Steven Avery

Hi Api, well it appears that you are taking this discussion a bit more earnestly and have for the most part dropped the obnoxious edge. There are so many interesting distinct points, I may address them one or two at a time.

And actually what this shows first is that the Masoretic reading goes back to ancient times, that the tradition of non-tampering with the text is 100% way, way early, back as far as any and all texts that we have. The sanctity of the text is shown going back to the most ancient times, no dual lines of manuscripts, not even marginal notes afaik, no "smoothing" by scribes as is always stated is the modus operandi of the scribes. All in all, this is a very strong argument for the integrity of the text as received.

Of course the actual translation from the Targum is a bit more of an interpretation and commentary than a straight translation, as was the tendency of the Targum. And this exegesis was maintained as one midrash (if you don't mind) on the text through the rabbinical age. And yes, it is possible that there are two conceivable translations that 'work' that it is hard to prove outright which is superior. However in this case the Targum has to add a hard-to-imply phrase about "who has no sins" that makes it much more of an interp than a translation.

The well known supposed corruption of Ahaziah would be a third discussion if you like.

However, before any of that, lets note carefully that you have completely avoided my request for any other words that have supposedly simply dropped out of the text analagous to your claim on 1 Samuel.

Apparently 1 Samuel 13:1 is the ONLY verse in ALL of Tanach that you feel you can claim simply has a word that dropped out. And we are seeing how squirrelly that claim is. And if this is the ONE claim for an "error" of this type, and it is rather easily understood and translated, its orphan status speaks strongly that, whatever "corruptions" you might want to claim because of supposed math or age concerns or whatever, the idea that one word was omitted in this one verse only is ultra-dubious. 50,000 words in the text (or whatever the number is) and in one place in one verse only there is a missed word ..... maybe... possibly.. possibly not. Hmmmmm.

And this is often the case with high-falutin theories of no substance. Speculate a scribal error that makes no sense. Don't even offer a consistent idea of an original and how it got from point A to the current point. In a sensible textcrit world conjectural theories left hanging in this way would be given very low import, since they are lacking crucial elements.

Its an alternative translation. Are you asking "when there are two comparable alternative translations, is it proper to consider context and sense in determining which one is proper?" Api, what is your answer to that question?

Maybe you truly don't understand. That is why I gave you a few examples that COULD be claimed as 'fatal flaws' (maybe you can look for such elsewhere in the Masoretic Text, if you find one you would really have a feather in your cap in attacking the integrity of the text) that are clear, while your construction claim is only clear as mud..

There was NO flaw in my pointing out that a construction claim that lacks an element of the construction can easily have an alternative.

Here, I'll walk with you another mile, working with an idiom...

"he put the hay on the cart before shoeing the horse."

Some savvy api in the future might see this and say "shoeing" was an "error" messing up the obvious construction that we have seen dozens of times before ... "the cart before the horse".

This is the nature of your argument on this verse, seeing a "construction of convenience" that isn't there. It's very weak and tenuous at best, and you simply are closing your eyes to the truth.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

English constructions are quite flexible. We frequently decide whether to include a conjunction, or use a comma or semi-colon or period instead, and decide between a conjunction and a disjunction in translating by context.

There are a myriad of proper ways to connect and to separate.
English flexibility will be even more an unusual construction (see my Seattle Seahawks example).

Simply go back to the previous chapter, similar construction as 13:1-2 for the vav.

1 Samuel 12:9 (KJB)
And when they forgat the LORD their God, he sold them into the hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them.

Oh, no !
A King James Bible *MISTRANSLATION* ???
There is a sorta "untranslated" vav...
(sardonic, tongue-in-cheek).

We must switch to these other versions ?

But they forgot the LORD their God, and He gave them over into the hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them. (JPS)

and they forget Jehovah their God, and He selleth them into the hand of Sisera, head of the host of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fight against them, (Youngs Literal )

. And they forgot the Lord, their God, and He delivered them into the hand of Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they waged war with them. (Judaica Press)

Yes, Youngs and JPS and Judaica and others decide to be more "literal"
including the "and" for the vav !

Gasp --- Geneva, NKJV and even the "literal" Emphasized join the King James Bible in not having the critical "and".

