Isaiah 9:3 and the KJV

Isaiah 9:3 in the Authorized or King James Version: 

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

In the New King James Version:

You have multiplied the nation 
And increased its joy;[i]
They rejoice before You 
According to the joy of harvest, 
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

[For further comparison, the RV and ASV]:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

Notice the differences in these translations. The Masoretic consonantal text (Ketiv) has the particle לֹא (loʾ, “not”); the margin (Kere) of it has לוֹ (lo, “him” “it”). The NKJV translators and/or editors chose to put the marginal reading in the text, the opposite choice of that made by the King James translators.

This is one of the cases where the NKJV editors violated their stated goal of producing a new King James that might be easily read or listened to while following with the King James (or vice versa). “A special feature of the New King James Version is its conformity to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. The reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words, phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following with the other.” (From the “Preface” of The New King James Version.) It is jarring rather than easy to be reading one translation here while listening to the other being read. I found it so the first time I heard it read, creating a meaning in the NKJV opposite to what I saw in my KJV.

The NKJV, like the KJV, could have also kept the other reading (“to him”) in the footnote or margin – but it did not, choosing to match most modern translations rather than matching the KJV. This created a reading that is just opposite the KJV. Of modern Bibles, I found it interesting that the Lexham English Bible follows the KJV here, against almost every other modern English translation I know of, including the NKJV.

You have made the nation numerous; you have not made the joy great.[ii] They rejoice in your presence as with joy at the harvest, as they rejoice when they divide plunder.

A “new” King James should have also followed that option to live up to what it claims to be. Some have ameliorated the NKJV translators by arguing that this is a difficult decision. The default position of a “new” King James Bible that could be read alongside the King James Bible should have been to simply follow the KJV in “difficult” places. Or, put another way, a goal of creating a new King James Bible to which a King James user could easily transition should have been to only update language but otherwise ratify the choice of the King James translators in difficult places – rather than change the very meaning of the King James translation.[iii]  That’s another translation, not a “new” King James Bible.

Here again, the NKJV does not live up to what it claims to be.

---

[i] The NKJV footnote reads: Isaiah 9:3 So with Qr., Tg.; Kt., Vg. not increased joy; LXX Most of the people You brought down in Your joy
[ii] The LEB footnote reads: Isaiah 9:3 The written text (Kethib) is “not,” but the reading tradition (Qere) is “for it”
[iii] If in the strength and trust of their own learning these translators could not do so, they should have bowed out of the project.

Check your sources

Not long ago, Alex Suarez shared something he was looking at in Psalm 30, verse 8. The question presupposed the idea that the ALL CAPS or Small Caps of LORD / Lord in the Authorized Version of the Bible (King James) signifies the tetragrammaton (that is, is a translation of Jehovah).[i] In The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (p. 147), F. H. A. Scrivener writes: “Heb. Jehovah. The words ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are always intended to be printed in small capitals in the Authorized Version, when they are employed to translate that Holy Name.”[For more detail, see also my post Lord, Lord, and lord.)

Alex noticed the ALL CAPS (or Small Caps) feature in Psalm 30:8 in the Authorized Version for Lord (i.e., the tetragrammaton / Jehovah / Yᵊhōvâ) seemed to be wrongly placed.

Psalm 30:8 I cried to thee, O LORD (יְהוָה / Yᵊhōvâ); and unto the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) I made supplication.

According to his source, it showed the second LORD in this verse to be a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. The text of the Authorized Version clearly has the same type-face for Lord both times.

This is a picture of the 1611 printing. It has Small Caps in both places.

Alex later reported that he ran across some other examples: 

• 1 Kings 3:15 “And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy), and offered up burnt offerings, and offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants.
• Psalm 90:17 "And let the beauty of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it."
• Isaiah 38:14 “Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: O LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy), I am oppressed; undertake for me."
• Ezekiel 21:9 “Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus saith the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy); Say, A sword, a sword is sharpened, and also furbished:”
• Malachi 1:12 “But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.”

These findings raised two questions in my mind.

1. Is this found using the same Hebrew text as used by the King James translators?
2. Is the “Caps” rule re Jehovah universal and consistent?

On the first, I did a check of Psalm 30:8 in the King James Bible at Blue Letter Bible. This site gives the corresponding original text  words beside the English words. Hebrew is not my forte, and I use this resource as a quick online check of original language words in the King James Bible. Having made the same finding as Alex, I moved on to think about the second.

