1 Samuel 13:1

[jayce475]

After discussing 1 Sam 13:1 at bible study a few days ago on, I discovered that the Chinese Union Version, AV, NRSV and NIV (the latter 2 just for reference, not study of the scriptures) all differ on this verse.

CUV (as translated by me from Chinese): Saul ascended the throne at 40 years old; and when he was king of Israel for two years,
NRSV: Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign; and he reigned for . . . and two years over Israel.
AV: 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.

This verse has been pointed out to me many times, but it never occurred to me that the 4 different bible versions I possess all contain different verses! I am TR/MT-only, and have a bit of understanding on the AV rendering, but am quite curious on how those into modern versions deal with the text. The fill-in-the-blanks existing in the NRSV (and I would expect the ESV as well since it is related to the RSV) is just strange.

I've searched the board, but not many have interacted much specifically regarding this verse. For those who claim that the bible is not inerrant in history right now or believe that the bible is only preserved in doctrines and ideas, please do not participate, thanks.

 

[TimV]

I am TR-only, and have a bit of understanding on the AV rendering

What does the TR have to do with 1 Sam. ?

 

[jayce475]

I am TR-only, and have a bit of understanding on the AV rendering

What does the TR have to do with 1 Sam. ?

You're right. So correctly, I'm TR/MT-only.

 

[Marrow Man]

I will try to look at this in more detail later today, but just on the surface it does not appear that the Hebrew for "forty" and "thirty" are part of the text. They appear to be interpolations/interpretations by the translators, but it does not appear to be a matter of textual criticism.

 

[TimV]

Tim I think the textual criticism comes in when dealing with the possibility of scribes accidentally dropping the actual numbers out. Perhaps the number of years was indicated by letters rather than numbers or something. Anyway it's a common view among Reformed scholars, or at least a view commonly held as possible.

Jason, I believe the number 40 comes from Josephus and is of course traditional rather then textual. It seems hard to reconcile the Biblical accounts of Saul's reign as lasting only one or two years. Of course it could be Hebrew idiom, the idea being nothing really important happened until the second year as King, or that in the first year he was as innocent as a one year old child, or it may be talking about the age of his son. Seem's like everyone has his own opinion. And the LXX follows the MT BTW.

 

[Marrow Man]

Tim, I meant that there is nothing in the Hebrew text that would indicate anything text critical. "Forty" and "thirty" are simply not there (although the Hebrew for "dual" or "two" appears in the verse). The verse begins with what appears to be some sort of idiom: A 'son of a year' [was] Saul when he reigned, and two years he reigned over Israel."

The other odd thing is that in my version of the LXX, the verse is entirely missing. It goes straight from the last verse of chapter 12 to the second verse of chapter 13.

 

[Marrow Man]

The NIV includes three footnotes for the verse:

1) A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint [have 30]; Hebrew does not have thirty.
2) See the round number [40] in Acts 13:21; Hebrew does not have forty-.
3) Or and when he had reigned over Israel two years, he


In Dale Ralph Davis' commentary on 1 Samuel, he writes in a footnote: "The textual problem of 1 Samuel 13:1 is notorious. For a discussion, V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence. SBL Dissertation Series 118 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 71-75.

Robert Bergan's commentary on 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary series) notes that a literal translation of the Hebrew would be something like "Saul was one year old when he became king, and ruled over Israel two years" (taking "the son of a year" to = one year old). In a footnote he notes that at least one Jewish targum tried to harmonize the verse by stating, "Like a one-year-old who has no sins was Saul when he became king"; one version of the LXX omits the verse entirely; Josephus variously declared the length of Saul's reign to be twenty years and forty years; Acts 13:21 states Saul reigned 40 years. Bergen writes, "Perhaps the writer purposely used the smaller number to indicate that Saul reigned only two years before the Lord disqualified him from kingship (cf. 15:26); Paul's larger number would then represent the number of years Saul functioned as king, in spite of his rejection by the Lord."

