Of Diffrences between the traditional Ben Chayim Hebrew Bible and the Modern Ben-Asher versions

[Sam Jer]

Hello,

It is my understanding that the traditional text of the OT was supplanted about a century ago for the Ben-Asher text of the Leningrad Codex.
Useful information of this has been posted by @Jerusalem Blade on post #38 of the thread Do textual variants give us confidence?

Has anyone ever collected a list of diffrences between them?

I found two, but I understand there are more somewhere:

I. Joshua 21:36-37, is lacking in my Leningrad-based bible in Hebrew. Another one I have includes it in a diffrent, smaller font with a very rare footnote reading "this verse does not appear in most books". Both these printings rarely add any notes in the OT, though both have textual notes for the NT translation. A Rabbinicist Jewish publisher I checked once drops them out completly and changes the verse numbering. As best I can gather the traditional Ben-Chayyim has it, and the verses did appear in the King James Translation.

II. Ben Asher, Bomberg and consequently the King James write the tetragrammaton in various places (for example, Issiah 1:2) as יְהוָֺה (Jehovah/Yehovah in English). My Leningrad based text reads יְהוָה, dropping a single vowel point whose absence, if you read with vowel points, makes it unpronouncable.

---

Additionally, is it true the NKJV used the newer / Leningrad text? Would this be one of the reasons that TR advocates prefer not to use that revision?

 

[iainduguid]

The answer to your question is tricky, because it depends what you count as a difference. I've seen numbers of differences in the thousands bandied around, but these are almost all differences in spelling (like the one you cite for the divine name) and accentuation, which have zero impact on meaning. A commonly cited list registers nine translatable differences: 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. There may be a few more; Josh 21:36-37 is indeed missing from Leningrad, but it is included in smaller print in BHS, with the footnote explaining that it is absent from L but present in many manuscripts, editions and ancient versions. I also understand that it is missing from some (nineteenth century) published editions of the Ben Chayyim text. I'm pretty sure that when BHQ (the new critical edition of the Hebrew text) comes out, it will be in the main text, not the footnotes. Interestingly, they are included in all modern translations, showing that the translators are not slavishly bound to Leningrad.

Leningrad (and the Aleppo Codex before it) does normally follow the standard pattern of omitting the cholem in yehovah, but there are a few exceptions (45 out of over 6000?).

If 1 Kings 20:38 is typical, then the NKJV did indeed use the Leningrad text. But I guarantee that no one who hadn't been told about the difference would notice it in a lifetime of reading through the Bible.

 

[TylerRay]

Hello,

It is my understanding that the traditional text of the OT was supplanted about a century ago for the Ben-Asher text of the Leningrad Codex.
Useful information of this has been posted by @Jerusalem Blade on post #38 of the thread Do textual variants give us confidence?

Has anyone ever collected a list of diffrences between them?

I found two, but I understand there are more somewhere:

I. Joshua 21:36-37, is lacking in my Leningrad-based bible in Hebrew. Another one I have includes it in a diffrent, smaller font with a very rare footnote reading "this verse does not appear in most books". Both these printings rarely add any notes in the OT, though both have textual notes for the NT translation. A Rabbinicist Jewish publisher I checked once drops them out completly and changes the verse numbering. As best I can gather the traditional Ben-Chayyim has it, and the verses did appear in the King James Translation.

II. Ben Asher, Bomberg and consequently the King James write the tetragrammaton in various places (for example, Issiah 1:2) as יְהוָֺה (Jehovah/Yehovah in English). My Leningrad based text reads יְהוָה, dropping a single vowel point whose absence, if you read with vowel points, makes it unpronouncable.

---

Additionally, is it true the NKJV used the newer / Leningrad text? Would this be one of the reasons that TR advocates prefer not to use that revision?

Hey brother,

A few years ago, I typed up a list of the translatable differences with some notes. There are nine translatable differences. I'm not sure how many differences there are when you include the cholem you mentioned, other differences in spelling, etc. Those differences are not unimportant, but they are certainly less important than differences that affect the meaning of the text. One thing to note is that the Ben Asher form of the text is actually the older of the two. The Leningrad Codex (Ben Asher) was completed in 1008, while the Great Rabbinic Bible (Ben Chayyim) was completed in 1525.

This is quite a different issue from the Critical Text/Traditional Text debate regarding the New Testament. Both Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher are Masoretic texts, and Ben Asher, while it gained preference more recently, is not a modern critical text; WLC (Westminster Leningrad Codex) is a single medieval manuscript.