On the second, particularly then, is there some rule or explanation somewhere that says LORD (ALL CAPS or Small Caps) always and only means Jehovah in the King James translation? It seems there is no statement by the translators themselves about this. It is an observation that has been made based on the text itself. I wondered if this might relate to translation rule # 1, which was about generally following the Bishops Bible. The 1602 Bishops had LORD in the same style both times in this verse. However, the answer was not to be found along these lines.

I found that I had too quickly accepted the reliability of my source at Blue Letter Bible, and did not follow up on the better explanation.[ii] However, David Stark, pastor at Grace Presbyterian Church of Redding, California, rescued us from our quagmire.

“Brethren, the Hebrew printed editions that the AV translators used had YHWH in all those places, and correctly translated it, according to the usage they chose, as LORD.

“The St. Petersburg Codex has ‘Adonai’ in those places. (Psalm 30:8; 90:17; 1Kings 3:15; Isaiah 38:14; Ezekiel 21:9 [21:14 in the Hebrew text]; and Malachi 1:12).

“It is always important to make sure you are looking at the actual text the AV translators used whenever you are checking their accuracy.

“From the Hebrew text they used, the AV is completely reliable in all those passages. (YHWH = LORD)”

David provided scans of a couple of examples from the Jacob Ben Chayim/ Daniel Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. These have (יְהוָה), not (אֲדֹנָי).

Psalm 30:8

Psalm 90:17

There are different readings behind LORD in different Hebrew texts. Sources must be carefully checked and confirmed, lest we find the wrong answer. I had not previously checked the underlying Hebrew text used in the Blue Letter Bible tools. I had falsely assumed that since this was the King James Bible then the Hebrew text would be that which matched the King James Bible (i.e., was used by the King James translastors). Wrong. Lesson learned. The hard way.[iii] 

This Hebrew text is a digital version of the Leningrad Codex developed by the Westminster Hebrew Institute and made available by The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research. This version is based on the January, 2016 WLC v4.20 release.

Wiping the egg from his face, he passes along a lesson learned (actually two, I suppose).

• Always check your sources.
• Don’t just take the quick and easy source.

---

[i] Whether ALL CAPS or Small Caps seems to be a printer’s choice.

[ii] Even had I bothered to check on my shelf the print editions of Youngs and Strongs Concordances, the answer is there as well (apparently correctly following the underlying text of the King James Bible this instance).

[iii] They were not hiding it. I made assumptions and just have never bothered to check.

Oldest is Best?

Q. Should we assume an older manuscript is a better text than a more recent one? Is there a biblical basis for this?

A. “Oldest is best” or “earliest and best” are expressions of an eclectic theory of textual criticism, in which the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that are dated chronologically as the oldest are also thought to be the best (i.e., by “best” they mean closest to or most like the original words written by a biblical author). For example, discussing Acts 8:37 Edward D. Andrews (Critical Text supporter and chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version) begins, “The earliest and best Greek manuscripts [emp. mine] … do not contain vs. 37.”

The oldest manuscript (i.e., first) is the original autograph. It was first in time, first chronologically. When God finished inspiring and Isaiah had written down his prophecies, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Isaiah. When God finished inspiring and Paul completed his letter to the Galatians, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Galatians. However, none of these original autographs are extant (that is, the media on which these words were written no longer exists). All manuscripts, authentical or inauthentic, are copies of the original autograph, it being the first.[i] At first blush someone might think, “Well, it seems like the first copy made (i.e., oldest) would be the best.” That is a logical fallacy, and even if that were true, the oldest copies we have are not the first copies of the originals.

There is no biblical reason to think the older the manuscript, the better it is, or that it is the best. Neither is there any logical reason why it should be said that an older manuscript is better. The prevailing mantra of textual criticism asserts that the older is better because it is closer in time to the original autographs. If it is actually older, then all that can be said is that it is older, that is, is closer in time to the autographs.[ii] However, the age of a manuscript does not equal or necessarily reflect the age of its text. A newer manuscript could be a copy of an older text. Or a newer manuscript could be a copy of the same text from which the older manuscript was copied, but accomplished with no or fewer errors. Which would be more accurate? Closer in time to the original does not equal closer in accuracy to the original. An older inaccurate manuscript is not better than a newer more accurate one. 

Consider this illustration. Ten years ago (November 7, 2013) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make some mistakes. Today (November 7, 2023) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make no mistakes. Which copy is older? Which copy is better?[iii]

---

[i] That is, they all in some sense go back to the original or first writing. Obviously we recognize there are copies of the original, copies of copies of the original, and so on.

