# 1 Samuel 14 - Saul's "discovery" of Jonathan's "sin" and the source text



## Eoghan (Jul 16, 2013)

[BIBLE]1 Samuel 14:41 -45[/BIBLE]

Where does the ESV get the detail of Urim for this and Thummim for that. If as Josephus tells us the Urim and Thummim glowed than this implies a divine answer. If however it was a simple lot then God could be silent and still there would have been a lot to point to Jonathan with God's passive will rather than His active will (if that makes sense).

The KJV and the NASV do not refer to Urim and Thummim which suits me fine - it downgrades the lot from direct revelation to providence (if that makes sense). So where is the ESV getting this - surely not the Septuagint?


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 17, 2013)

It is indeed the Septuagint! Looking at the New Jewish Publication Society translation, which is based on the Hebrew text - the Urim and Thummim are absent. There is however a footnote explaining that the Septuagint does specify the Urim and Thummim. This shocks me, I had been under the impression that the ESV was a translation of the Hebrew, the original text (at least in this section of the OT). I did not expect the Hebrew translation to be trumped by a late Greek translation of the original. I had heard (sermonaudio) 0f the LXX being used to "correct" the Hebrew text. This would seem to be evidence of it.

This is not a neutral point. If the Hebrew does not specify Urim and Thummim I feel at liberty to suggest that God was not on the day pointing the finger of blame at Jonathan through the lot. Rather God was _*not*_ speaking on that day to accuse Jonathan. Saul proceeded with the lot but it backfired and became a very public embarrassment. All Israel knew that Saul had lost the plot and God was not speaking to him through the lot.

If the ESV translation from the LXX stands I cannot make that interpretation. God does stand full square behind the oath that Saul laid on Israel and Jonathan was guilty before Him. The reason that God would not answer Saul was down to Jonathan. Make no mistake Jonathan is guilty before God if this translation stands.

This dilemma is one created by allowing the LXX to correct the Masoretic (?) Hebrew text.


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 17, 2013)

Translations using the LXX translation to correct the Hebrew it was translated from
NIV
ESV

Translations using the Hebrew and ignoring the LXX
ASV
KJV
NASV
Youngs Literal


----------



## Elimelek (Jul 24, 2013)

Hello Eoghan

It seems that so far you might be busy with a monologue  

My direct translation from the Hebrew reads as follows:


> (41) And Saul said to YHWH, the God of Israel, give 'tamim' (sound [advice?]...) and Jonathan and Saul was _captured_ and the People went out. (42) And Saul caused them to fall between him and between Jonathan his son; and Jonathan was _captured._




In 1 Samuel 10:20 onwards, the word 'yillached' is used for the choosing of Saul by the lot. I have translated it quite literal with _‘captured’_ above.

There is a textual problem as the Hebrew word 'tamim' is an adjective "sound; complete." One would expect a noun, but could probably translate it with "completeness" though it would not make much sense. (Take note that 'tamim' has an atnach accent under it, you can translate it with a semi-colon.) The easiest solution to the problem is a revocalisation of the word 'tamim' to 'tummim.'

According to the Biblia Hebraica Kittel the Septuagint, the Old Latin Translations including the Codex Lugdunensis as well as the Vulgate inserts the reading found in the ESV. The textual note is however omitted from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which is based on the Leningrad Codex). Yet, the reading fits the context of the holy lot.

Unfortunately the 4Q Samuel ‘a’ Scroll (from the Dead Sea) only contains 1 Samuel 14:24-25, 28-34 and 47-51. Yet the LXX (Septuagint) text seems to have closer affinities to 4Q Samuel ‘a’ and ‘b’ than to the Codex Leningradensis. (It does seem that the Hebrew 'vorlage' (source text) behind the Septuagint translation is an older text than that of the Masoretic text.) The ESV translator saw this as enough evidence to take the Septuagint reading as original. He identified the scribal error of parablepsis - the omission of a part of the verse on account to an identical word ending in another verse. Even Prof. Emanuel Tov in his “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible” (Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, 2012) concur with this idea.


