Complete Old Testament Textual Data
The ancient Jewish scholars who preserved the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures—the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, as they would call them1—are to be congratulated for the meticulous care with which they copied the Word of God by hand.
When we consider the span of time it took to write the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures (about a millennium),2 the length of these Scriptures (three times longer than the New Testament), and the fact that the text was hand-copied without vowels in ancient times, their work was stupendous! Then add to these hurdles the periodic persecutions of Jews by Gentile neighbors or foreign invaders, such as the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes (who sought to utterly destroy the Jewish faith), and the generally excellent state of the Hebrew text is almost miraculous. The copies were not made by divine inspiration, so there was no true miracle in copying the Scriptures. But there is evidence of a high degree of providential care, since there are such a small number of copyist’s errors. God gave to Jews and Christians the task of preserving His originally inspired words.
The Ancient Scrolls
As the various Old Testament authors penned their inspired books, the nation of Israel added these writings to the sacred volume, beginning with the Torah, or the five Books of Moses. These books are popularly referred to as “the Pentateuch” (Greek for “five-sheath”), so-called from the way the scrolls in ancient libraries were stored in receptacles somewhat like sword sheaths.
Many people erroneously think that the Old Testament is merely the “literature” of the Hebrew people. In reality, there were many other Jewish books during and after the completion of the Hebrew canon, the official collection of authoritative and divinely inspired works. For example, the Old Testament mentions several historical works, such as “the Book of Jasher” (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), that are not part of the Scriptures.
Between the writing of the Old and New Testaments (and after) many interesting Jewish religious works were written. Those called “Apocrypha” (Greek for “hidden”) were never accepted as inspired by the Jews. Some were not even written in Hebrew or Aramaic. These books were also rejected as noncanonical by the Protestants, though they are considered as a secondary canon (“deuterocanonical”) by the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
While these books contain much valuable historical, linguistic, and religious material, they also contain many contradictions to the canonical books. Also, the moral and spiritual tone is often sub-biblical.
The Masoretic Text
Unlike the situation in the New Testament, where there are a number of differing theories as to the best manuscripts to emphasize in constructing a printed Greek text, most Old Testament scholars lean very heavily on the traditional Masoretic Text. This text is so-called from “Masoretes,” a name for textual scholars which was derived from the Hebrew word for tradition. Before the Masoretes the Hebrew Bible had been passed down from generation to generation by ancient scribes who scrupulously copied the original text. By the sixth century A.D. their work had been taken over by the Masoretes who continued to preserve the sacred text in a form known as the Masoretic Text. The most outstanding among the Masoretes was the family of ben Asher. In the tenth century of our era they produced the standard text that became the officially recognized text of the Hebrew Bible.
The ancient texts were written only in consonants, with a few letters to suggest certain important vowels. For example, the broad “A” at the end of words was often indicated by the letter hē (h). The names Sarah and Rebekah would be written simply SRH and RBQH in the Hebrew text. (Hebrew also lacks upper and lower case letters.) As Hebrew became less and less a spoken language, it became necessary to indicate the correct way to read the Scriptures in the synagogues.
Vowel Pointing
It was the Masoretes who developed the ingenious Hebrew phonetic system of dots and dashes to indicate not only full vowels, but even short vowels and half vowels. This is called vowel pointing. The quick little vowel that is heard in an English word like “nickel” was called a shewa by the Masoretes. Their term has been adopted by phonetics experts to describe that sound in any language. (In some English dictionaries it is written as Ə.)
The Masoretic system is so clever and scientific that it makes modern English and French spelling seem paleolithic by comparison.
Kethîv and Qerē
These strange Aramaic words mean written (kethîv) and read or called out (qerē). They are testimony to the great veneration that the Jews had for the Hebrew Bible. Even with the elaborate safeguards against error in copying—counting letters, knowing the central letter of each book, for example—mistakes did sometimes occur. When an obvious error was established, instead of changing the sacred text itself, a marginal note was given and a symbol was put over the offending written word to show the public reader how the word was to be read.
For example, over the centuries some words that were once acceptable became vulgar in usage and unsuitable for congregational reading. (See Chapter 8, “Something Blue” for some similar examples in the English KJV.) Deuteronomy 28:27 mentions hemorrhoids in the kethîv (written) text, but it was later considered an impolite term, so the marginal qerē (read text) changed it to tumors. Usually the KJV translators would go with the qerē, but here they chose to use the written text and translated it emerod, the older English form of hemorrhoids.
The Printed Texts
In 1611 the KJV translators had two printed Hebrew Bibles from which to translate, as well as some manuscripts, judging from certain marginal notes in the KJV. These Hebrew Bibles were extremely similar, since they were both edited from the text of ben Asher, considered to be the best representative of the Masoretic Bible. One of these texts was the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514–17). The other was the standard Bible of the Jewish rabbis, the second edition of Daniel Bomberg, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim in 1525.