[ii] Text critics who reject eclectic text theories – for example, Maurice Robinson (who promotes majority text theory) – have succinctly and successfully pointed out “the fallacy of the oldest.” Older manuscripts and versions, as well as references by early church writers, demonstrate a terminus a quo for a particular reading, that is, a time or date at which the reading can be “no later than.” For example, if around AD 175 Irenaeus mentions what we know are Mark 16:19, then we know that in or around AD 175, Mark 16:19 was in the Gospel of Mark used by Irenaeus. This establishes the existence of a given reading at a given date. It arose “no later than” that. Authenticity is a different debate not established by time or dating.
[iii] Even those who dismiss providential preservation must accept the logic of this illustration. Even if I made a mistake in the more recent copy, were it to have fewer mistakes than the older copy, it is still the better copy. Age does not determine accuracy.

Psalm numbering, again

In regard to the Psalm numbering key I posted yesterday, someone asked if I could include the Latin Vulgate. I have revised the chart accordingly. The Vulgate numbering of the Psalms follows the Septuagint. It is possible that some of the internal verse numbering varies. (I did not check all that.)

I found a Catholic site that states that in the USA the Catholic Psalm numbering follows the number in the Hebrew, while in some European Catholic Bibles the numbering follows the Vulgate/Septuagint. This would be in reference to translations.

I also added Psalm 151, which appears in the Brenton Septuagint without a number, and is also in the Latin Vulgate (but not the Douay-Rheims English translation).

Numbering of Psalms in Greek and Hebrew Traditions

Comparing the Psalms in the KJV and LXX may become confusing because of the differences of the numbering of the individual Psalms (which divisions some mistakenly call chapters). This reflects a difference in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint traditions. A general but inexact rule of thumb is that most of them are off by one number. Here is a quick key of comparison.

Sometimes there are internal verse numbering differences, such as the superscriptions being numbered as the 1st verse in English translations of the LXX (Septuagint), while not being numbered in the King James translation. Compare, for example, Psalm 3.

LXX Verse 1: A Psalm of David, when he fled from the presence of his son Abessalom.

KJV Superscription: A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.

Resources I used for comparison are HERE and HERE, as well as a print copy of the Brenton translation. It is my understanding that Lancelot Brenton’s translation is based on Codex Vaticanus, via the Sixtine edition of 1587 and the Valpy edition of 1819 (which was Brenton’s immediate source). If anyone finds any discrepancies or errors in the above key, please let me know. Thanks.

Goliath, a giant

Goliath, the not-so-giant giant?

Introduction

Back in December 2022, an interloper swooped down into the “King James Bible / Textus Receptus Defenders” Facebook group. He was anti-King James, anti-Masoretic text, and pro-Greek Old Testament. In about three or four days he put up hundreds of posts, then, either having expended all the contrary items he knew or having worn out his welcome – or both – he moved on to play games elsewhere.

One of his anti-KJV anti-Masoretic text screeds was about the height of Goliath, the not-so-giant giant, reduced in height by 3 feet. The Hebrew Masoretic text was wrong; the Greek LXX was right. Here is the relevant verse for inspection.

KJV English translation from the Masoretic text

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

וַיֵּצֵ֤א אִֽישׁ־הַבֵּנַ֙יִם֙ מִמַּחֲנ֣וֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים גָּלְיָ֥ת שְׁמ֖וֹ מִגַּ֑ת גָּבְה֕וֹ שֵׁ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת וָזָֽרֶת׃

Brenton English translation from the LXX

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height [was] four cubits and a span.

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς ἐκ τῆς παρατάξεως τῶν ἀλλοφύλων Γολιὰθ ὄνομα αὐτῶν ἐκ Γέθ, ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς·

Immediately a difference stands out – the Hebrew Goliath stands at 6 cubits and a span (about 9 feet 9 inches) while the Greek Goliath is two cubits shorter, four cubits and a span (about 6 feet 9 inches).[i] What to do?

Witnesses for the short Goliath

The interloper, with great intent to slight the Masoretic text, argued that the Greek reading is supported by Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In that he is correct. Josephus stated:

Now there came down a man out of the camp of the Philistines, whose name was Goliath, of the city of Gath; a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness: and had about him weapons suitable to the largeness of his body: for he had a breast-plate on that weighed five thousand shekels. Josephus, Antiquities, Book VI, Chapter 9, Verse 1

Josephus is an historian to whom we often turn to see what he has to say about 1st century Jewish and Christian history. Often, he can be very interesting and helpful. On the other hand, he is neither inspired nor infallible. What his description tells us is that he had access to a text that was corrupted in this verse, perhaps like the Dead Sea Scroll or the Greek Old Testament. On the other hand, folks like the interloper mentioned above mention the late date of the Masoretic Text we are using. Then keep quiet about the date of the manuscripts of Josephus. I believe none of them are older than the 11th century AD.[ii]