I've attached my little list of differences with my notes, such as they are. I hope you find them helpful.

 

[Sam Jer]

Hey brother,

A few years ago, I typed up a list of the translatable differences with some notes. There are nine translatable differences. I'm not sure how many differences there are when you include the cholem you mentioned, other differences in spelling, etc. Those differences are not unimportant, but they are certainly less important than differences that affect the meaning of the text. One thing to note is that the Ben Asher form of the text is actually the older of the two. The Leningrad Codex (Ben Asher) was completed in 1008, while the Great Rabbinic Bible (Ben Chayyim) was completed in 1525.

This is quite a different issue from the Critical Text/Traditional Text debate regarding the New Testament. Both Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher are Masoretic texts, and Ben Asher, while it gained preference more recently, is not a modern critical text; WLC (Westminster Leningrad Codex) is a single medieval manuscript.

I've attached my little list of differences with my notes, such as they are. I hope you find them helpful.

Does anyone here have acces to the Hebrew in the Ben Chayyim / TBS rendering of these passages?

Edit: I found it online. Edit 2: No I did not, it's was leningrad all along.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Perhaps one of these will meet your need, Efraim @Sam Jer :

Masoretic Text 1524 Textus Receptus Bibles

Masoretic Text 1524

textusreceptusbibles.com

RabbinicBibleOT Mikraot Gedolot Bomberg'sHebrewTanach.Jacob ben Chaim.1525. : Jacob ben Chaim (Yacov ben Chayim). Bomberg's edition.1525. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament, the Tanach, Tanakh. Masoretic notes on the Biblical Hebrew text, Aramaic Targum, Biblical commentaries, medieval...

archive.org

 

[Sam Jer]

Perhaps one of these will meet your need, Efraim @Sam Jer :

Masoretic Text 1524 Textus Receptus Bibles

Masoretic Text 1524

textusreceptusbibles.com

RabbinicBibleOT Mikraot Gedolot Bomberg'sHebrewTanach.Jacob ben Chaim.1525. : Jacob ben Chaim (Yacov ben Chayim). Bomberg's edition.1525. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament, the Tanach, Tanakh. Masoretic notes on the Biblical Hebrew text, Aramaic Targum, Biblical commentaries, medieval...

archive.org

Thank you.
The second one is what my first edit was about. It omits Joshua 21:36-37. I checked a small number of the variants nentioned here and in these too it agrees with Leningrad.

The first link lacks vowel pointing, and agrees with all the consonental variants/readings listed as "Ben Asher" by @TylerRay, and with my own Leningrad-based copy.
Issiah is on the TBS website, and also agrees with what was listed as "Ben Asher", but points the tetragrammaton as Jehovah (at least in Issiah 1:2, its the only verse I compared) which my leningrad copy does not.

Something funny is going on here, and I am not sure I have the resources to figure it out.

 

[Phil D.]

I. Joshua 21:36-37, is lacking in my Leningrad-based bible in Hebrew. Another one I have includes it in a diffrent, smaller font with a very rare footnote reading "this verse does not appear in most books". Both these printings rarely add any notes in the OT, though both have textual notes for the NT translation. A Rabbinicist Jewish publisher I checked once drops them out completly and changes the verse numbering. As best I can gather the traditional Ben-Chayyim has it, and the verses did appear in the King James Translation.

There is lengthy discussion of that issue with lots of screenshots and links, here

 

[Sam Jer]

Interim conclusion: whatever the truth may be, this is the OT equivilent to "which TR", rather than TR vs CT. The equivilent to CT here would be those who wish to ammend the text based on translations and the DSS, who are much fewer in number than NT critical text supporters.

 

[Sam Jer]

Issiah is on the TBS website, and also agrees with what was listed as "Ben Asher

This is an error, I misread. In Issiah 27:2 the TBS website reads
בַּיּ֖וֺם הַה֑וּא כֶּ֥רֶם חֶ֖מֶר עַנּוּ־לָֽהּ׃
Which agrees with the King James rendering "of red wine".
In the other two it does not agree with what our brother listed as Ben Chayyim. Both are a case of יְהוָֺה (Jehovah) and אֲדֹֿנָי (the Lord) being confused.

 

[iainduguid]

This is an error, I misread. In Issiah 27:2 the TBS website reads
בַּיּ֖וֺם הַה֑וּא כֶּ֥רֶם חֶ֖מֶר עַנּוּ־לָֽהּ׃
Which agrees with the King James rendering "of red wine".
In the other two it does not agree with what our brother listed as Ben Chayyim. Both are a case of יְהוָֺה (Jehovah) and אֲדֹֿנָי (the Lord) being confused.