And, when they forgat Yahweh their God, he sold them into the hand of Sisera, prince of the host of Jabin, king of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them; (Emphasized)

Oh, no ... a vav with only a comma !!!!!!

====================================

Api, are you really that bankrupt in your attempt to find error in the text ?
You are now reduced to taking the position that the pause with a comma
can't be proper for the vav ? Amazing.

In other words.. the following KJB reading must be replaced ! ?

Current KJB - 1 Samuel 13
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel ...

Api Alternate Rendering ? (similar to Jay Greens)
Saul reigned one year; then he reigned two years over Israel, and then Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel ...

Do you really think you are doing yourself a service by claiming the latter is right and the former is a mistranslation ?

Please, in the future, try to stick with possibly substantive objections.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

Again, you are quite wrong, Steven. What it shows is that the author of the Targum in approximately the 1st century CE already recognized the verse as problematic. We have good evidence, from the Wadi Muraba'at texts, that the consonantal text of the Tanakh had stabilized around the time of bar Kokhba. From that point on the text was transmitted with remarkable fidelity. However, prior to that time, the text was pluriform, as the manuscript evidence from Qumran attests. And no two copies of the same biblical text from Qumran are in complete agreement. By the way, even the rabbinic literature attests to scribal variations -- even in Torah scrolls.

There are hundreds of examples of scribal error in the Masoretic Text. I had already pointed out other examples such as Gen 4:8. But let's not lose focus.

This remark is neither here nor there. It is obvious that you apply a very different standard to analyzing the Hebrew Bible than you would to any other ancient text.

Your translation is poor to the point of being wrong.

That 1 Sam 13:1 is corrupt seems pretty clear to the other posters on your b-hebrew list, which you yourself had praised.

I wouldn't call this a mistranslation, as is the case with the KJV of 1 Sam 13:1, but neither is it 100% literal. There are, of course, many nonliteral translations of the Hebrew Bible which still convey the essential sense of the text. You might prefer some of them -- this is a matter of taste.

Again, this is a matter of taste. No translation can be perfect. English cannot convey the fact that Hebrew nouns and verbs have gender, differences in tense structure, etc. -- things that I notice when I speak and read Hebrew. Nor do the many puns in the biblical text come across. So every translation is inherently imperfect. But some are more literal than others. Generally the KJV sticks pretty close to the Hebrew. The Jacobean English is lovely. But it isn't magical, as you apparently believe. Of course, when one happens to speak only English, and when one's entire worldview is rooted in magical beliefs about the biblical text, it is only natural that a myth of perfection of an English translation should arise. (Or, as the story about the ignorant preacher goes, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!")

So far I've identified four scribal errors. There are hundreds more.

Well, here's someone else who doesn't understand the meaning of b'malkho. This construction means "at the beginning of his reign". That's what it means in 2 Sam 2:10. That's what it means in 2 Sam 5:4. That's what it means in 1 Kings 14:21. That's what it means in 1 Kings 16:11. That's what it means in 1 Kings 22:42. That's what it means in 2 Kings 8:17. That's what it means in 2 Kings 8:26, 12:1, 14:2, 15:2, 15:33, 16:2, 18:2, 21:1, 21:19, 22:1, 23:31, 23:36, 24:8, and 24:18. That's what it means in 2 Chron 12:13, 20:31, 21:5, 21:20, 22:2, 24:1, 26:3, 27:1, 27:8, 28:1, 33:1, 33:21, 34:1, 36:2, 36:5, 36:9, and 36:11. That's what it means in Jer 52:1. Aside from 1 Sam 13:1, these are the only instances of b'malkho in the Hebrew Bible. 38 instances in which the meaning is incontravertible. And they don't all use the same formula, either (see 1 Kings 16:11 and 2 Kings 12:1). Do you regard this as insufficient evidence, Steven?

Even Christian apologists generally accept this as an obvious case of scribal error. But I'm sure we'd all be delighted to see what you serve up here. Probably some nonsense about "coregency" or some other utterly unsupported and desperate claim.

I invite you to take this bible quiz.

Steven Avery

Please. You are imposing your own mental machinations on a scribe doing translation exegesis and midrash 2000+ years ago. By your strange theories, every exegesis in the Targum that significantly departs from the text will become a "problematic" text ? If not, you should simply acknowledge that you are winging it here.