What Josephus wrote has been known for centuries, but perhaps revived in interest with the discovery of scroll 4QSam(a). Translated into English, the scroll says something like:

“Then a champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was FOUR CUBITS and a span.” 1 Samuel 17:4, Dead Sea Scroll 4QSam(a) circa 75 BC

The Qumran scrolls, discovered in 1947, had been out of the possession of both the Jews or the Lord’s churches – or anyone else – for over one thousand nine hundred and fifty years. They are a grand historical find, but they are not part of the scriptures God preserved in the pillar and ground of his truth. We cannot accept the Bible doctrine of the preservation of his word and also insert hidden words outside the provenance of the Lord’s churches. These scrolls have been preserved as historical documents, but not as words in use by the Lord’s people. In fact, just who produced and used these still seems an unsettled question.

The interloper boldly claimed, “The oldest Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, which are MSS of the Book of Samuel, go back to the 1st to the 3rd century BC. These agree perfectly with the LXX today.” Quite the lie, known to be so by those who carefully study the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either he was deceived himself, or set out to deceive. Sometimes the scrolls agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and sometimes with the Greek Old Testament, and sometimes have differences from both.[iii]

Here is a closer look at the scroll “containing” 1 Samuel 17:4. For his readers, the interloper did not give a fair and honest representation of the DSS 1 Samuel 7:14. In English translations we find many of the words either bracketed or italicized as below – because this portion of the scroll is very fragmentary. All the relevant words are not actually visible and must be supplied!

[Then] a cha[mpion named Goliath, who was from Gath, ca]me out [of the Philistine camp. His height was f]our [cubits] and a span.[iv]

A champion out of the camp of the Philistines named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span went out.[v]

Notice in both presentations (though slightly different) there are more unreadable words than readable ones. This is problematic in that are entire change in the Bible could rest on either the skill or guesswork of those trying to reconstruct this text.

Concerning the Greek translation of the Old Testament, we also must understand that there is not one THE Septuagint – not just one that is complete, final, and authoritative. There are numerous ones, some of which have five cubits or six cubits rather than four cubits.[vi] For example, see a reference book on Origen’s Hexapla on 1 Samuel 17:4.[vii]

Notably, Greek Old Testaments have other corruptions in 1 Samuel. For example, the text preferred in the Brenton translation is missing 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55-58, 18:1-5 – but the Alexandrine text has these verses, which Brenton supplies in an appendix.[viii]

Witnesses supporting the Masoretic text

Those clamoring for the “shorter” reading sometimes fail to recognize or mention other witnesses in addition to the Masoretic Text – such as the Vulgate, Peshitta (“his height was six cubits and a half cubit”), and Targums (Jonathan, שִׁתָּא אַמִין וְזֵירְתָא). The Greek translation of the Old Testament by the Jew Symmachus (circa AD 200) has six cubits and a span. He attempted to accurately translate the Hebrew into Greek. The use of “six cubits and a span” indicates he had a manuscript at that time, with that reading. The fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla also contains the reading six cubits and a span. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome in the fourth century is another witness to the greater elevation of Goliath – “sex cubitorum et palmo,” that is, “six cubits and a span.” This height may also be found in Midrash Jewish exegesis.[ix]

Other Bible evidence

It is worthwhile to note other mentions of height in the Bible, though there are not that many.

Several commentators and historians (including the NET Bible), however accurately, put the average height of an Israelite male around the time of David and Goliath at about 5 feet 3 inches.[x] Saul was head and shoulders taller than the tallest Israelite of his time – maybe around 6 feet tall, or perhaps a little more (1 Samuel 9:2). Og king of Bashan’s height is not given in the Scriptures, but he had a nine-cubit bedstead (13-1/2 feet). LXX (ἐννέα πήχεων) agrees here. It is unlikely that a “7 ft. giant” would need or want a 13 ft bed. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada slew an Egyptian who was five cubits high (that is, about 7-1/2 ft. See 2 Samuel 23:21; 1 Chronicles 11:23). This Egyptian would be taller than the LXX Goliath. He is simply called a man of great stature.

Many exegetes have noted the size and weight of Goliath’s armor and weapon. The staff of his spear was “like a weaver’s beam” with the head itself weighing about 15 pounds.[xi] His armor probably weighed about 130 pounds. This is not conclusive, but certainly is suggestive of the larger Goliath.

