1 Samuel 13:1

[Romans922]

Any ideas about this one?

Hebrew - בן־שׁנה שׁאול במלכו ושׁתי שׁנים מלך על־ישׂראל׃

LXX - (nothing)

NAS - Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

ESV - Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

KJV - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

NIV - Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.

NKJ - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

 

[larryjf]

If Scripture is preserved then we should take the Hebrew for what it is and not presume that something has been lost because it seems difficult for us.

If text has fallen out of Scripture then we have to reconcile that with our belief in preservation.

Those who hold the text has fallen out will ask the question, "what text should be there?" as they do in the NASB.

Those who hold that the text has been preserved will ask the question, "what does the text mean?" accepting the text at face value, but wrestling with the meaning of it.

 

[fredtgreco]

Andrew,

Here is a decent explanation from the NET bible:

The MT does not have "thirty." A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, "a son of a year") must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! The KJV, attempting to resolve this, reads "Saul reigned one year," but that is not the normal meaning of the Hebrew text represented by the MT. Although most LXX MSS lack the entire verse, some Greek MSS have "thirty years" here (while others have "one year" like the MT). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul's age as twenty-one. But this seems impossible to harmonize with the implied age of Saul's son Jonathan in the following verse. Taking into account the fact that in v. 2 Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, some scholars prefer to supply in v. 1 the number forty (cf. ASV, NASB). The present translation ("thirty") is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal based on a few Greek MSS and followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT). Other English versions simply supply ellipsis marks for the missing number (e.g., NAB, NRSV).

 

[TimV]

Gill, after giving the view of everyone that ever lived, said

but the sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men, &c. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter.

 

[larryjf]

as it stands the MT (literally, "a son of a year") must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign!

Must it?
I disagree that it must mean that.

It could mean that he was 1 year old in his reign as a king. This would lend itself to the KJV translation which says that he reigned 1 year.

 

[fredtgreco]

as it stands the MT (literally, "a son of a year") must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign!

Must it?
I disagree that it must mean that.

It could mean that he was 1 year old in his reign as a king. This would lend itself to the KJV translation which says that he reigned 1 year.

There is no other instance of that phrase meaning that. No parallel at all.

In fact the only parallel is soundly against the KJV reading:

ESV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,

NAU Exodus 12:5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

KJV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

WTT Exodus 12:5 [FONT=&quot]שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן־שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶ֑ם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן־הָעִזִּים תִּקָּֽחוּ׃ [/FONT]​

 

[larryjf]

as it stands the MT (literally, "a son of a year") must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign!

Must it?
I disagree that it must mean that.

It could mean that he was 1 year old in his reign as a king. This would lend itself to the KJV translation which says that he reigned 1 year.

There is no other instance of that phrase meaning that. No parallel at all.

In fact the only parallel is soundly against the KJV reading:

ESV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,

NAU Exodus 12:5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

KJV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

WTT Exodus 12:5 [FONT=&quot]שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן־שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶ֑ם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן־הָעִזִּים תִּקָּֽחוּ׃ [/FONT]​

You consider the Ex 12:5 phrase "unblemished male one year" to be parallel to the 1 Sam 13:1 phrase "son of one year" even though the Exodus passage is not speaking of a king...or a person for that matter?

 

[fredtgreco]

Must it?
I disagree that it must mean that.

It could mean that he was 1 year old in his reign as a king. This would lend itself to the KJV translation which says that he reigned 1 year.

There is no other instance of that phrase meaning that. No parallel at all.

In fact the only parallel is soundly against the KJV reading:

ESV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,

NAU Exodus 12:5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

KJV Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

WTT Exodus 12:5 [FONT=&quot]שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן־שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶ֑ם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן־הָעִזִּים תִּקָּֽחוּ׃ [/FONT]​

You consider the Ex 12:5 phrase "unblemished male one year" to be parallel to the 1 Sam 13:1 phrase "son of one year" even though the Exodus passage is not speaking of a king...or a person for that matter?

Look at the bolded Hebrew. The phrase "son of a year" in Hebrew is [FONT=&quot] בֶּן־שָׁנָה[/FONT]

That Hebrew phrase (the one in question) is used exactly twice in the MT. One place is 1 Samuel 13:1. The other place is Exodus 12:5, where it is universally (including in the KJV) translated to mean one year old.

 

[larryjf]

Look at the bolded Hebrew. The phrase "son of a year" in Hebrew is [FONT=&quot] בֶּן־שָׁנָה[/FONT]

That Hebrew phrase (the one in question) is used exactly twice in the MT. One place is 1 Samuel 13:1. The other place is Exodus 12:5, where it is universally (including in the KJV) translated to mean one year old.

I understand...but it seems to me that because it happens only twice we should be careful about saying that the phrase "must" be interpreted in the way that you suggest.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be...i'm just saying that "must" is an awfully strong word to use in this instance.