Other Old Testament Authorities
The KJV scholars relied primarily on the original languages, but they also made intelligent use of other sources, both Jewish and Christian. Miles Smith, one of the renowned “learned men” of 1611, says they were not negligent in consulting
…the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.…But having and using helps as great as was needful,…we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to pass that you now see.
Besides the Masoretic text itself the KJV translators also used the Masoretic notes, the ancient versions, Jewish tradition, and English Bible translation tradition.
Masoretic Notes
The margins of the Masoretes’ Bibles are full of annotations called the masorah magna (great tradition) and the masorah parva (little tradition). The KJV scholars made good use of these notes.
Ancient Versions
Sometimes an early translation will have a reading that represents an ancient Hebrew text now lost, but apparently original. For example, Joshua 21:36, 37 is lacking in the Masoretic text. Yet the passage is found in the KJV because the missing verses were supplied from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, as well as from the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 6:63, 64. The NKJV Old Testament has many textual footnotes referring to these ancient versions.
In a scholarly paper presented to the Southern Region of the Evangelical Theological Society (“Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version”), Dr. James D. Price, Executive Old Testament Editor of the NKJV, evaluates the relative weight that the KJV learned men gave to the various versions:
Four ancient versions were the most influential on the King James translators: (1) The Latin Vulgate was the one with which they were most conversant. This version had the greatest single influence on their emendations. (2) The Aramaic Targums seem to have had the second greatest influence. (3) The Greek Septuagint was the third most influential. (4) The Syriac version had some influence, but seldom stood alone as the guide for an emendation. Other ancient and modern versions had no evident independent influence on emendations.3
Jewish Tradition
Although they were all Christians, the 1611 Hebraists were well versed in rabbinic studies, such as the Talmud and the commentaries of such Jewish scholars as Rashi, Eben Ezra, Kimchi, and Saadia Gāon. On rare occasions a deviation from the traditional Hebrew text in the KJV Old Testament seems to be based on one or more of these authorities. The NKJV footnotes include a few references to such Jewish traditions. Examples are found at Proverbs 8:30 and 30:31.
English Tradition
Since the KJV was not a new translation, but the repository of nearly a century of English Bible scholarship from Tyndale to the Douai (1526–1610), it was inevitable that some of the attractive phraseology that the king’s men chose would be based on readings of their predecessors. Some of these readings may not have squared entirely with the Hebrew text.
An example in the KJV/NKJV is the word dwell in Psalm 23:6. The Hebrew reads return, but the difference is so slight, and the verse so famous, that it seemed not worth changing (RSV, NASB, and NIV also retain dwell).
Textual Emendations
Dr. Price categorizes the changes made by the 1611 translators as “justifiable emendations” and “unjustifiable emendations.”
Of the eighty-two he lists as justifiable Price writes: “Most were supported by evidence from the ancient versions. Some were made to harmonize the spelling of names or to harmonize parallel passages. Only five seem to have no ancient support.”4 He freely admits, however, that “not everyone will agree on the classification of individual emendations as justifiable and unjustifiable. In the less certain cases, differences in scholarly judgment are bound to arise.”5
A clear example of such a justifiable emendation is in Psalm 24:4 where the qerē reads “My soul.” This does not fit the context and has no ancient support. The kethîv is supported by some Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum (cf. Exodus 20:7). All read “his soul,” which fits the context perfectly.
Of the 146 emendations that Price considers unjustifiable, many have little or no support from ancient versions. Some merely have the support of rabbinic tradition.
An interesting example of the last category is in Genesis 36:24, where Anah found water (or hot springs) in the wilderness. This reading is in the Masoretic text and the Vulgate, but the KJV follows the Talmud (and Luther) which interprets it as mules. The Septuagint reads a proper name here, “Jamin,” and the Targum reads “mighty men.” Apparently even in ancient times there was a problem as to the word’s meaning.
At least one emendation has messianic significance. In Psalm 22:16 the Masoretic text and the Targum read “Like a lion my hands and my feet,” which makes little or no sense. Some Hebrew manuscripts, plus the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac, read “they pierced My hands and My feet,” which makes perfect sense in this psalm.6
The interesting examples chosen here are not typical. Most emendations are spelling variations, trivial details, and so forth. They are helpful, however, in countering the excessive veneration of the KJV to the point that it is treated as if it, and not the original manuscripts, were inspired. While the emendations of the KJV scholars seldom have serious effect on doctrine, they do show that the KJV, in it “unjustifiable emendations,” is not infallible. The NKJV corrects these minor flaws.
Excessive Veneration of the King James Version
It is easy to criticize the Greek Orthodox Church for treating the Septuagint as more authoritative than the Hebrew original. After all, the New Testament was originally written in their delightful language! It is even easier for Protestants, at least, to fault the Roman Catholic Church for putting the Latin Vulgate on a higher level of authority than the inspired Hebrew and Greek. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate are translations, not the original.
