Sometimes anti-perfect preservationists, opponents of the perfectly preserved Word in the Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus, argue that the presence of the kethiv / qere in the Hebrew Old Testament proves that Scripture has not been perfectly preserved. While this is not the easiest issue to address for someone who does not know Hebrew, the Christian who accepts God’s promises of preservation (Psalm 12:6-7; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 28:19-20; Revelation 22:18-19, etc.) should have an answer to people who attempt to cast doubt on God’s promises to keep His Words from the presence of the kethiv / qere.
In the Hebrew text, the kethiv / qere are notes indicating that a given word is written (kethiv) one way but is to be read (qere) a different way. Anti-preservationists typically assert that the kethiv / qere are textual variants, similar to the footnotes in a NA27 or UBS5 Greek NT. The vast majority of the time this is simply assumed, not proven. However, anti-preservationists must justify this assumption. Why is there always only one qere / kethiv pair if the qere is a textual variant? Were there never, ever multiple variants?
Anti-preservationists must also prove that the traditional Jewish view of the kethiv / qere is incorrect (see my essay Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points for sources):
The Talmud clearly speaks of the Kethiv/Qere distinction and other textual distinctions considered Masoretic, and traces them to Moses at Sinai.
Said R. Isaac, “The correct text of Scripture deriving from the scribes, the embellishments of the letters derived from the scribes, the words that are read in the text not as they are spelled out, the words that are spelled out but not read—all represent law revealed by God to Moses at Sinai.”
“The correct text of Scripture deriving from the scribes”: These are the words in Hebrew for land, heaven, Egypt [where the tone vowels are lengthened, but nothing in the lettering indicates this change].
Up until quite recently the Kethiv/Qere were “by all writers, allowed to be, at the least, nearly as old as the Times of Ezra; and by many of the ancient Jewish Writers they are taken to be as old, as the Text, to which they belong” (pg. 286, Whitfield, A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points).
Note as well that a variety of explanations can be made by for the kethiv / qere by advocates of perfect preservation other than (alleged) corruption in the Hebrew text by following the standard harmonizing practice of old Jewish interpreters such as Kimchi, to explain the existence of both readings. For example, Whitfield explains the three instances in Psalm 71:20 of the same kethiv / qere by writing: “I cannot think it probable, three Mistakes of the same kind could, any how happen in the Compass of one Verse. Supposing the points as ancient as we are endeavouring to prove them, I believe this Diversity in this, and some other places, betwixt the reading by the Letters and by the points, was originally designed by the Holy Penman, perhaps to shew that the Import of the place might be applied to himself as a single Person, or to the Community whereof he was the Head” (pg. 198, A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points).
There are “things hard to be understood” in the kethiv / qere, and no one explanation (including the modern anti-preservation one) easily explains all the data. I believe a perfect preservationist would do well to take seriously the traditional Jewish view that both readings were present from the time Moses gave the law at Sinai, although I think it is also possible that (under inspiration, as for the book of Ezra itself, etc.) Ezra could have put at least some of them in because, perhaps, of pronunciation changes over time. After all, Ezra is about 1,000 years after Moses and pronunciation can change in 1,000 years very, very easily. Why could not (for example) the kethiv / qere (“to him,” English) in Job 13:15 have represented a way to convey the idea of “to him” in Hebrew in the time in which Job (as I believe) penned the book of Job (the kethiv) but by the times of Ezra the qere have represented the way to convey this same idea, and so both accurately be represented in the KJV translation?
Jews and Christians have been aware of the kethiv / qere in the Hebrew Old Testament for millennia without adopting the modern notion that their presence indicates a failure on God’s part to preserve His Words or the presence of corruption in the text. There is no need whatsoever to abandon traditional explanations for their presence and reject the plain meaning of texts on verbal, plenary preservation because of their presence.
Please see my essays The Battle Over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points and Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points for more information. (Note: material in these essays, especially the second one, can get technical and difficult to follow unless one knows Hebrew.)
An anti-preservationist? How can a person who is discussing a thousands of years old manuscript be an anti-preservationist?