In Isaiah 27:2 there is indeed variety among the Masoretic manuscripts. The Ben asher text (cf Leningrad, Aleppo) has hemed "desirable"; this leads to ESV "a pleasant [vineyard]". The Ben Chayyim text has hemer; this is rendered as "[a vineyard of] red wine" by KJV/NKJV. The difference is a daleth/resh confusion, which could, of course, go either way. In this case, LXX seems to agree with Leningrad, for what it's worth.

[I personally wouldn't have gone with "red wine" for hemer, since white wine wasn't an item in antiquity. It's probably based on Deut 32:14, where hemer occurs in parallel with "the blood of grapes", but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. HALOT suggests "still fermenting wine" which is less poetic but maybe more accurate. But if I were preaching on this passage, I wouldn't discuss the variant, since the meaning is largely unaffected. It's a good example of why "translatable difference" is not the same as "significant difference".]

 

[Sam Jer]

In Isaiah 27:2 there is indeed variety among the Masoretic manuscripts. The Ben asher text (cf Leningrad, Aleppo) has hemed "desirable"; this leads to ESV "a pleasant [vineyard]". The Ben Chayyim text has hemer; this is rendered as "[a vineyard of] red wine" by KJV/NKJV. The difference is a daleth/resh confusion, which could, of course, go either way. In this case, LXX seems to agree with Leningrad, for what it's worth.

Do you have a ben-chayyim to compare? Does it agree with the readings listed by @TylerRay?

[I personally wouldn't have gone with "red wine" for hemer, since white wine wasn't an item in antiquity. It's probably based on Deut 32:14, where hemer occurs in parallel with "the blood of grapes", but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. HALOT suggests "still fermenting wine" which is less poetic but maybe more accurate. But if I were preaching on this passage, I wouldn't discuss the variant, since the meaning is largely unaffected. It's a good example of why "translatable difference" is not the same as "significant difference".]

Sure, but I can see how they got from חֶמֶר to red wine. How they chose to translate it is a diffrent issue to what it was they translated.

 

[Sam Jer]

I found PDF's of Ben Chayim! They are on the website of the Society for the Distribution of the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[Sam Jer]

Hey brother,

A few years ago, I typed up a list of the translatable differences with some notes. There are nine translatable differences. I'm not sure how many differences there are when you include the cholem you mentioned, other differences in spelling, etc. Those differences are not unimportant, but they are certainly less important than differences that affect the meaning of the text. One thing to note is that the Ben Asher form of the text is actually the older of the two. The Leningrad Codex (Ben Asher) was completed in 1008, while the Great Rabbinic Bible (Ben Chayyim) was completed in 1525.

This is quite a different issue from the Critical Text/Traditional Text debate regarding the New Testament. Both Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher are Masoretic texts, and Ben Asher, while it gained preference more recently, is not a modern critical text; WLC (Westminster Leningrad Codex) is a single medieval manuscript.

I've attached my little list of differences with my notes, such as they are. I hope you find them helpful.

It seems this list is inaccurate, if SDHS and TBS have the right text for Ben Chayyim.

Variant
Proverbs 8:16 KJV (compare proverbs 8:16 esv)
Issiah 27:2 KJV (compare Issiah 27:2 esv)

"Ben Asher" reading shared by SDHS too
Issiah 10:16 - both read "the Lord GOD of hosts"
Issiah 28:14 - both read "the Lord".
Jeremiah 34:1 - both read Nebuchadrezar with a ר
Ezekiel 30:18 - both read "Chasach"
Malachi 1:12 - both read "the Lord"

"Ben Chayyim" text shared by BSI too
1 Kings 20:38 - both read "ba'afer" (in ashes)
Zephaniah 3:15 - both read "see evil"

(BSI - Bible Society in Israel. They print the Leningrad-based text).

 

[iainduguid]

If you want the actual Ben Chayyim text that the KJV authors used, the Second Rabbinic Bible is online, though not very easy to navigate. Here is the Isaiah 27:2 passage (Vol 3; p. 41, a little above the middle):

The Second Rabbinic Bible (Mikraot Gedolot) (×קר××ת ×××××ת) Volume III : Yaakov ben Hayyim : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Second Rabbinic Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic text which is believed to have been used as the source text by the King James Bible translators for the Old...

archive.org

It clearly shows hemer, in contrast to Leningrad which has hemed. But I don't really have the time to track down other variants. The medieval manuscripts were all catalogued by Kennicott & de Rossi, so that would be a further source. But to be honest, the differences are so small and trivial that I can't imagine anyone apart from perhaps a PhD student interested in the minutiae of text criticism losing much sleep over these issues. The information that might actually be relevant to text critical studies - even for someone writing an academic commentary - is readily available in the footnotes to BHS.