In their translation “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible,” (1999) Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich writes the following:


> The extensively preserved 4QSam a had been known since 1953, one year after its discovery, to differ widely and frequently from the traditional Masoretic Text.
> There were four manuscripts of Samuel found at Qumran: one in Cave 1 and three in Cave 4. These Samuel manuscripts, while containing some errors, also preserve a large number of original or superior readings that help correct errors in the traditional Masoretic Test. For proper perspective, it should be pointed out that the textual form of 4QSam b is much closer than the Masoretic Text to the text from which the Septuagint was translated. Similarly 4QSam a, while showing many agreements with the Septuagint in contrast to the Masoretic Test, is the type of Samuel manuscripts that the author of Chronicles used in composing that book.




I think the ESV should have placed a textual note indicating a different reading from the Masoretic Hebrew text, explaining its translation decision. I do not think that the fact that they didn't do it, is enough reason to see the translation as suspect. With the amount of borrowing from the Latin Vulgate, same could probably be applied to the KJV.



If you want a difficult issue in the book of Samuel, compare the almost different versions of the David and Goliath story. The Masoretic text is 33 verses longer. Prof Emanuel Tov writes about the Masoretic version of Samuel:


> The somewhat corrupt nature of [Masoretic] Samuel was apparently due to the copy that was included in the archetype of the [Masoretic Text] and that, by chance, had been corrupted to a certain extend at an earlier age.


 HP Smith (1899) wrote:


> The text of these books in the current Hebrew recension is more corrupt than the text of any other part of the Old Testament…




I think that it is clear that textual criticism can be quite a headache to a translator. By writing the above, I don’t choose the one text over the other. I do think that it should be noted that the earliest Christian, including the Gospel writers, quoted the Septuagint and not the proto-Masoretic (Hebrew) text when quoting the Old Testament.

Kind regards


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 26, 2013)

I think I would challenge the prevalent idea that the Septuagint is quoted in the Gospels. The quotes are never exact and I think it more likely that the Masoretic is being translated and interpreted. This explains why quotes don't match. 

On this point I would refer you to the earlier verse 37 that God did not answer Saul that day. This serves not only as a comment on Saul's initial inquiry but all that was to transpire that day. If this be so it speaks against the Urim and Thummim speaking truthfully.

So, internal consistency requires it and the Masoretic text delivers it?

[BIBLE]1 Samuel 14:37[/BIBLE]


----------



## Elimelek (Jul 26, 2013)

Eoghan, could you maybe unpack your understanding of the the Urim and Thummim as I am struggling to see how 1 Samuel 14:37 is not consistent with Urim and Thummim. I just want to get on the same page.


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 26, 2013)

Elimelek said:


> (It does seem that the Hebrew 'vorlage' (source text) behind the Septuagint translation is an older text than that of the Masoretic text.)
> 
> 
> These Samuel manuscripts, while containing some errors, also preserve a large number of original or superior readings that help correct errors in the traditional Masoretic Text.
> ...



Can you explain precisely how we know there are "corruptions"?

I am also very skeptical of reconstructing an earlier underlying text from the original. This has been done with Genesis with identification of different text sources (I prefer the toledoth interp.). I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

I take the view that Jesus read from the masoretic text as evidenced at the end of Mathew (?)where the persecuted prophets from A .... to Z....... (can't recall the names) refers, not to the alphabet but the order of the books in the masoretic which is distinct from the Septuagint.

I know I am swimming against the tide here but scripture itself here gives weight to the Hebrew being read by Jesus.


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 26, 2013)

The Urim and Thummim according to Josephus "glowed" in the OT but they had ceased to function (as indicated by the glow). The Urimm and Thummim are the voice of God and as such Jonathan would indeed have been held liable for sinning. This I don't see, he is innocent of any flagrant sins against God but did break his father's oath imposed on the rest of Israel.