The Companion Bible points out the characterization of Goliath by the number six: “Note his number ‘6’ is stamped like a ‘hallmark’ on this ‘man’” – the six cubits, “the six pieces of armour,” and the six hundred shekels of iron.[xii]

Conclusion

To me, it seems like a thread running through the supporters of short Goliath is the difficulty to believe this man could actually have been over nine feet tall. In “The Height of Goliath: A Text Critical Question,” Jonathan Burke wrote:

“This is a height which is not only highly unlikely for any Iron Age man, but far beyond what would have been considered a giant at the time.” (2011, p. 1)

Burke continues, “Archaeology has shown that the heroes buried in the ‘royal tombs’ at Mycenae were 1.76 ‐ 1.80 mtr. tall, [about 5’10”] while the height of the average man at that period (according to the skeletons excavated) was 1.64 mtr. [about 5’4”] both in the Aegean lands and in Canaan.”[xiii]

In contrast to Burke, the Unger’s Bible Dictionary (among other sources) claims that “Skeltons recovered in Palestine attest the fact that men as tall as Goliath [i.e., “over nine feet”] once lived in that general region.”[xiv]

Modern textual critics seem split on the issue. Peter Gurry and John Meade write:

“Although the six-nine Goliath has the earlier and perhaps better external evidence, the nine-nine Goliath is probably more likely original because a later scribe probably found a contextual reason (1 Sam. 9:2) to shorten Goliath to six nine.”[xv]

Benjamin J. M. Johnson concludes similarly Gurry and Meade. Johnson argues that the change to “six” in cubits from reading the number later in “six hundred” is unlikely, and that the height of the giant is so iconic that a scribe would not likely miss that. He argues rather that it is more likely an intentional change from six to four.

“…the reference to ‘six hundred’ in v. 7 seems fairly far removed from v. 4. For example in 4QSam^a it is four lines apart. Furthermore, if the reception history of this story is anything to judge by, it strikes me as unlikely that a scribe would accidentally change something as iconic as the height of Goliath. It seems more likely that the change in height is the result of intentional exegesis…there does seem to be a good narrative reason for a scribe to lower the height of Goliath. If Goliath is merely four cubits, or around six foot six inches tall, then, though a towering figure, he is not a creature of legend but merely an extremely big man. Rather than give the account verisimilitude, this shortening of Goliath serves as a critique of Saul, who is head and shoulders taller than everyone in Israel (1 Sam 9:2). After all, who better to face the Philistine giant, than the Israelite giant—Saul?[xvi]

Modern translators are slow to agree with a short Goliath. For example, on Bible Gateway, of 54 translations of 1 Samuel 17:4, 50 of these accept the Masoretic reading, 3 take the LXX reading, and 1 vaguely says “almost twice as tall as most men.” The majority of translators are not beating a path to the LXX door on this verse.

The interloper’s argument mostly falls flat as an anti-KJV screed. We should never fear believing our King James and Masoretic Text, six cubits and a span / שֵׁ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת וָזָֽרֶת.