John Woodhouse's commentary makes the interesting observation that "a son of a year" may indicate the unusual circumstances whereby Saul became designated as king. Since Saul did not become king at his birth, it is possible that the "year" in which he was a "son" was the time between when Samuel annointed him (1 Sam 10:1) and when he began his reign at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:15). If so, then the "two years" refers to the period between his becoming king and his being rejected as king, which happens in 1 Samuel 15:28.

 

[jayce475]

Tim and Ps Tim, then what views do you guys hold personally? And should the fill-in-the-blanks in the ESV be considered acceptable in your sights?

 

[TimV]

I'm not informed enough to have a view, so I'm good with the humility expressed in the ESV version. Hopefully there's good marginal explanations like in my study Bible edition. That's with a nuanced exception to the wording about that verse's preservation being in question.

 

[jayce475]

That's with a nuanced exception to the wording about that verse's preservation being in question.

I'm lost. So are you saying that the verse has possibly not been preserved, or is this "humility expressed in the ESV" a statement that critical text theorists are not yet able to come to a definitive answer as to what the verse is really meant to be but will eventually one day be able to know for sure? If a non-believer ever comes across this verse in the ESV and asks whatever happened to the verse, what would you tell him?

 

[TimV]

I'm lost. So are you saying that the verse has possibly not been preserved, or is this "humility expressed in the ESV" a statement that critical text theorists are not yet able to come to a definitive answer as to what the verse is really meant to be but will eventually one day be able to know for sure? If a non-believer ever comes across this verse in the ESV and asks whatever happened to the verse, what would you tell him?

Yes, even the Reformed school of KJVOnlyism accepts that there may be corruptions in the MT and TR and they're open to slow, thoughtful changes from a limited body of mss. As to non-believers, I'd say the same thing I told you. It's only people from the mostly Fundamental Baptist school of KJVOnlyism that claim whatever version of the TR and our version of the MT are word for word perfectly preserved copies of the originals. Christians throughout the centuries have had no problem accepting that there are difficulties in Bible translating and collating texts. It's never threatened the Church, and we've admitted it openly from the beginning.

 

[Marrow Man]

I don't personally think there is a corruption in the text. I like Woodhouse's (your fellow Australian!) explanation -- that this statement is marking the times between Saul's anointing and the beginning of his reign, along with the subsequent rejection of the reign. It would seem that some of the translator's may have gone too far in trying to make the verse correspond exactly with other passages of Scripture (i.e., Acts 13:21) when that is not the point of the text (obviously Saul did not become king when he was one, and his reign lasted more than two years -- no one would even begin to interpret the verse like that, considering the surrounding context).

It would seem (to me) that the verse is meant to function like other summary statements in 1 Samuel. For example, 1 Samuel 4:1 reads, "Thus the word of Samuel came to all Israel." It connects the previous chapter of 1 Samuel (the call of Samuel by the LORD) with the narrative that follows (the loss of the ark, the deaths of Hophni, Phineas, and Eli). Samuel does not appear again until 1 Samuel 7:3 (Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, "If you return to the LORD with all your heart, remove the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your hearts to the LORD and serve Him alone; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines."). In chapter 3, the LORD tells young Samuel He will judge Eli's house, the following chapters show how this takes place (so 4:1 could be read in the sense of "In this way the word of Samuel [the word of the LORD spoken to/through Samuel] came to all Israel"), and 1 Samuel 7:3 shows Samuel speaking that word to all Israel. The verse from 1 Samuel 13:1 may be function in a similar connective way. Obviously 1 Samuel 4:1 does not exhaust the entire ministry of Samuel, but functions as a connective for the surrounding narrative and provides a theological framework for interpreting those narratives.

