMENT: *None* of the material displayed in the footnotes *changes* either of the base Hebrew texts, which as noted differ from each other translationally only nine (9) times! Waite's *entire* rhetoric here is nothing more than a diversionary red herring and totally irrelevant to the issue!].

"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 Old Testament on which our KING JAMES BIBLE is based. We must have an absolute."

====================

So, then....Waite declaims the Ben Asher text on the basis of its diabolical "differences" from the text of Ben Chayyim, even though these differences amount to nine (9) translatable matters, *none* of which affect doctrine! But to make his point, Waite appeals to the numerous variations cited in the *footnotes* of the BHK or BHS editions, conveniently neglecting to note that the earlier Ben Chayyim editions of 1906/1912 contained virtually the *same* body of notes regarding variant readings.

Let me make this even more clear by restating Waite's argument by reference to TR editions:

==================================

The TR editions of Erasmus did *not* show *any* variant readings (God be praised!); perhaps there were none at that time? (I speak as a fool).

But when Stephens printed his 1550 "Textus Receptus" edition, he included (horrors!) "variant readings" taken from more than a *dozen* manuscripts (more horrors!).

This was followed by Mill, who in 1707 printed a TR Greek NT that contained perhaps *30,000* variant readings in its apparatus (horrendously scandalous!).

Not to be outdone, Wetstein's TR edition of 1751 contained even *more* variant readings than that!

It does not matter that the basic TR *text* of those editions remained nearly identical -- in fact, most TR editions differ in regard to about 200 readings! -- the appearance of all those satanic variant readings in the apparatus makes it clear that no one can trust *any* edition beyond those of Erasmus!

To paraphrase Waite: "How many of these changes in the GREEK 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?"

[COMMENT: No matter that in *none* of these TR editions are the *footnotes* in any way "changing" the base text: the very fact that such footnotes *exist* allows the transference to be made in exactly the same manner as Waite did in relation to the Hebrew editions].

Note to reader: *disregard* the fact that the ca. 200 differences in the text of the various TR editions *exceeds* dramatically the nine (9) differences between the Ben Asher and Ben Chayyim Hebrew texts! Also, disregard the fact that even the five editions of Erasmus differ among themselves *more* than the Ben Asher and Ben Chayyim Hebrew texts. Our minds are made up; don't confuse the issue with factual statistics!

=====================

This should clearly make the point, and illustrate the bait-and-switch deception which is typical of even the strongest of the KJVO "defenders".

That is not a "real" difference between Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher, since the issue is tied in with a Qeri/Kethiv reading, dependent solely on the presence or absence of the vowel-letter Aleph in the middle of the word. Different scribes included or excluded vowel letters according to their own proclivities, as is well known, and these Qeri/Kethiv readings are well marked in the various Hebrew manuscripts, whether of the Ben Chayyim or Ben Asher variety.

The "real" differences already tabulated between the Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher texts are those where the reading clearly differs and where no Qeri/Kethiv appears.