---

[i] In this essay, I am using the measurement of a cubit equaling about 18 inches, and a span about half that, 9 inches. There are other opinions about these measurements.
[ii] Josephus: all the Greek Manuscripts. This, in my mind, leaves open the possibility that his text was “corrected” to match the Septuagint reading. I have not researched this carefully. It is just an initial thought. Others may have already proven whether this could or could not be so. Other things that could be researched – possibly have been and I am not aware of it – are (1) might Josephus have been a member of the Jewish party who used the Dead Sea Scrolls, and (2) could the cubit have been adjusted to what translators felt was a changing standard of how many increments comprised a cubit.
[iii] Scrolls editor Emanuel Tov identifies 5 different groups of DSS texts: 1. Texts written in Qumran practice (about 20% of the texts); 2. Proto-Masoretic texts (about 35%); 3. Pre-Samaritan texts (about 5%); 4. Texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of G (about 5%); and Non-aligned texts (about 35%). Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, pp. 114-116.
[iv] The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, Martin G. Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, Editors (translation and commentary) HarperCollins, p. 229
[v] Words in italics cannot be seen in the scroll, since the scroll is fragmentary. Words present in the scroll but with some letters unreadable or missing are in blue. Dead Sea Scrolls English Bible Translation.
[vi] LXX^A and LXX^L have 4, while LXX^B has 6. The “odd man out” is the 8th century manuscript known as Codex Venetus, which has the reading five cubits and a span (i.e., circa 7 feet 3 inches). 1 Samuel is not in Sinaiticus.
[vii] 4. שֵׁשׁ. Ο. τεσσάρων. Alia exempl.  Πεντε.7 Σ και οι λοιποι εξ.8 7. Sic Codd. XI, 29, 52, 55 alii (inter quos 243).  So Codices 11, 29, 52, 55 others (including 243). 8. Cod. 243. Sic in textu Ald., Codd. III, 44, 74, alii, Arm. I. Codex 243. Thus in the text Ald., Codd. III, 44, 74, others, Arm. I. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt; Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in Totum vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, Tomus I, Genesis-Esther, Fridericus Field, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875, p. 515.
[viii] Brenton’s translation is based on Codex Vaticanus, via Sixtine edition of 1587 and the Valpy edition of 1819 (which was Brenton’s immediate source). For more on LXX manuscripts, see Manuscripts of the Septuagint. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes, by Henry Barclay Swete.
[ix] On I Samuel 17:49, medieval French rabbi Rashi cites Midrash Tehillim 18:32, which says that Goliath fell forward rather than backwards, “so that David wouldn’t have to go to so much trouble to cut off his head. He gained twelve cubits and two spans.” Noticeably, this is twice the height of Goliath, if he is considered to be six cubits and a span. Midrashes Vayikra Rabbah and Shir Hashirim Rabbah also say that Goliath fell forward toward David, although they only give Goliath’s actual height, six cubits and a span. Some interpreters think all three of these intend to express the same idea – the former (Tehillim) expressing it in the distance difference of falling forward instead of backward (12 cubits and 2 spans), while the other two simply express how far he fell forward (6 cubits and a span).
[x] NET Bible note on 1 Samuel 17:4 – tc Heb “his height was six cubits and a span.” The LXX, a Qumran manuscript of 1 Samuel, and Josephus read “four cubits and a span.” A cubit was approximately 17.5 inches, a span half that. So the Masoretic text places Goliath at about 9½ feet tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres” while the other textual witnesses place him at about 6 feet, 7 inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). Note, too, that the cubit was adjusted through history, also attested in Babylon (NIDOTTE 421-424 s.v. אַמָּה). If the cubits measuring Goliath were reckoned as the cubit of Moses, his height at 6 cubits and a span would be approximately 7 feet 9 inches tall. This is one of many places in Samuel where the LXX and Qumran evidence seems superior to the Masoretic text. It is possible that the scribe’s eye skipped briefly to the number 6 a few lines below in a similar environment of letters. The average Israelite male of the time was about 5 feet 3 inches, so a man 6 feet 7 inches would be a very impressive height. Saul, being head and shoulder above most Israelites, would have been nearly 6 feet tall. That is still shorter than Goliath, even at “four cubits and a span,” and makes a sharper contrast between David and Saul. There would have been a greater expectation that a 6 foot tall Saul would confront a 6 feet 7 inches Goliath, placing Saul in a bad light while still positioning David as a hero of faith, which is fitting to the context.
[xi] Oddly, Jonathan Burke argues that the description refers to being like looped cords on a weaver’s beam, “that enabled a warrior to throw it harder and further.” Then he says “spears were commonly used to thrust at short range rather than thrown (note Goliath does not throw his spear.” Burke, p. 2.
[xii] The Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger, editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, (original) 1922, p.389.
[xiii] Burke, page 1, fn 1; from Margalith, “The Sea Peoples in the Bible,” p. 49 (1994).
[xiv] Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, p. 419.
[xv] “How Tall Was Goliath? A Textual Dilemma,” at Crossway.
[xvi] B. J. M. Johnson, “Reconsidering 4QSam^a and the Textual Support for the Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story,” Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012), pp. 539-540.

A Re’em Resource

The Hebrew word re’em (רְאֵם) is used nine times (in slightly different forms: kir·’êm, 1; rə·’êm, 3; rə·’ê·mîm, 2; rêm, 2; rê·mîm, 1) in the Hebrew Old Testament: Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9–10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; Isaiah 34:7. The re’em is an animal, whose proper identification and translation is sometimes disputed. Below I have collected the verses in 5 translations. The first line is an excerpt of the Hebrew showing the word re’em, based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. The second is the Greek Septuagint translation (LXX) from the Septuagint Bible placed online by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The third (VUL) is based on the Clementine Vulgate at Bible Gateway.. The fourth (LTR) is based on 1545 Luther German Bible at Bible Gateway. at Bible Gateway. The fifth line (KJV) is the King James English translation. The sixth (YLT) is based on the 1898 Robert Young Literal Translation at Bible Gateway.

