Preservation of Old Testament in Hebrew
If someone believes in the perfect preservation of scripture, he also believes in the perfect preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In discussions and debate about the text of scripture and translation, almost all of it relates to the New Testament, where there is a higher percentage of variation in the extant Greek manuscripts. People don’t spend as much time quibbling over the Old Testament. Nevertheless, people have differences and questions about the Old Testament text.
Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, does address the Old Testament. It looks at changes in the Hebrew text used in the modern versions. Even though the King James Translators relied on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, translators for modern English versions of the Old Testament used a variation of sources from which to translate. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic text, as an example, the translators of the English Standard Version (ESV) also used Alfred Ralf’s 1935 critical edition of the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
Modern Versions and the Original Languages of the Old Testament
The ESV translators also compared the Masoretic with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), a text discovered almost 75 years ago in caves near the Dead Sea in Israel, and made changes based on their textual theories. They also relied on the Samaritan Pentateuch, a version of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, maintained by Samaritans. In addition, the ESV committee used the Syriac Peshitta, an early translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic, and lastly the Latin Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome in the late 4th century AD.
As I see it, a vast majority of the people who use modern versions like the ESV do not know that the Old and New Testaments come from a different text than the King James Version. Critical text and modern version advocates don’t mention this. Their own users see their versions as just updated translations in easier, more modern English, not a different underlying text.
Historical Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture
London Baptist Confession
Preservation of scripture means preservation of the original language text of scripture. The originals of the Old Testament are Hebrew and a very tiny amount of Aramaic. That’s what God promised to preserve, even with Jesus’ declaration of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18. This also is the historic position of the church, as seen in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Isaiah 59:21
For preservation to be preservation, it preserves something already there. What was there at the beginning was a Hebrew text and God preserved that, using Old Testament Israel to do it. God also promised perfect preservation. This includes with it availability that God declares among other places in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and 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.
This is called getting your bibliology, your doctrine of the Bible, from the Bible itself. What does God say He did, that He is doing, and that He will do with the Bible. That’s how you get doctrine and that’s what you believe. This pleases God (Hebrews 11:6). He wants us to believe Him.
Septuagint
Enter the Septuagint. The Septuagint isn’t Hebrew. It is an apparently Greek translation of the Hebrew. I say “apparently,” because the translation of the various iterations of the Septuagint differ greatly from the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It seems acceptable today among themselves for various critical text and modern version proponents to advocate for the superiority of the Septuagint, even though it is a translation. They are fine with correcting the Hebrew text with a Greek translation. I don’t believe there is a published ESV edition of the Hebrew text, but it seems that the committee for the ESV changed the Hebrew Masoretic 50-100 times based on the Greek Septuagint. They also seemingly altered the Masoretic 20-30 times each for both the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta. They back translated into the Hebrew from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac languages.
Psalm 22:16
At this juncture, I think it is important to stop to answer what would be a very likely argument from those who believe God preserved His Words through translations and not the Hebrew language text. In other words, jots and tittles did in fact pass away in contradiction to what God promised. They will say that Masoretic text believers will do the same thing as they in one place: Psalm 22:16. This one apparent exception says that we both think the same way on this issue. They would say that the King James Version of Psalm 22:16 proceeds from the Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Masoretic.
Here is a translation of Psalm 22:16 from first the King James Version, second the Brenton’s 1870 edition of the English translation of the Codex Vaticanus edition of the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha, and third the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 English translation of the Hebrew Masoretic:
KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Brenton Septuagint: For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
JPS: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
For your information, the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the KJV and the Brenton Septuagint. The criticism here is that the last part of the verse is different in the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the King James Version. Critics say that the KJV translators relied on the Greek Septuagint in this one place. Is this true? The most conservative position that harmonizes with the biblical doctrine of preservation says that the KJV translators had Hebrew copies of what they translated.
William Whitaker and Disputations on Holy Scripture
William Whitaker wrote the following in 1588 (pp. 159-160) in his Disputations on Holy Scripture:
All Christians read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” But the Hebrew MSS. have not Caru “they pierced,” but Caari, “as a Lion.” I answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place from their [Catholics and others who are against the preservation of Scripture] reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading is Caru; Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. IV., and Galatinus, Lib. VIII. C. 17. And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, in his book against Lindanus, Lib. II.; and the Masorites themselves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies.
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation: whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is no no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. For the Chaldee Paraphrast has conjoined both readings, and the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome.
Advocates of modern textual criticism and modern versions don’t seem to care or respect the writings of men like Whitaker, who represents the historical doctrine of true believers. They never mention them or give them credit. Whitaker says there are “many Hebrew copies found in which the reading” is the same as that from which the King James Version translated.
More to Come
Thanks for this post.
Another possibility is that k’ari means something similar to “pierced” in this passage. Lions raven and cut things up. If it said “like a dove” that would be different.
John Gill’s comment includes the following:
taking [the Hebrew] for a participle, as the Targum … “biting as a lion my hands and my feet” … that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men {f}, who render it “digging” or “piercing”, and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from rak or rwk, which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many
instances of plural words which end in y, the m omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see 2Sa 23:8 2Ki 11:4,19 La 3:14 Eze 32:30
So I am not convinced that even in this one word there is any need to correct the Hebrew text found in the majority of Hebrew copies and in the printed MT employed by both the Trinitarian Bible Society and also that of the United Bible Society.
Hi Thomas,
I agree. I think there are several possibilities. I didn’t give them all. Of course, the main idea is that God preserved His Words in the original language text.
Why do you keep beating this dead horse?
