# Differences in Kittel and Chayyim texts



## bond-servant (Jun 5, 2008)

Does anyone know of a link or article that compares the major textual differences in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Chayyim text? 


thanks!
Beth


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 5, 2008)

Hi again, Beth!

In his book, _The King James Version Defended_, Dr. D.A. Waite asserts that in Kittel's 1937 _Biblia Hebraica_ and the 1967 _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia_ "there are still about fifteen to twenty suggested changes in the Hebrew text placed in the footnotes on each page. This amounts also to about 20,000 to 30,000 suggested changes throughout Old Testament." (p. 23)

Seeing as Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Matt 5:18), and a little earlier in Matt 4:4, indicating that "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" man shall live, we then might reasonably expect the Almighty to have preserved this Old Testament Scripture according to His word.

It seems Waite has done a good bit of research on these texts. I would suggest contacting him, and asking if he knows of anyone who has done what you are seeking. I know he recently published Jack Moorman's work doing just this thing on the Greek NT text -- which is primarily for translators.

If you do this, and get any info, please share it with us!

This is Dr. Waite's contact info:

THE BIBLE FOR TODAY
900 Park Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108
Phone: 856-854-4452
Fax: 856-854-2464
Orders: 1-800-JOHN 10:9
E-mail: [email protected]

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2008)

(Somewhat) 

I'm not intending on getting into a debate on this issue, but I do think that a clarification should be made regarding the matter of textual footnotes about which Waite makes mention. In reality, most of those notes are not "suggested changes" as Waite asserted, but rather acknowledgments of variant manuscript readings, notations of how a word or phrase is rendered in the Septuagint, ketib/qere readings, etc. Some of the notes are indeed suggestions from the various editors, but nobody said that a minister who prepared his sermons from the Hebrew text was bound to follow any editorial suggestion. 

I say all of this, because it is this sort of scholarship that makes a habit of misrepresenting the truth of a matter that so often undermines the credibility of the KJV movement in the mind of other students of Scripture. Why would it have been so difficult for Waite to have said that there were 20,000-30,000 textual notes, which is what most of them really are, than to have labeled them all as suggested changes, which only accounts for a portion of those notes? 



Here is one quick survey randomly taken from the notes of p.722 of my BHS, which covers Isaiah 31:2-32:4.

It contains 13 footnotes.

Three of those show the reading of a word/phrase as found in the complete Isaiah scroll from Qumran cave #1 of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Four of them note the reading of a word/phrase as found in the Vulgate.

Four of them note the reading of a word/phrase as found in the Septuagint.

Four of these notes are editorial suggestions as to what he thought may have been the original reading or should be deleted from the text.

(The reason that the above number is greater than 13, is because several of the notes included variants from both the DSS/Vulgate or the LXX/Vulgate)

Almost all of the notes are inconsequential notations to vowel pointing variations, or making mention of the various translations found in the versions.

Of the editorial suggestions made, three are tentative, and only one is strong (and wrong).

That does not come anywhere close to the 15-20 suggested changes that was mentioned by the quote.




And sorry, Beth, I do not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 6, 2008)

Hello Adam,

Thanks for the additional info. I think your point is well taken as regards the ketib (or ketiv)/qere [Qere and Ketiv - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]. I have some of these in the margin of my edition of the AV.

Neither do I wish to enter into a debate on this.

I suppose it comes down to how one perceives the apparatus / textual notes. I don't think you are wrong in your view, but neither do I think Waite is wrong to look at the variants as he does. For it was the strategy of Rome to counter the Textus Receptus of the Reformers with the polyglott editions and their variants, thereby seeking to demonstrate that the latter's text was only one of a number of others, and not the Received Word of God as the Reformers claimed.

Evidently Waite -- and others -- see the listed variants as the Reformers did.


----------



## bond-servant (Jun 6, 2008)

Thanks for the contact information. I know a comparison is out there somewhere....now, just to find it!


----------