That's a long way of saying that I don't think this is a corruption of the text at all, but maybe a well-intended but unnecessary attempt by some translators to harmonize a verse when that was never its intention when it was delivered under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Here's some food for thought on the topic: Will Kinney on 1 Samuel 13:1

 

[Marrow Man]

Steve, while I agree with the translation of the KJV on this verse, and there is indeed "food for thought" in the article you linked (the commentary quotes from Gill, etc. are very useful), the author begins to grossly overextend himself in attempting to translate the Hebrew on his own (as simply relying on Strong's numbers indicates). For example, he insists that ben means "one," which is incorrect -- it means "son of," as I'm sure you well know. The phrases he cites seem to be Hebraisms where the pronoun "one" can be gleaned from the meaning (as in 1 Samuel 13:1, where the phrase is literally "a son of a year"). For example, in 2 Samuel 17:10, a phrase meaning "a son of strength" or something equivalent is used, which is probably why the NASB translates it "one who is valiant." Very interestingly, the author neglects to mention that the KJV does NOT translate the phrase using the pronoun "one"; rather, it is rendered "And he also that is valiant ...."

That is not to say that I disagree with his conclusion that this verse has not been corrupted -- I don't think it has, and I believe the researching of quotes that he gives helps to establish that. But he does not appear to have any knowledge of Hebrew, and I would thus be wary of other conclusions he might have.

 

[jayce475]

Steve, while I agree with the translation of the KJV on this verse, and there is indeed "food for thought" in the article you linked (the commentary quotes from Gill, etc. are very useful), the author begins to grossly overextend himself in attempting to translate the Hebrew on his own (as simply relying on Strong's numbers indicates). For example, he insists that ben means "one," which is incorrect -- it means "son of," as I'm sure you well know. The phrases he cites seem to be Hebraisms where the pronoun "one" can be gleaned from the meaning (as in 1 Samuel 13:1, where the phrase is literally "a son of a year"). For example, in 2 Samuel 17:10, a phrase meaning "a son of strength" or something equivalent is used, which is probably why the NASB translates it "one who is valiant." Very interestingly, the author neglects to mention that the KJV does NOT translate the phrase using the pronoun "one"; rather, it is rendered "And he also that is valiant ...."

That is not to say that I disagree with his conclusion that this verse has not been corrupted -- I don't think it has, and I believe the researching of quotes that he gives helps to establish that. But he does not appear to have any knowledge of Hebrew, and I would thus be wary of other conclusions he might have.

Strong's is well and good when used carefully. But yeah, that was careless.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Tim,

Thanks for your helpful thoughts on the alleged difficulty in 1 Sam 13:1.

Though I do not think you apprehend Will K's thoughts adequately, as when you say, "the author [WK] begins to grossly overextend himself in attempting to translate the Hebrew on his own (as simply relying on Strong's numbers indicates)", which is an unfounded assumption on your part. He may well be using the Strong's #s for easy reference by others. You also say of WK, "he insists that ben means 'one,' which is incorrect -- it means 'son of' ", and in this instance you misrepresent his view, for he has clearly said of the use of ben in the verse in question (citing other instances as well), "[it] is a Hebrew idiom".

Kinney, along with all the Hebrew lexicons and word studies I have consulted, allow that ben may be used relative to time and age, as in "son of one" (1 Sam 13:1) or "son of five hundred" (Gen 5:32), the latter speaking of Noah being five hundred years old. In these cases the meaning of the Hebrew idiom is "one" and "five hundred" years respectively. So when Kinney says the meaning of ben in certain cases is one (giving examples) he does not err.

He may not be a "Hebrew expert" but he has sufficient linguistic skills and lexical tools to adequately comprehend the Hebrew.

He is another one — besides myself — who has seen what supposed Hebrew (and Greek) "experts" think to do to the church's Bible (as well disagreeing among themselves), and will have none of it, instead amassing materials to help understand the original languages so as to not be under "the tyranny of experts" (to quote Machen's pertinent phrase). The experts and scholars all too often have been enemies of the faith, and we do well to learn to live without them. The rare Hebrew or Greek scholar who supports the faith and its Scriptures is a treasure, and we do have a few of them, by the providence of God.