The version choices may be somewhat obvious – the Septuagint and Vulgate for their longstanding influence (for good or ill) on Bible translation. The Luther Bible is the first important Reformation-era Bible translated from the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) rather than from the LXX or Vulgate. The King James Version has held sway among English speakers for 400 years. The Young’s Literal Translation, though perhaps not so important in the grand scheme of things, nevertheless demonstrates a choice to bring over the word re’em from the Hebrew rather than translate it to an English word. The majority of modern translations show a preference for “wild ox.”

The words in brackets [] in the Latin translation of Psalm 22:21 and Psalm 92:10 are from Jerome’s “iuxta Hebraeos” translation of the Psalms. It is my understanding that this translation is supposed to be a close translation of the Hebrew, and that the Old Testament book of Psalms generally found in the Vulgate is based on the Greek LXX. Also note that the Psalm number and verse number can vary in the LXX and Vulgate from what we are used to with the King James numbering. The number in parentheses () is the number they use.

The Hebrew word and the word translated from re’em is bolded. In the LXX and Luther’s Bible, re’em is not translated as a noun in Job 39:10, but a pronoun is substituted. The LXX does not translate re’em as “monoceros” in Isaiah 34:7. Young does not translate re’em in Psalm 22:21. The Vulgate uses both “rhinoceros” and “unicorn.” The KJV translates re’em as unicorn in all nine verses.

Numbers 23:22

מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם כְּתוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם לֽוֹ׃

LXX: Θεὸς ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ.

VUL: Deus eduxit illum de AEgypto, cujus fortitudo similis est rhinocerotis.

LTR: Gott hat sie aus Ägypten geführt; seine Freudigkeit ist wie eines Einhorns.

KJV: God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

YLT: God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the swiftness of a Reem is to him;

Numbers 24:8

מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם כְּתוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם ל֑וֹ יֹאכַ֞ל

LXX: Θεὸς ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ· ἔδεται ἔθνη ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ πάχη αὐτῶν ἐκμυελιεῖ καὶ ταῖς βολίσιν αὐτοῦ κατατοξεύσει ἐχθρόν·

VUL: Deus eduxit illum de AEgypto, cujus fortitudo similis est rhinocerotis. Devorabunt gentes hostes illius, ossaque eorum confringent, et perforabunt sagittis.

LTR: Gott hat ihn aus Ägypten geführt; seine Freudigkeit ist wie eines Einhorns. Er wird die Heiden, seine Verfolger, fressen und ihre Gebeine zermalmen und mit seinen Pfeilen zerschmettern.

KJV: God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

YLT: God is bringing him out of Egypt; As the swiftness of a Reem is to him, He eateth up nations his adversaries, And their bones he breaketh, And [with] his arrows he smiteth,

Deuteronomy 33:17

ל֗וֹ וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו בָּהֶ֗ם

LXX: πρωτότοκος ταύρου τὸ κάλλος αὐτοῦ, κέρατα μονοκέρωτος τὰ κέρατα αὐτοῦ· ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔθνη κερατιεῖ ἅμα ἕως ἀπ᾿ ἄκρου γῆς. αὗται μυριάδες ᾿Εφραΐμ, καὶ αὗται χιλιάδες Μανασσῆ.

VUL: Quasi primogeniti tauri pulchritudo ejus, cornua rhinocerotis cornua illius: in ipsis ventilabit gentes usque ad terminos terrae. Hae sunt multitudines Ephraim: et haec millia Manasse.

LTR: Seine Herrlichkeit ist wie eines erstgeborenen Stieres, und seine Hörner sind wie Einhornshörner; mit denselben wird er die Völker stoßen zuhauf bis an des Landes Enden. Das sind die Zehntausende Ephraims und die Tausende Manasses.

KJV: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

YLT: His honour [is] a firstling of his ox, And his horns [are] horns of a reem; By them peoples he doth push together To the ends of earth; And they [are] the myriads of Ephraim, And they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9

הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עָבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־

LXX: βουλήσεται δέ σοι μονόκερως δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου;

VUL: Numquid volet rhinoceros servire tibi, aut morabitur ad praesepe tuum?

LTR: Meinst du das Einhorn werde dir dienen und werde bleiben an deiner Krippe?

KJV: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

YLT: Is a Reem willing to serve thee? Doth he lodge by thy crib?

Job 39:10

הֲ‍ֽתִקְשָׁר־ רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ

LXX: δήσεις δὲ ἐν ἱμᾶσι ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ ἢ ἑλκύσει σου αὔλακας ἐν πεδίῳ;

VUL: Numquid alligabis rhinocerota ad arandum loro tuo, aut confringet glebas vallium post te?

LTR: Kannst du ihm dein Seil anknüpfen, die Furchen zu machen, daß es hinter dir brache in Tälern?