I believe that G-d did not condemn Jonathan. Despite Saul's call for a perfect lot he didn't get one. Instead the lot exposed Saul to ridicule as he accused and threatened the one man they all knew to have God's blessing. This I can see in Saul asserting the lot was genuine and true when all Israel knew that God was not speaking "that day". It is not uncommon for things to be asserted as being God speaking when this is not the case.

In this context the absence of Urimm and Thummim gives credence to my interpretation. The LXX contradicts my interpretation. Yes, I have a vested interest in the Masoretic text and I don't mind saying so. I do however believe this is theologically consistent with the rest of the story.

Having spent the last 15 weeks working through Samuel I am fairly involved in the narrative.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 26, 2013)

Elimelek said:


> The textual note is however omitted from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which is based on the Leningrad Codex).



Let me please make one quick correction. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is the Leningrad Codex with textual notes in the apparatus. There is no critical Hebrew text in which we use translate the Old Testament into English, and that work is currently underway. The lack of a critical Hebrew text is part of the reason why the LXX is considered in certain sections of Old Testament scripture. And there are recognized differences between different Hebrew codices, which is why a critical Hebrew text is such a monumental task.


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 26, 2013)

[BIBLE]Mat 23:35 [/BIBLE]

This reference is not to the A to Z of persecuted saints but the first and last books of the Masoretic text(?)

_Note that Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of taking away the key of knowledge. What key is that? And what is God requiring of that generation? The answer is in the phrase "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ...". Well, again, Abel was slain in the first book of the Bible (Gen 4:8). Now those Protestants who anticipate the answer might begin looking for the murder of Zacharias in the book of Malachi. Why? Because Jesus is again referring to the full breadth of the scriptures (the key of knowledge, the oracles of God), from the first book of the Old Testament, to the last book of the Old Testament. A Protestant therefore, might well open their Bible to search in the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, for the martyrdom of Zacharias. However, Malachi is not the last book of the Hebrew TaNaKh! What? That is correct. The Hebrew Bible, though identical in content to the Protestant Old Testament, is not in the same order as Protestant or Catholic Bibles. In the Hebrew Bible the last book is the book of Chronicles. That is where we find the murder of Zechariah between the altar and the temple _ from How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?


----------



## Elimelek (Jul 31, 2013)

Hello David and Eoghan

Let me try to post once again - had some connection problems. David, sorry for my English. The BHS is an 'edition' of the Leningrad Codex, but it is definitely not a 'reproduction.' I though that the way I wrote it, this is apparent. Thanks for the correction.

Eoghan, thank you for your explanation. I will have to read Josephus' account which I have not yet done. I came across the following remark in James vanderKam and Peter Flint's _The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls _(HarperSanFrancisco; 2002) (page 115):


> It is not clear if there were two separate editions of the entire book in antiquity or only of specific passages. Two examples are the events leading to Samuel's birth in 1 Samuel 1 and the narrative of David and Golith in 1 Samuel 17-18. Two of the scrolls (1 QSam, 4QSam *b*) are very close to the Masoretic Text, but 4QSam *a* contains many agreements with the Septuagint as well as independent readings. Although it contains some errors, this important manuscript preserves some original or superior readings that often help correct problems in the traditional text. Moreover, several agreements with 1 and 2 Chronicles show that this was the type of Samuel manuscript that the Chronicler used in composing his books (or, rather book).



Kind regards


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 31, 2013)

The point of the text is not that God "condemned" Jonathan. Neither the presence nor the absence of the language "Urim" or "Thummim" appreciably changes the meaning of the text. The presence of these items may be assumed (even if not actually named) by vv36-37, and the imperative of v41.

As for Saul's wordy prayer, it sounds like a "gloss" and an addition; but no matter what, it merely purports to be Saul's expressed wish.