In sum, I have no cause "to be wary of other conclusions he might have" as he is one of the few who carefully defends the church's Bible. In all of his articles (read so far) I have found but one possible mistake, and even there I am not sure, and am still considering the matter.

 

[Marrow Man]

Steve, please provide references to these Hebrew lexicons which show that ben = "one."

You are correct in saying that the author refers to a Hebrew idiom. I missed that upon first reading of that the article and that was a mistake on my part.

Do you have an indication that the author is knowledgeable of Hebrew? You say it is an unfounded on my part. There is nothing in the article that I see that would indicate any indication of this on his part. The only reference to "son" that I see is in a long list taken from NIV and NASB concordances; in addition, he appears critical of Young's Literal Translation, which (literally) translates the idiom as "son of a year." Unless I am missing something again, the author never actually discusses the meaning of "shanah" (year -- singular, as in "a year").

If the author indeed has some knowledge of the Hebrew, I would expect him to discuss such things as the actual grammar, person, etc., of the words in question. We do not have them -- just references to concordances. And since an actual idiom is being used, looking up individual words apart from idiomatic usage is not the best way to hand that phrase. He does do that in at least one place (2 Samuel 17:10), but I do not see any indication that he realizes that this phrase is also idiomatic (fairly apparent in the Hebrew structure). Simply put, ben is a vocabulary word that a first semester Hebrew student would know; if fact, one need not even be a Hebrew student to know the meaning of the word.

A couple of other things to be wary of (even if you will not heed the advice). The first is essentially the same as before, to beware of those w/o the necessary skills who pass themselves off as experts. You may not be aware of some of these things because of where you minister, but the American "church" is full of this sort of thing. Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witness cult, passed himself off as an expert in Hebrew and Greek, even though he did not have the first clue about either language (as was later demonstrated in a court of law). And even today, you will find the occasional American Arminian who will look up "whosoever" from John 3:16 in a Strong's concordance in an attempt to disprove Calvinism, and think themselves wise in their own eyes for the effort (as I'm sure you know, "whosoever" does not actually translate a single Greek word, but rather the participial phrase "all the ones believing in Him"). One unfamiliar with the original languages could easily make that mistake.

A second thing to be wary of is the accusatory spirit of the article and possible linkage to this by your own post. You refer to some experts as "enemies of the faith." In a general sense, you are almost certainly correct; Machen is correct in warning us about the tyranny of experts (even though, ironically enough, Machen was an expert and would disagree with the author on text critical issues); another irony, however, is that with the advent of the internet in the blogosphere, you actually have people with no expertise posting internet articles and being treated as if they are experts. At any rate, the accusation can run the risk of committing the genetic fallacy. Brown, Driver, and Briggs may have been completely liberal/heretical in some their beliefs, but one would need to demonstrate that this translates (no pun intended!) as error in their lexicon (I am not certain if this is one that you consulted). The problem is that the author of the article is very critical of two particular experts: Gleason Archer and Daniel Wallace. I personally think both are incorrect with regard to this verse, but that does not mean that they are "enemies of the faith." I do not know if you were referencing them when you made that statement, but please keep in mind that this is a public message board and that neither man, as far as I know, has ever been disciplined by a church court for beliefs that would label him as an "enemy of the faith." Furthermore, this paints with too broad of a brush. Why do you think men like Archer and Wallace took the position on the verse that they did? Was it some secret agenda to discredit the Bible, or was it because they trying to reconcile the verse with passages like Acts 13:21 (and actually defend the text)? It may be misguided and incorrect and unnecessary, but it does not mean they are enemies of the faith. Once again, I am not saying you were specifically accusing those two individuals of this (and I sincerely hope you were not), but it would be easy for someone to read the article, see your approval of it along with the "enemies of the faith" comment and reach that conclusion.

