Geba or Gaba

[bibleprotector]

In the history of the King James Bible, there is one impurity which remained in editions from 1611 to the time of the Pure Cambridge Edition. That is the word "Gaba" at Ezra 2:26.

It was corrected to "Geba" when the Pure Cambridge Edition was made. Reasons include that the same Hebrew word is elsewhere rendered "Geba" in the King James Bible.

While someone could say that there is almost no other edition of the King James Bible, including none from 1611 to 1769, which have "Geba". This makes "Geba" the seemingly weakest point of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

There are many reasons why the "Geba" wording is correct.

1. The Bishops' Bible, which existed prior to the King James Bible, and upon which the KJB is based, had Geba here.

2. The scholarship of the translators of the KJB, and other such scholars indicate that the Hebrew word underlying "Geba" is rendered "Geba" at other places in the KJB, and therefore indicates that "Geba" is correct.

3. That since the PCE is correct at every other point, it must be correct here also.

4. That probably all modern versions since about 1900 have "Geba" at Ezra 2:26. This is entirely providential, namely, that the weight of modernist opinion, of scholars and modern versions, should come down in favour of the PCE rendering in Ezra 2:26. In other words, God knew beforehand that the devilish attack of modern versions would come, yet he allowed them to support "Geba", so that none of them could justly ever attack the Pure Cambridge Edition on this word.

5. That the Scripture itself indicates that when the book of the Lord was found in the time of King Josiah, that the implementation of the obedience of it was carried out from "Geba to Beer-sheba" (2 Kings 23:8). This means that King Josiah's actions are a type of how the Church should be with the "discovery" of the pure Word, and how it should be carried out. Moreover, the mention of "Geba to Beer-sheba" links to the Pure Cambridge Edition rendering of both Joshua 19:2 and Ezra 2:26.

[bibleprotector]

Note that I have discovered that a 1626 London edition and a 1750 London edition have "Geba" at Ezra 2:26.

In the case of 1626, it could be an ironic example of a typo getting it right.

In the case of 1750, it is likely to have been deliberate.

However, having "Geba" in some World War One era Cambridge printings, and likely earlier, lends to the possibility that this particular editing was done as early as 1905, and possibly under W. Aldis Wright (who died in 1914).