KJV: Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

YLT: Dost thou bind a Reem in a furrow [with] his thick band? Doth he harrow valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21

אַרְיֵ֑ה וּמִקַּרְנֵ֖י רֵמִ֣ים עֲנִיתָֽנִי׃

LXX: (21:22) σῶσόν με ἐκ στόματος λέοντος καὶ ἀπὸ κεράτων μονοκερώτων τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου.

VUL: (21:22) Salva me ex ore leonis, et a cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam.

LTR: Hilf mir aus dem Rachen des Löwen und errette mich von den Einhörnern!

KJV: Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

YLT: Save me from the mouth of a lion: -- And -- from the horns of the high places Thou hast answered me!

Psalm 29:6

כְּמ֣וֹ בֶן־ רְאֵמִֽים׃

LXX: (28:6) καὶ λεπτυνεῖ αὐτὰς ὡς τὸν μόσχον τὸν Λίβανον, καὶ ὁ ἠγαπημένος ὡς υἱὸς μονοκερώτων.

VUL: (28:6) et comminuet eas, tamquam vitulum Libani, et dilectus quemadmodum filius unicornium [rinocerotis].

LTR: Und macht sie hüpfen wie ein Kalb, den Libanon und Sirjon wie ein junges Einhorn.

KJV: He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

YLT: And He causeth them to skip as a calf, Lebanon and Sirion as a son of Reems,

Psalm 92:10

וַתָּ֣רֶם כִּרְאֵ֣ים קַרְנִ֑י בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י

LXX: (91:11) καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὡς μονοκέρωτος τὸ κέρας μου καὶ τὸ γῆράς μου ἐν ἐλαίῳ πίονι·

VUL: (91:11) Et exaltabitur sicut unicornis [monocerotis] cornu meum, et senectus mea in misericordia uberi.

LTR: Und macht sie hüpfen wie ein Kalb, den Libanon und Sirjon wie ein junges Einhorn.

KJV: But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

YLT: And Thou exaltest as a reem my horn, I have been anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7

וְיָרְד֤וּ רְאֵמִים֙ עִמָּ֔ם וּפָרִ֖ים

LXX: καὶ συμπεσοῦνται οἱ ἁδροὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ κριοὶ καὶ οἱ ταῦροι, καὶ μεθυσθήσεται ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στέατος αὐτῶν ἐμπλησθήσεται.

VUL: Et descendent unicornes cum eis, et tauri cum potentibus; inebriabitur terra eorum sanguine, et humus eorum adipe pinguium.

LTR: Da werden die Einhörner samt ihnen herunter müssen und die Farren samt den gemästeten Ochsen. Denn ihr Land wird trunken werden von Blut und ihre Erde dick werden von Fett.

KJV: And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

YLT: And come down have reems with them, And bullocks with bulls, And soaked hath been their land from blood, And their dust from fatness is made fat.

In addition to these verses (above), the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate use “monoceros/unicorn” to translate the Hebrew word rā·mîm. Luther, King James, and Young’s do not follow.

Psalm 78:69

רָ֭מִים rā·mîm (heights?, high, uplifted)

LXX: (77:69) καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ὡς μονοκέρωτος τὸ ἁγίασμα αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

VUL: (77:69) Et aedificavit sicut unicornium [monoceroton] sanctificium suum, in terra quam fundavit in saecula.

LTR: Und baute sein Heiligtum hoch, wie die Erde, die ewiglich fest stehen soll.

KJV: And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

YLT: And buildeth His sanctuary as a high place, Like the earth, He founded it to the age.

Genesis 5, Genesis 11: Primeval Chronology

I have noticed some popular “primeval chronology” charts that find their way around the internet. They are designed to challenge the chronology of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, calling it “corrupted.” The Genesis 5 chronology also tweaks the LXX timeline to keep Methuselah from living through the flood. I have created this chart to remove those objectionable features while providing a comparison of the chronologies in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) text. The color coding and other clarity is much better in the originals, and I apologize for the lack of crispness of the scans.

Note: In Quaestiones Hebraicae in Geneseos, Jerome describes having a Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript matching the MT regarding the years of Methuselah and Lamech. “It remains, then, that there is an error in number [i.e., in the LXX, rlv]. Indeed, in the books of the Hebrews and the Samaritans, I found it thus written, and Methuselah lived 187 years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech 782 years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died. And Lamech lived 182 years and begat Noah.”

You should be able to click on these to enlarge them for easier reading. I may have missed or confused the color coding at times, as I was doing this in the midst of distractions. If you have any comments, suggestions, or corrections, let me know.