Larry,
Our expectations should be regulated by scripture. I don't think we should lower those expectations based upon modern, non-historical, unbiblical views. We should expect perfect preservation, just like we expect perfect inspiration. This is how Christians thought. That's changed, but if we're going to understand that change, it should come with a previously established doctrinal reason. That is living by faith, not by sight.
An example I would think that you still believe and practice is harmonization. You regulate your explanation of harmonization based upon your doctrine of inspiration. You don't, like liberals, change your doctrine of inspiration to conform to "errors." That's just one illustration. I think Thomas would do well to answer though since it's his post, not mine.
I know "anti-preservationist" stings, but there can't be two views of preservation, the 100% or the 98% or the 93% view. Those are different. Some scripture is given by inspiration is different than all scripture is given by inspiration, just as another example. This is how scripture teaches truth.
Actually, my point was that "Anti-preservationist" is meaningless. It it wasn't preserved, it would not be here. No one is "anti-preservationist" unless they believe it doesn't exist. There not only can be two views of preservation (though you list three). There are more than two.
So your response doesn't address my comment at all.
However, to respond to your comment, I agree our expectations should be regulated by Scripture. The issue is what Scripture teaches. The idea of perfect preservation is not from the Scripture. That was from a later view imposed on the Scripture with a requisite jump to a perfectly preserved text that actually isn't perfectly preserved and has no scriptural evidence behind it. In other words, even if you were to prove from Scripture the existence of a perfectly preserved text, you could not, from Scripture, identify which text it is. This is how Christians think.
Larry,
I just want you to know that you are thin skinned for a person with a public presence. I'm kidding, referring to a discussion on another thread, but I thought it would be a good example for those folks.
Anti-preservationists don't believe it is here, at least every word isn't "here," I guess, depending on what "here" means, which to me means accessible. I don't know of anyone on your side that believes we have access to every word like they believe in access, in a hand written copy somewhere. Your view is that we can't identify it with certainty. Please correct me if I'm wrong (that was a sensitive comment).
I think it is two views, we have them all accessible or we don't have them all accessible. Of those who don't believe they are accessible, there are different takes, yes. It's like salvation by works or not by works — among the works people there are many varying views. Exclusively through Jesus or not through Jesus. This issue is like those. I think you agree, but I get your not saying it. It's a tough one.
Perfect preservation is in scripture and was what was believed by Christians as a whole, until the 19th century. We may have gone around and around on this already. There are a lot of theological similarities on a lot of issues that you believe and practice like I do on this issue, but you don't on this issue. Believers have believed that we will know what the words are, like they have believed we will know what the books are, even though there isn't a verse that says 66 books. I think you still believe that and you would use scripture to argue it, I imagine, even though scripture doesn't identify the 66 books. You would the exact same reasoning, I believe. It's truth in the real world.
There are many other doctrines like this, and we are presupposed to have certain things that we can't prove like you would require proof on this issue. My conclusion is the conclusion people came to based on evidence, which is scripture. Scripture is evidence, so we just believe. I don't believe my lying eyes, because scripture is the pure mother's milk and with God there is no variableness nor shadow of turning. It couldn't be the critical text or the majority text because those two didn't exist. They weren't preserved to be used. Again, I think we've gone around on this, and I get that you don't like anti=preservationist, because you know the Bible teaches that, when you are saying that it doesn't. If it doesn't then don't feel bad about not believing something it doesn't teach. I wouldn't.
Dear Larry,
The original copy of the post said "anti-perfect preservationist" and defined it carefully at the very beginning. Perhaps that part of the post dropped out in your copy and that is why you asked your question.
Restoring the original reading will answer the question in your first comment.
Thanks.
Kent,
I may be thin-skinned, though I am not sure what other discussion you are referring to. I am not bothered by this, but I find it an unfortunate choice of words. I think we have a duty to be precise in our communication, particularly in the article itself.
I do notice that the original line says "anti-perfect preservationists" (my apologies to Thomas). It later says anti-preservationists.
So my point was only that regardless of what one believes about preservation (perfect, multitude, mostly, text family, English, promised, not promised, etc.), the fact that something exists means it was preserved. So everyone believes in preservation unless someone believes we have no Bible at all.
By more than two views, I think you agree that there are multiple views of how preservation works such as I listed above. Yes, in one sense it is "perfect vs. imperfect" or "all vs. some." But it is more than that.
You keep saying perfect preservation is the teaching of Scripture (and I have read some of your stuff on it), but you always stop short of actually using Scripture to teach that and show it. I understand you can't do that. You are depending on non-scriptural premises in the argument. There is no Scripture that identifies the text you have identified. One could believe in your position of perfect preservation and, with equal scriptural authority, declare it to be the UBS 3 or 4, or any other text. You have simply substituted your judgment for the authority of Scripture on this point.
Saying the church has historically received it in a certain way is to recreate history. It is also undermined by the fact that the church doesn't receive it now, by and large. So you have to change horses midstream to abandon your church authority argument because the church no longer believes what you claim Christians always believed. Personally, I think you know better; you know it isn't a sound argument.
Larry,
Someone in the comment section called me thin-skinned. I thought you may have seen it, but just in case, I said, I was kidding, because we probably come across similarly. I have a dream that someday men will be judged not by the thinness of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Different words can't have the same authority. If scripture says every word, which it does, not one jot or tittle, which it does, words shall not pass away, which it does, "my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever," which it does, and many more than these, then we should just believe it, like believers have, up until the mid to late 19th century.
I really don't get your entire last paragraph, at all, including the mind reading.
Scripture doesn't identify 66 books, but I'm guessing you use scripture for an argument for canonicity. I see your view as a faithless view. You don't believe God would do what He said He would do. The church believed that. I still think they do today.
By the way, 2014 study, Mark Noll, published in Christianity Today (who don't take the view): "When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll. The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible."
55 KJV, 19 NIV. Even with the incessant attack on the KJV. Incessant from folks in your way of thinking. The people in the pew still view it as the Bible. It's like America and evolution. No creation in the public school, yet most still the top percentage view in the U.S. is that God created man in his present form in the last 10,000 years.
I don't think the above is my argument and I haven't changed. The church can't say this is the Bible and then 400 years later says, now this is it, and that become the Bible. Constantly changing isn't preservation or attempts to restore the text isn't preservation. When it comes to scripture, it's every word, and that is the only position the Bible teaches and what the church acknowledged was the teaching. The people who take the CT position don't even attempt to come from scriptural presuppositions. They didn't start with biblical teaching.
Thomas, you state "Anti-preservationists typically assert that the kethiv / qere are textual variants, similar to the footnotes in a NA27 or UBS5 Greek NT. The vast majority of the time this is simply assumed, not proven. However, anti-preservationists must justify this assumption. Why is there always only one qere / kethiv pair if the qere is a textual variant? Were there never, ever multiple variants?"
In the preface to the Reader's Hebrew Bible, it is stated "Often Hebrew students are unaware of the diversity of Kethib Qere readings that exist in the masoretic text. In some places there are two Kethib forms and only one Qere (e.g., Judg. 16:25; Isa. 44:24). In other places there is one Kethib but two Qere forms (e.g., Gen. 30:11; Ezek. 8:6). And instances can be found of a Kethib with no Qere (Ruth 3:12; Jer. 51:3), or a Qere with no Kethib (Ruth 3:5, 17; Jer. 31:38)."
Can you address that?
Dear Joshua,
Thanks for the question. I do not see two Kethiv/Qere variants in any of the texts cited (Jud 16:25; Is 44:24; Gen 30:11; Eze 8:6). What is present is somthing like the following from Eze 8:6:
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י בֶּן־אָדָ֕ם הֲרֹאֶ֥ה אַתָּ֖ה מָהֵם [מָ֣ה] [הֵ֣ם] עֹשִׂ֑ים תּוֹעֵב֨וֹת גְּדֹל֜וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר בֵּֽית־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל ׀ עֹשִׂ֣ים פֹּ֗ה לְרָֽחֳקָה֙ מֵעַ֣ל מִקְדָּשִׁ֔י וְעוֹד֙ תָּשׁ֣וּב תִּרְאֶ֔ה תּוֹעֵב֖וֹת גְּדֹלֽוֹת׃ ס
the Kethiv has mahem "what they," as one word, while the Qere has "what they" as two words (mah hem). Something similar is in the other texts cited. Telling people that "what they" is two words is not at all like having a list of textual variants in a UBS Greek NT.
