Isaiah 9:3 wording differences...

John Eadie observed that "the Masora [Masoretic notes] gives fifteen instances where lo should be written so as to signify 'to him' --and not to signify 'not.' Thus in Isaiah 9:3, in the clause 'thou hast not increased the joy,' which contradicts the rest of the verse, 'they joy before Thee,' the [KJV] translators put the note 'to him' into the margin--though it should have been in the text. In Exodus 21:8, 'not' should be 'to himself' as the Masora intimates, and this is accepted into the [1611] text without any remark" (English Bible, II, p. 209).

Likely, some of the other above examples you noted are some of the other fifteen examples to which Eadie referred.

Do KJV-only advocates maintain that the KJV translators were wrong in failing to translate the Hebrew "not" at Exodus 21:8 as "not" and to replace it with "to him" just as the same Masoretic marginal note as found at Isaiah 9:3 suggested?

Does it seem hypocritical for some to condemn other translators' rendering at Isaiah 9:3 that followed the Masoretic marginal note when the KJV translators followed the same marginal note and made the exact same correction at other verses?

 

These are 15 I could find;

Exodus 21:8;
Leviticus 11:21;
Leviticus 25:30;
I Samuel 2:3;
2 Samuel 16:18;
Job 13:15;
Job 41:4;
Psalm 100:3;
Psalm 139:16;
Ezra 4:2;
Proverbs 19:7;
Proverbs 26:2;
Isaiah 9:2;
Isaiah 49:5
Isaiah 63:9;

I’ve not looked them all over but of those I’ve examined in the 1611 KJV [LINK] the translators used the Qere (marginal) reading in every case barring Isaiah 9:3.
No textual notes signaled their departure from the given Hebrew text.

However in the 1611 KJV (and in my 1873 version) at Isaiah 9:3 they provided a textual note

“thou hast multiplied the nation, and || not increased the joy…

“|| or, to him.” (1611)
“Or, to him. So Job 6. 21. Ps. 100. 3. ch. 49. 5.” (1873)


In most, if not all of the cases mentioned, translating the word “not” creates a tension within the verse that is eliminated when the Qere reading of “him/it’s” is substituted.

This needs to be answered.

And how about the NLT's rendition of the verse in Job that used the word "not"; I thought that was strange! :thumbs:

Rob

 

Thanks, Rob, for finding and listing the fifteen examples. I have been checking the examples in the pre-1611 English Bibles. The verse numbers in Job chapters 40 and 41 differ in the Geneva, Bishops', and KJV so that I am not sure if Job 41:4 in the KJV is the same verse in the Masoretic Text.

Along with Isaiah 9:3 [9:2 in Masoretic text], it seems that there may be a second example where the KJV did not follow the Keri or Qere [marginal] reading--Isaiah 49:5.

In the text, the KJV has "though Israel be not gathered," but the 1611 KJV has a marginal note: "Or that Israel may be gathered to him."

The NKJV evidently would be following the marginal reading at Isaiah 49:5 "so that Israel be gathered to Him." The 1917 English translation published by the Jewish Publication Society also follows the marginal reading at Isaiah 49:5.

At Exodus 21:8, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible does not follow the Masoretic Text marginal reading, which might indicate that either the Latin Vulgate or Luther's German Bible also did not follow it at that verse. Thus, Coverdale's has "and he have not married her" where the KJV followed the Geneva's rendering "who have betrothed her to himself."

At Lev. 11:21, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible do not seem to follow the Masoretic Text marginal reading:
even those that have no knees above upon the legs (1535 Coverdale's)
even those that have not bowings above upon their feet (1568 Bishops)

 

Job 41:4 (BHS) is Job 41:12 in our English versions.

I will not conceal his parts,
Nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
Job 41:12 AV 1873

I will not keep silence concerning his limbs,
Or his mighty strength, or his orderly frame.
Job 41:12 NASB95

I want to emphasize Leviathan’s limbs
and its enormous strength and graceful form.
Job 41:12 NLT

Your right!

I perused Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (first published in 1866) while at church this morning.
It’s generally considered a classic conservative evangelical OT commentary.

“…the only way to give an intelligible meaning to the chethib לֹא [lo’], taking it in a negative sense, is to render it, as Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and others have done, “Thou multipliest the nation to which Thou hadst formerly not given great joy,”

…but it is unnatural… We must give the preference to the keri לוֹ [lo] …(Volume VII - 245-246) .

As usual the NET version provides the most concise summation regarding the progression of thought regarding the difficulties in this verse.
(Why don’t I check their notes first? :tonofbricks: )

To translate simply: the ancient theory was so simply change a letter, turning “not” into “him”.
The more modern theory is to connect words (ancient Hebrew was written without spaces) and change a single letter, producing a single word, “the joy”.
It’s from this second theory that many modern texts derive their translations.

Rob

 

By what consistent and valid reasoning can it be claimed that it was acceptable for the KJV to follow this one Keri or Qere Masoretic text marginal note the majority of fifteen cases [perhaps even as many as 12 of the 15] but it would supposedly be a translation error for other translators to follow the exact same marginal note at Isaiah 9:3?

 

The problems occur when men attempt to rationalize the word of God without taking into consideration WHAT the word is actually saying.

 

To which 'word' would you be referring? To the various autographa or to your preferred version? According to the above, they don't agree. Things that are different are not the same, y'know!

 

The Qere readings were based upon rational decisions by Masoretic scholars of antiquity.

Sometimes the alternative readings are not so obviously correct.

Return to Job 13:15 (offered in the second post) as a simple example.

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: But I will maintain mine own ways before him.
AV 1873

Here the translators used the marginal (Qere) reading of the Hebrew text, giving us quite an inspiring verse.

The following translations did not use the marginal notes.

Each of these are taken right from the Hebrew text.
This text by the way, is at least as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QIsa].

Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope: Nevertheless I will maintain my ways before him.
ASV

See, he will kill me; I have no hope; but I will defend my ways to his face.
NRSV

God might kill me, but I have no other hope. I am going to argue my case with him.
NLT

He may well slay me; I may have no hope; Yet I will argue my case before Him.
JPS


Here are some resources for those interested in learning more about this textual dialogue.

The Origins of Ketiv-Qere Readings [LINK] (quite technical)

The KJV Qere List [LINK]

Rob

 

and as long as you try to rationalize the word of God you'll remain in this dilemma.

 

In the old commentary on Isaiah by Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra as translated into English by M. Friedlander and printed in 1873,
the following is noted about Isaiah 9:2 [9:3 in KJV]:

"'Unto him thou hast increased the rejoicing' this is according to the Keri; but according to the Ketib, 'To whom thou hast never before given so great rejoicing'" (p. 50).

"Keri is the reading of the text of the Bible according to the direction of the Massorah (tradition)--that is, according to the vowels, accents, and other signs, with which the text is supplemented."

Ketib "the text as it is written, without omitting, supplying, or altering any letter; the vowels to the letters must be supplied by the reader; for those in the text belong to the Keri." (p. 50 note 2 for chapter 9).

 

I have made more sense out of the commentaries on this verse than what I see offered by you.:godisgood:

 

And only people like you would make the word of God plain and DEAD.

The word of God is alive and not in the box you like for it to be in. Go look in your box, God isn;t there !:laugh: