mysterious rendering in the KJV

Good translations on the KJV-only view's line disagree concerning how to translate most accurately a Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther's Bible or both. The 1534 Luther's German Bible has "Igel" [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther's at this verse as can be seen in Haak's rendering "hedgehog." The 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine]. In addition, the 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also has "hedgehog." In his 1981 English translation "based on traditional Jewish sources," Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translated it "hedgehog" ["Anakah in Hebrew; yala in Aramaic (Targum; Bava Bathra)' herison in French (Rashi; Chizzkuni) erizo in Spanish (Ralbag)" (Living Torah, p. 321). Do KJV-only advocates consider this rendering "hedgehog" in their line of good Bibles to be an error or a corruption? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles whose translators failed to translate what the Hebrew says? Is the evidence from their view's good line possibly stronger for this rendering "hedgehog" than it is for the KJV's rendering? Were the KJV translators wrong not to follow the interpretation of several of the old rabbinical writers concerning the meaning of this Hebrew word?


On the other hand, the Geneva Bible rendered it as "rat," perhaps through the influence of the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate that rendered it with a word or words meaning "shrew" or "shrew mouse." At his note for this verse, Kaplan asserted that "the Septuagint translates it mugale, a mole, shrew mouse or field mouse" (Living Torah, p. 321).


The KJV rendered it as "ferret." What is the source of the KJV's rendering at Leviticus 11:30? That question is the reason for my title for this thread. The KJV translators often seem to have followed the rabbinical writers or otherwise the old translations such as the Peshitta Syraic, Greek LXX, or Latin Vulgate in their identification of animals, but it does not seem to be the case in this example. Having checked many sources, I could find no clear explanation for why the KJV has "ferret" at this verse. I had found only one statement that offered any suggestion for the basis of the KJV's rendering, and it did not seem to be a valid one. Here is that statement. In the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgram suggested that the rendering "ferret" came from the Septuagint (p. 671). However, the Septuagint does not seem to support the KJV’s rendering for this Hebrew word.

What evidence supports the KJV's rendering? The ferret is a member of the weasel family that was already listed in the twenty-ninth verse of this chapter.

 

By the way, I am aware that many present Bible scholars and that many present English translations translate the Hebrew word as "gecko." However, that information does not help explain why the KJV translators choose the rendering "ferret."

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible observed that "the position of anakah among the lizards has inclined scholars to regard it as one of them" (II, p. 117). Wilson's O. T. Word Studies defined this Hebrew word as "a shriek, cry, mourning; a species of reptile, probably of the lizard genus, having its name from a moaning cry; some suppose it to be the gecko" (p. 162). In his 1800's commentary, Adam Clarke also identified anakah as "a species of lizard, which derives its name from its piercing, doleful cry" (I, p. 542). Strong's Concise Dictionary of Bible Words defined it as "some kind of lizard, probably the gecko (from its wail)" (p. 11). Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chadlee Lexicon identified it as “a kind of reptiles of the lizard race, taking their name from the groaning noise like an exclamation of grief, which some lizards make” (p. 65). Harris asserted that “as its name in the Indies tockai and in Egypt gekko, is formed from its voice, so the Hebrew name anakah, or perhaps anakkah, seems to be formed in like manner” (Natural History, p. 117). The 1899 Magil's Linear School Bible, the 1917 English translation by Jews, and the 1985 Tanakh translate this Hebrew word as "gecko." The Encyclopaedia Judaica supported the identification of anakah as the "gecko" (Vol. 3, pp. 11-12; Vol. 7, p. 351). Kaplan acknowledged that other sources “translate it gecko, warel in Arabic (Saadia)“ (Living Torah, p. 321). Tristram concluded: “There is good reason for preferring the rendering ’lizard,’ or ’gecko,’ a species of lizard, to any other interpretation of anakah” (Natural History, p. 85). Willmington identified the animal at this verse as a “gecko (lizard)” (Complete Book, p. 25).

 

Thanks for the information in several of the posts. A post-1611 source could have been influenced by the KJV's rendering, but it does indicate that there was some basis for Jacob Milgram's suggestion. It is interesting that several different animals can be interpreted from or based on the Greek LXX's rendering.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does also suggest that “others apparently identify it with the beaver (Radak, Sherashim)” (Living Torah, p. 321). Is Radak's interpretation possibly the basis for the "ferret" rendering?

 

It still seems surprising that both the weasel and the ferret, which is a member of the weasel family, would be listed. The evidence for the rendering "ferret" does not seem to be as strong as the evidence for the pre-1611 Bibles' rendering "hedgehog" or for the rendering "gecko" which is supported by at least one old Jewish source along with much other evidence.

Since many sources did not indicate any basis or reason for the KJV's rendering and after learning that some Jewish sources claim that the last animal in verse 29 was the ferrent, I was beginning to wonder if the KJV’s rendering might come from a word in the previous verse.

At Leviticus 11:29 where the KJV has “tortoise,“ Aryeh Kaplan has the translation “ferret” with this note [“tzau in Hebrew; huron in Spanish (Ralbag); faruita in Old French (Chizzkuni)” (p. 321). Thus, at least two rabbical writers had claimed that another Hebrew word referred to the ferret.

While several other Jewish sources identify the Hebrew word in that verse with a form of lizard or with the toad (Rashi), Kaplan noted that “some say that the tzau is a tortoise (MeAm Lo’ez) since it is like a covered wagon, which is also called tzau (see Numbers 7:8)” (Ibid.). The 1568 Bishops’ Bible has “toad” and the 1560 Geneva has “frog” where the KJV has “tortoise.” Did the KJV translators possibly write two options “tortoise” and “ferret” above the Bishops’ rendering “toad” with the later revisers, editors, or printers putting one of them in verse twenty-nine and perhaps mistakenly putting the other in verse thirty?

That question was based on a possibility I thought of before some of you provided information that indicates that was at least some basis for the KJV's rendering even if it was not that strong. Perhaps the information about verse 29 could be connected to this other. Thus, it could be that the fact that some old Jewish sources had identified another animal in this list as "ferret" (verse 29) was an influence on the KJV translators in deciding to use this rendering in verse 30.

 

There may be some basis as others have indicated, but that basis seems to be in the word used in the Greek LXX [not the Hebrew].

 

Is a copy of the Annotations by Henry Ainsworth available online anywhere?