It is dead because the only ones that believe in the final authority of the King James Bible are those who “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
The TR side nor the CT side will ever take a position on final authority, therefore who cares because after 40 years of this, Brother Ruckman has proved the following to be true:
“But we can “tolerate” these if those who believe in them will tolerate
US. After all, since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY
that anyone can read, teach, preach, or handle, the whole thing is a
matter of “PREFERENCE.” You may prefer what you prefer, and we will
prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on
anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO
FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE
ON THIS EARTH.”
You, my brother, and others can prefer whatever it is that you prefer and Ward and others like him can do the same, but what all of you agree is this, “That there is no final authority nor will there ever be until Jesus Christ returns.”
So, why keep beating this dead horse since the TR nor the CT crowd will never discuss the matter of final authority where “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.- Matthew 4:4”?
Tom
Tom,
I have no comment on what you’ve said. I think it stands on its own in contrast to the truth.
Great points Bro. Kent. God inspired the Hebrew text and preserved the Hebrew text.
I have a question to discuss about a passage.
I was recently studying 1 Samuel 1 in the Hebrew, and got to verse 9. I was reading comparing the Hebrew to my language, and was surprised that it’s translated: “after they ate and drank in Shiloh.” My surprise is because I could not detect a “they” subject in the verse in the MT. Then I checked the LXX, and sure enough, the LXX has the phrase to fagein autous, so that’s where the “they” come from, the LXX.
But I was quite surprised when I check that the KJV also translates this verse: “after they had eaten in Shiloh and after they had drunk.” Does the KJV follow the LXX on the translation of the subject “they” in this verse? Most modern translations also have “They” here, but Young’s Literal translation says: “And Hannah riseth after eating in Shiloh, and after drinking”.
Hi Tenrin,
I don’t think the translators were following the Septuagint. “Eating” and “drinking” in verse 9 are infinitives and they don’t say that Hannah ate and drank. Verse 8 says she’s not eating. Verse 9 emphasizes the contrast between Hannah and Eli: she arises, while he sits. Keil and Delitzch write here: “”After the eating at Shiloh, and after the drinking,” i.e., after the sacrificial meal was over, Hannah rose up with a troubled heart.” 1 Samuel 1:9 uses the Qal infinitive construct form of the verb “to eat” (אָכַל, ‘akal) is used, which in Hebrew is a verbal noun and is not inflected for person, gender, or number; therefore, it does not have a feminine form. The context of the verse involves Hannah, a female character, but grammatically, the infinitive construct itself remains gender-neutral.
Bro. Kent, thanks for your response.
I understand what you said. That she’s not eating in verse 8 is a good context marker, come to think of it.
Usually, the KJV would use the italics though, to signify that the “they” is not explicit, but understood.
Many Hebrew resources do say that it’s the Qal infinitive construct of “to eat.” I suppose this is a bit technical, but the form itself can definitely be a Qal Perfect 3fs. As for the infinitives, the drinking (shatoh) is an infinitive absolute, but the form for “eating” is not very typical for an infinitive. Checking in Accordance, akhal occurs 74 times as infinitive construct, and 1 Sam 1:9 is the only one with this form. I’m wondering if the resources saying it’s an infinitive are also influenced by the LXX.
Hi Tenrin,
Thanks for the discussion. There is a reason that critical text folks don’t bring up 1 Samuel 1:9 and they do bring up Psalm 22:16. There is nothing to see. I get that you see the 3fs in some translations, but it is a grammatical/syntactical misread of that infinitive construct. Keil and Delitzch are Hebrew scholars. This is an exegetical commentary. Your lexicon and morphology say the same thing about this Hebrew infinitive construct. What were the Septuagint translators doing? They were doing the same thing that the NKJV and the other translators did. They did what I’m explaining here. Hebrew grammarians don’t get their info from the Septuagint.
I bounced this off Thomas too, who is past my two years of Hebrew. He has devotions in Hebrew. He agrees with this assessment. The way I’m past Thomas on Hebrew is I’ve taught through every verse of the OT and used the Hebrew in teaching it, but he has taught Hebrew itself. I’ve taught zero Hebrew.
Dear Tenrin,
Thanks for the question. I think you are correct that the form is unusual, but it can still be an infinitive construct. You are correct that the form could be a Qal perfect 3fs as well. Here are the infinitive forms that appear in Biblical Hebrew and extrabiblical ancient Hebrew, according to the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew:
inf. אָכֹל (אָכוֹל), אֲכֹל (אֱכֹל, אֱכוֹל, אֱכָל־, אֲכָלְךָ, אָכְלוֹ, אָכְלָה, אָכְלֵ֫נוּ, אֲכָלְכֶם, אָכְלָם, Q אוכלמה).
I think it is much more likely that the LXX recognized it as an infinitive than that the lexical resources are impacted by the LXX to label it an infinitive.
Shalom!
Bro. Thomas and Kent,
Thank you for the insight and discussion.
Tom,
As someone who commonly reads on this blog and also peruses the comments that are made, I have something to say to you.
Your comments are not edifying. Brother Brandenburg clearly will not come to your position on the KJV or the church. No one else not where you are is going to be convinced to change to your positions.
At this point, if you are right you have made your case and can shake the dust off your feet of those who will not listen. I don’t think you are right, but it seems unnecessary for you to continue making comments like you do. I’m saying this on behalf of myself and maybe brother Brandenburg as well. You aren’t saying anything new and if you’re so displeased with the blog, you don’t have to read it.
David,
Why evil surmise against me? I just read the post Brother Kent posted today. Go read my comments.
That was my point, that no one is going to change their positions, so why continue to beat a dead horse?
If you do not understand the many verses in the bible concerning words, scripture, the word of God that demand you take a position on final authority, why continue to debate a position that does not lead you to the obvious?
It is a mute point. Brother Ruckman, after many years of debating this issue understood that most salient point in all these fruitless discussions.
Tom