 

[Marrow Man]

Rereading that article again, it occurs to me that there may an even more fundamental problem with the author's analysis of the Hebrew ben. I'm not sure the author understands the difference when a translation such as the NASB is using "one" as a pronoun (i.e., "a person") and when it is being used as an adjective (i.e., the number one). If does, it is not clear (at least to me) in the article. For example, he references Leviticus 12:6, where the same idiom "son of a year" is used, and he is entirely correct in saying that there is an inconsistency in the translation of this verse and 1 Samuel 13:1 in the NASB. But then he references Genesis 15:3 (a different idiom -- "son of my house" -- is used, which the NASB translates as "one born in my house"; this is an entirely different use of "one," since no one is speaking of an adjective modifying the noun "year"). The same goes for 2 Samuel 17:10, which I mentioned above -- a idiom meaning "son of strength" is being used. The NASB choose to translate this as one who is valiant (pronoun, not adjective), and this can be seen in comparing the KJV translation of the verse ("he ... that is valiant"). Once again, this does not have anything to do with the use of one as an adjective (as in "one year").

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim,

The references to follow do not support “ben = ‘one’ ”, which is your construction, but rather (in my own careful and precise wording):

“ben may be used relative to time and age, as in ‘son of one’ (1 Sam 13:1) or ‘son of five hundred’ (Gen 5:32), the latter speaking of Noah being five hundred years old. In these cases the meaning of the Hebrew idiom is ‘one’ and ‘five hundred’ years respectively. So when Kinney says the meaning of ben in certain cases is one (giving examples) he does not err.​

The references you asked for (please note, and I reiterate, I am referencing my precise statement, and not your loose one):

The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old Testament, by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter (AMG 2003): “[size=+1]!B[/size] bēn, A noun meaning son that occurs almost five thousand times in the Old Testament . . . This word can express... relative age (Gen. 5:32; 17:12; Prov. 7:7; Song 2:3) (p. 144).

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Hendrickson 1979): “n. relat. of age” [noun relative of age –SMR] (p. 121).

Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson (Kregel 1978 / 1870): “Any man is said to be a son in respect to the years of his age, a son of two, &c., Gen. iv.17 &c.” (p. 404).

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Waltke (Moody 1980): “Occurring almost five thousand times, bēn is basically but not exclusively a reference to the male offspring of human parents. It is also used idiomatically for children generally, for descendants, i.e. grandsons, for male offspring of beasts, for age designation (e.g. ‘son of eight days’ Gen. 17:12) . . .” (Vol. 1, pp. 113, 114).​

But all this was never in question – not to you or to me – and I give the references just to show I was not speaking empty words.

--------

What I said was “an unfounded assumption” on your part was your saying his “attempting to translate the Hebrew on his own . . . [was by] simply relying on Strong's numbers”. Perhaps you are not careful to be precise, while I endeavor to be; a diamond with its facets cut poorly loses it value, and its beauty.

His level of competence in Hebrew is another matter entirely. He doesn’t present himself as “knowledgeable in Hebrew” (as Russell did) and I assume (maybe incorrectly) his competence is limited to lexical aids and word studies by those who are learned in the language. Is this not sufficient to obtain a basic and adequate grasp of the meaning of words and their usage? When the Hebrew scholars differ among themselves as to the meaning of words and the authenticity of texts, it becomes evident that proficiency in the language is not to be counted on as a source of authoritativeness. What then is to be that source? By its nature (for some of us at any rate) it is theological and presuppositional. The Lord promised to preserve His word, and that promise was realized in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Textus Receptus, and in the faithful translation, the AV. Does one need to be a Hebrew (or Greek) scholar to believe this, or to defend it? No.