Even if we translate it as...
Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned for two years over Israel.

That still doesn't mean that it "must" be wrong...and that text has fallen out of the Scriptures.

I find it interesting that one of the rules of textual criticism is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred...but then when we run across a difficult reading like this we would rather say that the text in question is not preserved than simply taking it as a difficult text.

 

[Prufrock]

Gill, after giving the view of everyone that ever lived, said

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Gill's style amusing.

 

[Archlute]

Even if we translate it as...
Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned for two years over Israel.

That still doesn't mean that it "must" be wrong...and that text has fallen out of the Scriptures.

I find it interesting that one of the rules of textual criticism is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred...but then when we run across a difficult reading like this we would rather say that the text in question is not preserved than simply taking it as a difficult text.

The lectio difficilior states that in the case of two variant readings, both of which have plausible manuscript support, the more difficult of the two should be strongly considered original. Note that it does not say the more impossible of the two readings. Holding that Saul was one year of age when he ascended the throne, and that his reign came to an end at the age of three simply makes no sense, which is exactly the reason that students of Scripture have attempted to come up with another explanation of the passage.

 

[larryjf]

Even if we translate it as...
Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned for two years over Israel.

That still doesn't mean that it "must" be wrong...and that text has fallen out of the Scriptures.

I find it interesting that one of the rules of textual criticism is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred...but then when we run across a difficult reading like this we would rather say that the text in question is not preserved than simply taking it as a difficult text.

The lectio difficilior states that in the case of two variant readings, both of which have plausible manuscript support, the more difficult of the two should be strongly considered original. Note that it does not say the more impossible of the two readings. Holding that Saul was one year of age when he ascended the throne, and that his reign came to an end at the age of three simply makes no sense, which is exactly the reason that students of Scripture have attempted to come up with another explanation of the passage.

Simply because it seems to not make sense is no reason to discount it. The implication of saying that we are to edit whatever text doesn't make sense is staggering in my opinion.

Certainly the KJV rendering is one possibility as i've posted above.
There are other possibilities as well...such as are listed out by Gill.

 

[Elimelek]

Dear larryjf and others

larryjf wrote initially:

If Scripture is preserved then we should take the Hebrew for what it is and not presume that something has been lost because it seems difficult for us.

If text has fallen out of Scripture then we have to reconcile that with our belief in preservation.

Those who hold the text has fallen out will ask the question, "what text should be there?" as they do in the NASB.

Those who hold that the text has been preserved will ask the question, "what does the text mean?" accepting the text at face value, but wrestling with the meaning of it.

I was puzzled when the commentator on 1 Samuel in the ESV Study Bible wrote:

The Hebrew Masoretic text (MT) of 1-2 Samuel is notorious for its difficulties. Furthermore, Samuel and Jeremiah are toe two OT books where the ancient Greek translations and the Hebrew are notably different in many places. Many scholars and translations too readily reject the MT in favor of the Greek, saying that the Greek text makes more sense and reflects the more original Hebrew text. They hold that the MT must have been corrupted into its present form through a series of scribal errors, and they try to "correct" these "corrupted" texts on the basis of the Greek texts. In fact, the Hebrew texts of Samuel from about 50 to 25 B.C. found among the Dead Sea Scrolls give support for some readings in the Greek text tradition. But the alleged similarity between the Greek texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls has been overemphasized. (My italics.)

It is a well-known fact that there are quite a lot of differences between the MT and the Dead Sea Scrolls & Septuagint. It is also known that one of the scribes of the books of Samuel in the tradition chain of the MT had a problem spelling what was read to him and therefore we find some defective spellings of words. The importance of Josephus' writings as a source of information on the Samuel text has also been recognised in the scholarly community.

What puzzled me was how easily the commentator on 1 Samuel dismissed the similarity between the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am in the same way puzzled larryjf's confidence in the MT. Personally, I think that we should accept that we have a textual problem in the Hebrew, accept it, and hope that the text will be restored one day by the discovery of an ancient Samuel scroll.

A quite intriguing passage passage from the Dead Sea Scroll 4QSamuel has the following addition in the Hebrew, that is not found in either the MT or the Septuagint, but mentioned in Josephus. After 1 Samuel 10:27 the following passage follows:

[Na]hash king of the [A]mmonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right [ey]e of a[ll] of them and brought fe[ar and trembling] on srael. Not one of the Israelites in the region be[yond the Jordan] remained [whose] right eye Naha[sh king of] the Ammonites did n[ot pu]t out, except seven thousand men [who escaped from] the Ammonites and went to [Ja]besh-gilead. Then after about a month, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-[gilead]. ... (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 1999 Abbeg, Flint & Ulrich: HarperCollins)

This passage illustrates something of the fluidity of the ancient text of Samuel and I think we should recognise that.

Kind regards


Elimelek