However, as much as we revere the KJV and wish to keep the standard Bible current, as our predecessors did (see Chapter 1, “A Firm Foundation”), some Protestants show a real danger of making a fetish of the KJV in the very same way.
In the same paper quoted above, Price warns of a certain modern departure from the Protestant doctrine of placing final authority in the original texts—not in any version, no matter how venerable and beautiful. He writes:
This new doctrine has numerous flaws, one of which is the many emendations made to the Greek and Hebrew texts by the 1611 translators. In this context, an emendation is understood to be a failure to follow the Greek or Hebrew text, whether the translators thought some other authority was superior to the Greek or Hebrew, or whether they were merely guilty of scholarly carelessness.7
He goes on to mention the 232 cases of emendation in the KJV Old Testament, some justifiable, as we have seen, and some not so justifiable. He states that while most changes do have some ancient support, some emendations “seem to have no verifiable ancient authority whatsoever.”8
We conclude this section of our study with one final quotation from Dr. Price which is not intended to offend lovers of the King James Version (among whom we count ourselves), but to warn of a false doctrine of “double inspiration”:
These emendations cannot be justified on the basis of superior scholarly judgment of the 1611 translators; because there are equally competent scholars today, and textual-critical knowledge is more advanced. Nor can they be justified on the assumption that the 1611 translators received infallible divine guidance in their textual and translational decisions. This would amount to double inspiration, a departure from the historic doctrine. The divine inspiration of translators cannot be supported by Scripture.…9
Those who spent seven years laboring on the NKJV can vouch for the truth of Dr. Price’s statement.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
Sometimes great discoveries spring from very trivial happenings. Such was the case with the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls,” which the celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright called “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.” In the spring or early summer of 1947, a lost goat turned out to be the guide that led to a tremendous discovery for biblical scholarship.
Two Bedouin shepherds, searching for their lost goat in the desert region west of the Dead Sea, tossed a stone into a cave in the rocky escarpment high above them. To their surprise a crash resounded from the cave. They clambered up to investigate what had caused the noise and entered the cave. The rest is history.
Inside, the shepherds found eight big jars. From one of these they retrieved three large scrolls. The story of the attempts to sell them, and the final realization of scholars that they were ancient and very valuable Hebrew manuscripts, took some time. Professor John C. Trever, who was in Jerusalem at the time, photographed a scroll and sent the pictures to the American archaeologist, Dr. Albright.
Albright suggested a date of 50 B.C. for the scroll. This would make it about 1,000 years older than any Hebrew scroll then known to man. Later studies of coins, pottery, and palaeology (ancient script) confirmed a date between 175 B.C. and A.D. 68. So Albright was correct in his estimate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are rather poorly named, since only a few of the manuscripts are still scrolls. Several other caves were explored and many thousands of fragments were retrieved, including previously unknown documents of a communal establishment at Qumran on the Dead Sea.
Parts of every book of the Hebrew Old Testament, except Esther, have been retrieved from the Dead Sea discoveries. The studies continue as a multinational and interfaith band of scholars keep sifting, sorting, piecing together, and translating the jigsaw puzzle of fragments.
Probably the most famous find was the Isaiah scroll, found in the first Qumran cave. It is a complete text of the great prophet. The remarkable thing is how very closely it resembles the text from which the KJV was made. The chief differences are in the spelling of certain types of words.
Many wild and sensational conjectures about the Qumran community and their scrolls have appeared in the popular press. But as the dust has settled, the main truth to come forth is that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament has been very well preserved indeed.
The traditional Masoretic readings are still to be found in the text of the NKJV, even where the Dead Sea Scrolls differ, but important variant readings from Qumran will be found in the notes.
Notes
1. Modern Jewish people like to refer to their Bible as the “Tanach.” This is an acronym formed from the first letters of the Hebrew words for the three divisions of the Old Testament in the Jewish order: Torah (Law), Nevîîm (Prophets), and Ketûvîm (Writings). Vowels are added to make the word pronounceable.
2. From Moses (ca. 1400 B.C.) to Malachi (ca. 400 B.C.) is about a thousand years.
3. James D. Price, “Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version,” a paper presented to the Southern Region of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 22, 1986, p. 5. Dr. Price has graciously allowed free use of his typically meticulous seventy-eight-page work in writing this chapter.
4. Ibid., p. 7.
5. Ibid., footnote 6.
6. Since the Masoretes were post-Christian in time, one is tempted to wonder if the text was changed on purpose to avoid a strong messianic prophecy of the crucifixion.
7. Price, “Textual Emendations,” p. 1.
8. Ibid., p. 2.
9. Ibid.