There are a very small number of texts where there is either a kethiv with no qere or a qere with no kethiv. These are highly unusual and are not the most easily explained on any theory. In such a situation, we should at least consider as possible the view held by the early Jews themselves. To quote from my paper on the inspiration of the vowel points, referencing the Talmud (see my paper for sources):
The Talmud clearly speaks of the Kethiv/Qere distinction and other textual distinctions considered Masoretic, and traces them to Moses at Sinai.
Said R. Isaac, “The correct text of Scripture deriving from the scribes, the embellishments of the letters derived from the scribes, the words that are read in the text not as they are spelled out, the words that are spelled out but not read—all represent law revealed by God to Moses at Sinai.”
The correct text of Scripture deriving from the scribes”: These are the words in Hebrew for land, heaven, Egypt [where the tone vowels are lengthened, but nothing in the lettering indicates this change (Freedman)]; . . .
“. . . The words that are read in the text not as they are spelled out”: “Euphrates” in “as he went to recover his border at the river [Euphrates]” (2 Samuel 8:3); [bytk, rDh…DnA;b, yrq, :tá∂rVÚp_rAh◊n`I;b] “man” in “And the counsel of Ahithophel . . . was as if a man had inquired of the oracle of God” (2 Samuel 16:23); [bytk, lAaVvˆy, yrq, vy™Ia_lAaVvˆy] “come” in the verse, “Behold the days [come] says the Lord that the city shall be built” (Jeremiah 31:38) [bytk, My¶ImÎy, yrq, My™IaD;b My¶ImÎy]; “for it” in the verse, “let there be no escape for it unto me” (Jeremiah 50:29) [bytk, _yIh◊y, yrq, ‹;hDl_yIh◊y]; “unto me” in the verse, “all that you say unto me I will do” (Ruth 3:5) [bytk, yñîrVmaø;t, yrq, y™AlEa yñîrVmaø;t]; “unto the floor” in the verse, “and she went down unto the floor” (Ruth 3:6) [N®róO…gAh d®r™E;tÅw]; “to me” in the verse, “and she said, these six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said to me” (Ruth 3:17) [bytk, r∞AmDa, yrq, y$AlEa r∞AmDa]—all these represent the words that are read in the text not as they are spelled out.
“ . . . The words that are spelled out but not read”: The word “pray” in “Strike this people, I pray thee, with blindness” (2 Kings 6:18) [cf. 2 Kings 5:18, bytk, aÎn_jAlVsˆy, yrq, jAlVsˆy]; “these” in “Now these are the commandments” (Deuteronomy 6:1) [hGÎwVxI;mAh taâøz◊w]; “let him bend” in “against him that bends, let him bend the bow” (Jeremiah 51:3) [bytk, JKOr√dˆy, yrq alw]; “five” in “and on the south side for thousand and five hundred” (Ezekiel 48:16) [bytk, vEmSj, yrq alw]; “if” in “it is time that if I am your near kinsman” (Ruth 3:12) [bytk, MIa, yrq alw]. These are the words that are spelled out but not read.
Let me also quote a foonote from my paper:
Note as well that a variety of explanations can be made by IV advocates (following the standard harmonizing practice of old Jewish interpreters such as Kimchi) to explain the existence of both the Kethiv and Qere readings. For example, Whitfield explains the three instances in Psalm 71:20 where the Kethiv wIn is to be read as yˆn by writing: “I cannot think it probable, three Mistakes of the same kind could, any how happen in the Compass of one Verse. Supposing the points as ancient as we are endeavouring to prove them, I believe this Diversity in this, and some other places, betwixt the reading by the Letters and by the points, was originally designed by the Holy Penman, perhaps to shew that the Import of the place might be applied to himself as a single Person, or to the Community whereof he was the Head” (pg. 198, A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points).
Please see http://faithsaves.net/inspiration-hebrew-vowel-points/ and
http://faithsaves.net/history-hebrew-vowel-points/ for more information.
Thanks.
Looking back at my post, some of my comment is repeated above already in the text of the blog post. Please pardon the repetition.