Tim, you may not be familiar with the corpus of my textual work here at PB, but I certainly do not see fellow evangelicals as “enemies of the faith” because we differ on text critical issues. I have gone to great lengths to establish this necessary largesse of spirit in matters text critical, for we all depend on our Bibles (whatever version we deem the best) as the word of our God, and our lifeline to His saving presence. Case in point: William Hendriksen is among my very favorite NT commentators, yet he almost always holds to the critical text; do I count him an “enemy of the faith” or even an “enemy of the Bible”? Hardly! He is a beloved defender of said Faith, and a faithful servant feeding the Lord’s flock. I overlook where he differs with me on the Greek text.

Kinney has reason to be critical of Wallace and Archer as regards their text critical views, as do I, but they are certainly not “enemies of the faith” by any stretch! I have a number of Archer’s books and I value them highly! Wallace has gone on record as denying the doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scriptures, but even this does in no wise make him an enemy of the Faith. He is, however, a detractor of the Ecclesiastical Text. While it is important to point this out, and refute it, he no doubt loves the Bible he cleaves to.

I have on occasion posted caveats concerning Will Kinney’s attitude in dealing with scholars who are against the Ecclesiastical Text, such as James White, an opponent in these matters, but a friend and brother in the Faith, and a valuable defender of it. And perhaps I should make caveats more often if I refer people to his works. I have learned – through this interaction with you – to be far more wary of referencing others who may have areas of weakness in their presentations. It consumes precious time having to defend others’ points of view, for who is perfect in all they say?

When I think of enemies of the Faith I think of Bart Ehrman and Chris Hedges (this latter author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School), and perhaps also Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis), all of whom have degrees either in theology or textual studies. I think also of unbelieving textual critics, such as Hort (Letis strongly defended Westcott, so I will forgo examining him right here, lest I have to use more of my precious time). And there is a vast difference between being an “opponent of the Church’s Bible” and an “enemy of the Faith”, the former but one enamored of destructive critical methodologies while still loving Christ, while the latter denies the Bible is God’s word, or, as with Schaeffer, holding the evangelical (including the Reformed) faith in bitter contempt. Kinney sees those holding to and promoting destructive critical methods (resulting in the Bible of the Week clubs) as an affront to God and God’s people; I do not take such a severe view, although I see the results will be the same: come a generation or two down the pike the Bible will have very little authority, even among those who profess to be God’s people, as its words have been deemed uncertain and unreliable by the textual scholars. Perhaps my attitude differs from Kinney’s in that the community of saints and its internal cohesiveness by means of genuine friendships in Christ are of as great importance as which is the best text of the Bible. It is such friendship which is the cement that holds the living stones together, and will keep them together when the storm of persecution and hardship hits.

I appreciate your irenic and scholarly tone and approach, Tim, along with your seeking to be fair and even-handed. And I do value learning in the Biblical languages, if only it be used to explicate the text instead of deconstruct or supplant it.

As regards myself, Tim: I also do not have a fluent grasp of either Hebrew or Greek. I use many lexicons, versions, Hebrew and Greek texts, word studies, and commentaries to help me understand the original languages. I am open to views that differ from mine, but I weigh them in the balance of my presuppositions. I realize I will answer to my Lord for how I have defended His word, and have taught others to cleave to it.

I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are fluent in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have their knowledge. [I realize the constituency here at PB often reflects a higher level of academic and scholarly attainment!]

And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the Critical Text, which to us is rife with very serious problems. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.

If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men. As I have said – and I repeat myself – faithful pastors learned in the original Biblical tongues (as well Latin and other languages) are a blessing to the church, as they may open depths of meaning in the text.

But what need have we of the textual views of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? As I said with regard to Hendriksen, in such cases I eat the meat and spit out the bones. I am against his textual method as regards the authentic readings, but very much appreciative of his learning and ministry. This attitude would apply to all who are ministers of the Lord. If a person’s emphasis is to strongly and repeatedly deny the Traditional Text and its readings, I will either tune him out or oppose him. But Hendriksen (I use him as an example) and many others do not do this.

In closing, please consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:

There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of The Pilgrim's Progress. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​

One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:

John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​

If you will pursue these things, I shall not respond until next week, as I have already spent too much time away from important duties.