 

[Sam Jer]

If you want the actual Ben Chayyim text that the KJV authors used, the Second Rabbinic Bible is online, though not very easy to navigate. Here is the Isaiah 27:2 passage (Vol 3; p. 41, a little above the middle):

The Second Rabbinic Bible (Mikraot Gedolot) (×קר××ת ×××××ת) Volume III : Yaakov ben Hayyim : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Second Rabbinic Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic text which is believed to have been used as the source text by the King James Bible translators for the Old...

archive.org

It clearly shows hemer, in contrast to Leningrad which has hemed. But I don't really have the time to track down other variants. The medieval manuscripts were all catalogued by Kennicott & de Rossi, so that would be a further source. But to be honest, the differences are so small and trivial that I can't imagine anyone apart from perhaps a PhD student interested in the minutiae of text criticism losing much sleep over these issues. The information that might actually be relevant to text critical studies - even for someone writing an academic commentary - is readily available in the footnotes to BHS.

I only checked the Issiah variants but it seems if TBS and SDHS were trying to copy this, they had some minor errors.
However, I am not sure what their'e aims were, nor am I sure a verbal plenary preservationist view would necessarily have to extol the above edition above the TBS and SDHS ones. As I said, this is a "which TR" issue.

 

[Sam Jer]

Another question is where the modern versions got a diffrent reading from in these places. I am unwilling to conclude they just made it up

"Ben Chayyim" text shared by BSI too
1 Kings 20:38 - both read "ba'afer" (in ashes)
Zephaniah 3:15 - both read "see evil"

 

[iainduguid]

From a quick search, I don't think 1 Kings 20:38 belongs on the list. Part of the issue here is the rest of the phrase, which KJV translates very freely "with ashes on his face". That's not what the Hebrew says: it says "with ashes on his eyes", which is an odd (if perhaps not impossible) phrase. Why would you put ashes on your eyes? The Septuagint has "bandage", which BHS suggests links with p'r (hence a metathesis of the two Hebrew letters); Syriac has "headband", which is linked to a different Hebrew root 'pr (cf Akkadian aparu; to cover one's head; band). HALOT opts for the latter. So the modern English versions are definitely not making it up, but rather opting for a different translation of the same Hebrew.

Zeph 3:15 is a little trickier as there seem to be two variants within the MT tradition. The first is the presence or absence of a yodh in 'oyebek/'oyebayik and the second is the one you referred to, similarly the presence or absence of a yodh in t(y)r'w. The latter is the only translatable difference: in this case Leningrad has the yodh (= fear), while Ben Chayyim lacks it (= see). It's easy to see how such an error could have occurred; it's less easy to be sure which is the correct reading. In this case, LXX follows Ben Chayyim, which leads to the KJV/NKJV translation, while modern translations generally follow Leningrad/Aleppo. This demonstrates that NKJV does not slavishly follow the pack here (a common misconception about translators). It also highlights how small the differences of meaning we are talking about.

The bottom line is this:
1) The KJV sticks very closely to the Ben Chayyim text, even where it is difficult to make sense out of it. However, it is not 100% committed. In Psalm 22:16, they follow the LXX and a couple of Hebrew manuscripts, so they didn't believe the Ben Chayyim text itself to be inspired or perfect. The Second Rabbinic Bible was simply their base Hebrew text, just as Leningrad is for modern scholars.
2) The NKJV mostly follows the Ben Chayyim text, but does occasionally follow inter-masoretic variants
3) Modern translations like the NASB/ESV/CSB generally follow the MT as recorded in Leningrad but are on occasion willing to follow variants that are witnessed to in the LXX and Qumran (especially if both are present).
4) The KJV leaned heavily on the LXX for help with translating obscure words (hence the "unicorns" in a variety of OT passages); modern translations have more resources available in this area (Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc), so the unicorns have become wild oxen, which is almost certainly more accurate.
5) The differences between the different English translations remain relatively few, and far more are translation questions than text critical questions. Most significant differences will show up as a footnote in your modern English version. Almost none will change the focus of a sermon on the passage.

