1 Samuel 13:1

[Deacon]

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

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

NET Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for forty years.

REB Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty two years.

NAB (Saul was...years old when he became king and he reigned... (two) years over Israel.)

This verse follows the standard formula for introducing kings of Israel (and later also of Judah) in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. But this verse contains one of the most difficult textual problems in the book of 1 Samuel, if not of the whole Bible.

Omanson, R. L., & Ellington, J. (2001). A Handbook on the First Book of Samuel (p. 252). New York: United Bible Societies.

• I'm not trying to find a solution to the difficulties in this passage.
• This is not a thread to make an argument about what version is the best translation.

How does this passage effect the way you view the inspiration and/or transmission of scripture?

Rob

 

[Van]

Thanks for the great question. The Bible does contain things that literally do not add up. My view is that these instances reflect corruptions of the text. And they pretty much do not alter the gist of what is being said.

Secondly some, but probably not all, can be interpreted in a way that makes the difficulty disappear.

So my view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is not challenged by the existence of apparent errors in the text. And my view that God superintended the transmission of the text means that the text we have today is trustworthy and reliable, even though it includes "insignificant" corruptions that do not alter the actual message of God.

 

[Kevin]

Here is another one that is different

1 Samuel 13:1 (ESV)
1 Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,


Acts 13:21 (KJV)
21 And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.


Maybe someone who has studied the original languages might be able to shed some light on this.

Where I would be concerned is if it dealt with a major theological issue

 

[McCree79]

God superintended the transmission of the text means that the text we have today is trustworthy and reliable, even though it includes "insignificant" corruptions that do not alter the actual message of God.

We may not have the EXACT words of the originals, but I believe we have the Authentic Voice of God preserved in the CT, TR and Majority text. Like Van said, I have full faith God protected his message. No doctrine changes in any textual issue we encounter.


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[banana]

After reading the NET's footnote, the NET makes the most sense

 

[McCree79]

After reading the NET's footnote, the NET makes the most sense

The NET does have a great footnote. I have no issue with what NET says, and still maintaining the inerrancy of Scripture. I can see it being a problem though for people who believe the English Bible(s) we have are word for word inerranant (KJVOism).

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

*I was able to copy the footnote ....hopefully it will paste well....

[https://net]1 tc 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 mssand 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).

 

[Deacon]

I rarely mention textual problems to the groups I teach but I did this time.
I discussed the doctrine inerrancy and the process of transmission of a text over 3000 years old.
Neither group had problems with the presentation.

I mentioned the above textual difficulty along with the one in 13:21, noting the progression of translation over time there.

The price was two-thirds of a shekel for sharpening plow points and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads. (NIV)

and the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads. (NKJV)

Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. (KJV)​

Rob