_*What Saul wants and says he wants, and what he gets may be two different things--and usually are, the further along we go in his reign*._

It is possible the LXX infers (and rightly) the _source_ of the divisions, since the Urim-and-Thummim was a standard (prophetic) method of determining the truth of a matter, during the theocracy. The method had the promise of God. If some other action was taken, we don't know what that would have been; the same may be said for the Achan incident, Josh.7. We have a right to infer from the Scripture we _are_ given the most likely candidate.

But of course, we've no right to insert such a gloss into the text when it is not given explicitly. But the argument about whether the words are original or not is not exactly the same argument as to the basic meaning of the text.


In reading the thread, I notice the "method" is being used to judge the nature of the decision reached: whether it was morally just.

Let's look at the undisputed text. What does *THAT* say? As the readers of the full story, we already know facts of which Saul is ignorant. We are made observers of the following moments when Saul is apprised (by whatever means) of the person who violated Saul's (rash) curse.

The problem is for the interpreter to bring his _biblical theology_ to bear on this situation. Why, if Saul is the one in the wrong (and we can see from several angles in the text that he WAS wrong!) does the lot fall upon Jonathan? Is it to demonstrate that he is guilty, and must die?

No. That's a conclusion contrary to what the undisputed portions of the text would have us conclude. The whole point of the passage is for the reader to stand with Jonathan, and with the people, against their fool-for-a-king.

But you can't stand with someone, until the court has been set up, witnesses heard, and the truth come out. Jonathan doesn't even know at the outset how his actions have had any bearing on what is going on above him. He acknowledges the responsibility that the lot determines is his.

The Word of the Lord doesn't come until the court is in session. Saul may not realize it at first, but part of the reason the Lord doesn't answer him in the first place is because HE is _involved_ in the trial! Not as judge (though he is _the judge_ of Israel, cf. Jn3:10), but as the events show, as one who stands in the judgment.

Understand, that this ends up as such a serious incident because Saul is the mediatorial king of Israel at this time. And he's a fool. Recognize in this situation that it is the king that ends up on trial. The Lord's intervention is necessary--to establish the unquestioned truth of what has happened--because his "sillie vassall" is incompetent.

Saul should repent, but he's too proud. He'd rather slay his own son in a kind of misguided effort to be "right." In the end, the People (as a kind of court-of-appeal) overrule their titular sovereign's moronic intent to fulfill his rash vow. The body (how rare this is!) overrules the head in this incident. They actually follow Jehovah's will (to spare Jonathan); when the ordinary course of affairs is supposed to be that the head (king) leads the body (people) in following their true Head and King.


Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 31, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> The Urimm and Thummim are the voice of God and as such Jonathan would indeed have been held liable for sinning.



It seems to me that this is where your difficulty with the ESV translation rests on a unproven assumption. If God speaks through the urim and thummim, it reveals the truth of what happened but does NOT necessarily mean that God labels Jonathan's action sinful.


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 7, 2013)

Somehow Jack there was some indication that God was speaking with the lot or was silent. Josephus speaks of the stones glowing as indicating that He was speaking in the past but this had ceased by his time. I think we are intended to understand that God was not speaking "that day" and Saul just went ahead anyway - as he did with the the burnt offering in 1 Samuel 13. He presumed. 

I think God used his presumption to reveal it to the whole of Israel. That I think is what is going on at the end of the chapter. Israel does not overrule the Lord genuinely speaking through the lot but they _*do*_ overrule Saul's presumption. All Israel knows that the one man who was with God that day was Jonathan. In effect God makes clear that He is not speaking to Saul by allowing the lot to point to Jonathan!


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 7, 2013)

Jack K said:


> If God speaks through the urim and thummim, it reveals the truth of what happened but does NOT necessarily mean that God labels Jonathan's action sinful.



What is the truth of what happened that you mean Jack? 
If you intend that it reveals Saul as presumptuous and not getting answers from God I agree. 
If you mean that Jonathan disobeyed a stupid oath I agree. 
If you intend that God was withholding answers because of Jonathan's sin I am inclined to disagree.


----------