 

[Marrow Man]

Steve, I truly appreciate your thoughts in this last post. I think you and I would agree completely on the "enemies of the faith" (Ehrman is an excellent example, especially of one who uses text critical issues against the church; I am not familiar with Hedges). I am thankful that you clarified the issue and that we are in agreement here.

Thanks for posting the sources. I had no doubt that you used the references. The problem is that ben can carrying such a meaning in a particular construction (the idiom), but the numerical value (in the case of passages like 1 Samuel 13:1) stems from "year" being singular (i.e., "a year" = "one year"). Certainly while ben can be translated by the pronoun "one" in some cases, it is not used as an adjective to modify year, which is an area where the author seems to be unclear. Simply using a concordance to list occurrences of a particular word in a particular translation can lead to erroneous conclusions about the text -- I know, because I did exactly the same thing with Strong's before I was instructed in the original languages. Even in my case I have to be extremely careful; I only have a year of Hebrew grammar plus some applied exegetical work. I won an award for having the highest average in my class, but I am by no means an expert!

No need to pursue the discussion, as I think we are more in agreement than disagreement, and we are certainly in agreement on the more important issue (as I see it) in this thread: the correct translation of 1 Samuel 13:1. I certainly would not want to take further time splitting hairs when we are largely in agreement on this issue.

Thanks for the quote re: Owen and Bunyan. It is a great quote. Would that all godly ministers preaching like that tinker!!!

 

[jayce475]

Thanks guys for your sharing. Kinney actually capitalized "ONE" in his bible quotes and this also seems to me to be implying that he is using it as an adjective. But in the meantime, let me read Steve's posts and chew slowly.

 

[Marrow Man]

You are welcome, Jason. Let me reemphasize that having looked at this now in some detail (and to give credit where it is due) the following:

1) The numbers (other than "a [one] year" and "two") are not in the text, and there is no good textual reason in the Hebrew for adding adjective numbers like thirty and forty to the text (there is apparently some differences in different versions of the LXX -- such as the verse entirely missing from one version -- however, but we are primarily concerned here with the Hebrew text, and there are not "competing manuscripts" with different numbers in them).

2) The only "evangelical" reason I see for insisting that numbers have dropped out of the text is to harmonize the verse with others (e.g., Acts 13:21) to avoid the charge that there are mistakes in the Bible.

3) There seems to be a perfectly good exegetical reason for the "as is" rendering of the verse; it is most likely a summary verse detailing the length of time between Saul's anointing and assuming the throne, followed by the length of time until he was rejected by God. There may be other interpretations, but this at least seems a reasonable one.

4) The author of the article which Steve linked is correct to point out the inconsistency of the NASB in translating the same phrase ("a son of a year") in Leviticus 12:6 and 1 Samuel 13:1.

5) The author is also correct in his pointing out that many modern versions are all over the map with the way the verse is translated, even though this verse has been dealt with adequately by past commentators.

6) This whole discussion points out the reason we need for pastors to be trained in the original languages and why none of us should be slaves to a particular translation. I am certainly not KJV-preferred, but this is one case, In my humble opinion, where the KJV rendering is correct and the NASB errs.

If I am incorrect on any of those points, please let me know and I will be glad to revise.

 

[TomVols]

Someone (Forgive me, I'm on vacation hundreds of miles from my study) has called the RSV/NRSV/ESV translation of 1 Sam 13:1 a very bold, courageous translation. I differ. The work of textual criticism is to ascertain the words of the original author. My verbal plenary view of inspiration further reinforces this. So no, I'm not crazy about the ESV here. I also am not willing to throw the NASB under the bus either. But that's just me. I understand the legitimate criticisms of the NASB, et.al, here.
And yes, this is indeed why pastors need to be aware of textual matters and the languages.

 

[nwink]

I agree with Steve -- check out Will Kinney's article.