 

[Sam Jer]

From a quick search, I don't think 1 Kings 20:38 belongs on the list. Part of the issue here is the rest of the phrase, which KJV translates very freely "with ashes on his face". That's not what the Hebrew says: it says "with ashes on his eyes", which is an odd (if perhaps not impossible) phrase. Why would you put ashes on your eyes? The Septuagint has "bandage", which BHS suggests links with p'r (hence a metathesis of the two Hebrew letters); Syriac has "headband", which is linked to a different Hebrew root 'pr (cf Akkadian aparu; to cover one's head; band). HALOT opts for the latter. So the modern English versions are definitely not making it up, but rather opting for a different translation of the same Hebrew.

Zeph 3:15 is a little trickier as there seem to be two variants within the MT tradition. The first is the presence or absence of a yodh in 'oyebek/'oyebayik and the second is the one you referred to, similarly the presence or absence of a yodh in t(y)r'w. The latter is the only translatable difference: in this case Leningrad has the yodh (= fear), while Ben Chayyim lacks it (= see). It's easy to see how such an error could have occurred; it's less easy to be sure which is the correct reading. In this case, LXX follows Ben Chayyim, which leads to the KJV/NKJV translation, while modern translations generally follow Leningrad/Aleppo. This demonstrates that NKJV does not slavishly follow the pack here (a common misconception about translators). It also highlights how small the differences of meaning we are talking about.

The bottom line is this:
1) The KJV sticks very closely to the Ben Chayyim text, even where it is difficult to make sense out of it. However, it is not 100% committed. In Psalm 22:16, they follow the LXX and a couple of Hebrew manuscripts, so they didn't believe the Ben Chayyim text itself to be inspired or perfect. The Second Rabbinic Bible was simply their base Hebrew text, just as Leningrad is for modern scholars.
2) The NKJV mostly follows the Ben Chayyim text, but does occasionally follow inter-masoretic variants
3) Modern translations like the NASB/ESV/CSB generally follow the MT as recorded in Leningrad but are on occasion willing to follow variants that are witnessed to in the LXX and Qumran (especially if both are present).
4) The KJV leaned heavily on the LXX for help with translating obscure words (hence the "unicorns" in a variety of OT passages); modern translations have more resources available in this area (Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc), so the unicorns have become wild oxen, which is almost certainly more accurate.
5) The differences between the different English translations remain relatively few, and far more are translation questions than text critical questions. Most significant differences will show up as a footnote in your modern English version. Almost none will change the focus of a sermon on the passage.

Zephaniah 3:15 in the Lenigradian versions reads "לֹא־תִֽירְאִ֥י רָ֖ע עֽוֹד". How is תִֽירְאִ֥י fear? I am confused, as to the best of my (modern Hebrew) knowledge fear would require a fatah or qamatz on the ר, yod or no yod.

 

[Sam Jer]

"Ben Asher" reading shared by SDHS too
Issiah 10:16 - both read "the Lord GOD of hosts"
Issiah 28:14 - both read "the Lord".
Jeremiah 34:1 - both read Nebuchadrezar with a ר
Ezekiel 30:18 - both read "Chasach"
Malachi 1:12 - both read "the Lord"

Seems the edition printed today is one prepared by Christian David Ginsburg. This explains why there are a few scattered diffrences.

 

[iainduguid]

Zephaniah 3:15 in the Lenigradian versions reads "לֹא־תִֽירְאִ֥י רָ֖ע עֽוֹד". How is תִֽירְאִ֥י fear? I am confused, as to the best of my (modern Hebrew) knowledge fear would require a fatah or qamatz on the ר, yod or no yod.

It's a qal imperfect 2fs (i.e. addressed to Zion) from the root yr'. You can see the same form in verse 16 (though it is a pausal form, which explains the full vowel rather than sheva in the middle of the word).

 

[Sam Jer]

It's a qal imperfect 2fs (i.e. addressed to Zion) from the root yr'. You can see the same form in verse 16 (though it is a pausal form, which explains the full vowel rather than sheva in the middle of the word).

Interesting. Is "see", which would be the meaning in modern Hebrew (from the root ראה r'h), still be a possible sense in pre-exilic Hebrew?

 

[iainduguid]

Interesting. Is "see", which would be the meaning in modern Hebrew (from the root ראה r'h), still be a possible sense in pre-exilic Hebrew?

Not with the yod

 

[Sam Jer]

Not with the yod

Huh. Interesting. This would be a huge diffrence to modern Hebrew.