[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

In post #5 the excellent John Calvin commentary on the verse is referenced. John Calvin is often vague with his precise Hebraic sources, although he references the interpretative translation of the Targum Jonathan for Isaiah 13:15 in that paragraph. Scholars place John Calvin as familiar with some or all of Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn Ezra directly. And also Nicholas of Lyra, who referenced the rabbinics. And Rashi and Kimchi, we will see, directly reference Isaiah 13:15.

Many sources would be in the mikraot gedolot. Here is a bit of info, wikipedia, sound on the basic facts.

Mikraot Gedolot (מקראות גדולות), often called the "Rabbinic Bible" in English, is an edition of Tanakh (in Hebrew) that generally includes four distinct elements:

* The Biblical text according to the mesorah in its letters, vocalization, and cantillation marks.
* Masoretic notes on the Biblical text.
* Aramaic Targum.
* Biblical commentaries (most common and prominent are medieval commentaries in the peshat tradition).

First published in 1524–25 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by the masoretic scholar Yaakov ben Hayyim.

the Mikraot Gedolot typically includes the commentaries of:

* Targum Jonathan (For the Torah, Pseudo-Jonathan)
* Rashbam
* Abraham ibn Ezra
* David Kimhi (Rada"k)
* Nahmanides
* Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno
* Shabbethai Bass (Siftei Chakhamim)

In addition there could be individual publications works of the hebraist scholars that were used as the sources for the mikraot gedelot. And Rashi would be published separately. Ibn Ezra's Isaiah commentary was translated to English in 1826 and is on the net. How much of this rich literature did James Price and William Combs reference in making their assertions ?

To give an interesting side-example. In the debate over Messianic application of Psalm 110, which modernist Jewish writers may try to paint as not about the Messiah, it turns out that Obadiah Sforno clearly applies the Psalm to Messiah. This was discovered by a friend, simply by reading a Jewish translation in English that uses the mikraot gedolot as a source for the footnotes. Yet it was totally unmentioned in the public articles and discussions.

Returning to the accusation.

==========================

"There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition." - William Combs

It is hard to see that they referenced any sources for "captured" whatsoever, or checked any sources with any thoughtfulness !

=========================

The rich Christian Hebraist movement was in full flower in the late 1500s and early 1600s and largely faded in the late 1600s and 1700s, with John Gill being one notable later exception. And later, in the 1800s, Hebriast studies became mixed with confusions like higher criticism and an attitude of unbelief and skepticism and misplaced rationalism applied against the Bible text. Nonetheless that may qualify as the last age of some depth in Christian Hebraism. See the work by Samuel Driver together with Adolf Neubauer (Jewish) with an intro by Edward B. Pusey, on the rabbinic commentators on Isaiah 53 as an example of the best of that last age. Along with Alfred Edersheim.

Overall, for depth of scholarship, faith in the word of God, depth of undersanding, the time of the Reformation though 1611 was a special day and age.

The King James Bible scholars were in the incredible Oxford and Cambridge scholarship world (iron sharpeneth iron) which attracted language experts from all over the world. Including Desiderius Erasmus and Franciscus Junius and Paulus Fagius and Immanuel Tremellius. The later two, and and Edward Lively, being among those having tenures as Regius Professors of Hebrew at Cambridge in the period leading up to the King James Bible. The KJB translators would be deeply familiar with all these rabbinical works above and also the recent Reformation-age scholarship of men outside England like Sebastian Münster and of course the major Reformation writers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and Theodore Beza.

Do today's lexicon scholars have knowledge and depth and understanding of the ancient Hebraics ? Do they read Rashi and Kimchi and Ibn Ezra daily as part of their studies ? Are men with such background working on modern commentaries and translations ? Nope, very few.

There are individual exceptions like Gordon Laird on the net who is clearly very familiar with Kimchi, or Risto Santala in Finland (not involved in the modern translations, involved in interesting Messianic studies) who studied the mikraot gedolot for years. Michael Brown likely picked up a fair background because he deliberately emphasized those studies at NYU and utilized the knowledge in apologetics geared to answering Jewish objections.

None of those names are involved in the world of modern version consultancy, promoting the modern versions and looking for angles to attack the pure King James Bible. In the James Price, James White, Gordon Fee, D. A. Carson, Norm Geisler world of attacking the historic King James Bible, you will find very little deep Hebraist studies. This is one reason for the scholastic poverty of their attacks, like the one we are discussing in this thread.

There are Hebraist exceptions of course in the scholarship world as a whole, especially those with a Yeshiva or Hebrew University background. There are men like Emanuel Tov. Even Nehemiah Gordon is a decent source in Tanach (OT) studies for precisely that reason (Nehemiah had a Yeshiva background and worked with Tov. Thus he helped explain the superiority of Yehovah/Jehovah to the paganism 'yahweh'. Often on a quiet day, such men will express an admiration for the King James Bible scholarship and rhythm, even if they are taking a different position on the translation of the "Messianic" battleground verses.) And surely there are some Christian scholars who reference those sources above, yet very few who immerse themselves daily in such literature, working with men of similar interests and scholarship and studies, as occurred in Oxford and Cambridge during the early 1600s.

A book worthy of a good read in "Hebrew in the Church" by Pinchas Lapide.

Next we will look at the strange specific accusation from William Combs above. We know the integrity part of the accusation is shredded, yet what about the ancient rabbinics and versions ? Do they really support "captured" and not "joined" ? So we will next look at the writings of the rabbinical writers on Isaiah 13:15.

Shalom,
Steven Avery