Which really gives us little insight into whether the Jerusalem Temple manuscripts were "pluriform". The DSS is a lens, it tells us a lot, but it is very possible to reach false over-arching conclusions since it is only a variety-pack collection far from the standardized Temple manuscript.

And we could discuss the Tiqqune Sopherim and other issues.

Now, how many scribal variations did the Masoretes discuss in the couple of Samuel verses that you are claiming as "corruptions". Logically, if they were corruptions, they would be the most prone to such variants.

If there are no such variants, then you have given additional compelling evidence that your whole corruption theory is false.

So you refuse to identify even ONE other supposed DROPPING of a word in a sentence in the whole Tanach. Not even one ?

No, your dubious claim there is quite different. That a whole phrase simply vanished. (Others might claim that whole chapters of Daniel left the building).

That is very different from a word in a sentence that vanishes, poofs, and makes the sentence "corrupt".

I am understanding more and more that in all of Tanach you have your 1 Samuel 13:1 claim as an orphan claim. And you won't simply admit that fact because it shows how tenuous it is trying to apply your concept of a dropped word to 1 Samuel 13 when there is other quite fine alternatives, like the King James Bible, Judaica Press translation, as from Ben Gersom.

The issue was your inability to have a theory of transmission of a sentence where you claim "corruption" on the scantiest and weakest of evidences. You won't even say what you think was the original sentence in a way that makes sense. That reduces the already limited utility of your theory.

In determining the text. Sure. I do not reach to apply paradigms of corruption and suspicion on the Hebrew Bible text, my presumptive base is that the text is special, preserved. And that men go out of their way to try to take the opposite tact because of textcrit confusions and their desire to reject the authority of the text. And I do not apply methodologies that themselves will introduce errors into the text.

This is simply dumb. You asked me about your alternative translation and I answered.

So I will ask you again,
"when there are two comparable alternative translations, is it proper to consider context and sense in determining which one is proper?"

You consider the historic KJB translation "wrong". Ben Gersom and the Hebrew linguists on the King James Bible committee with tons of background simply disagree with you, as does the recent Judaica Press translation. At least you could answer my question.

And I look forward to a real discussion of the issues there, which they have never had. They tend to have theories of corruption of the text, since that is the scholarship milieu, yet with far more insight than you, (such as in the recent Goliath discussion).

And they generally will not advance laughable side-issue diversions like your vav contention here.

Wow. So this is your defacto acknowledgment that all your harumphing about the vav was a red herring. Remember you made a big deal about chapter 13 not having an untranslated vav. Now you cover your backside when it is shown that there is nothing unusual about this at all, as in the previous chapter. This is a laugher. You were simply winging it.

Well, you got one thing right.

You seem to have a hang-up with this false word. Nuff said.

And of course lots of folks who speak multiple languages accept the inspiration of the scriptures and the inspiration of the Bible, including the inspiration of the King James Bible. However, don't let a little false reasoning deter you. You would just fabricate a different argument if talking to them.

We discussed two in depth, and they were supposed to be your "best cases". And they turned out to be weak attempts bolstered by distorted argumentation (to the point that you fell back on the vav on 1 Samuel 13 )

:-) ... and if these were your best cases, one can imagine what in the world you are talking about.

Yes, I only asked you whether you wanted a Jay Green type translation, I don't use his but it had the "and" you requested.

Here, use the Judaica Press, which is essentially identical to the King James Bible in sense, and has your vaunted "vav" / "and".

Judaica Press
1. Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.
2. And Saul chose for himself three thousand from Israel, and they were with Saul; two thousand in Michmash and in the mountain of Bethel, and one thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin, and he sent the rest of the people, every man to his tents.

Are you going to claim that the Judaica Press translation is "right" compared to the King James Bible "mistranslation" because of the "And" difference. ???

Please. What was your whole point on that issue ?
You didn't know that vavs really don't always have to be
translated to a word ?

(apparently not, since you went through a whole chapter
to try to make that point)

For Ahaziah I have never looked over the various issues in depth myself.
One article from a good source.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html
How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

The other good article is by the Far Eastern Bible College.

Shalom,
Steven

Anat

The whole basis of midrash is that often literal reading of the Hebrew Bible is 'difficult' ie doesn't make common sense, or won't make sense in light of some other text elsewhere in TNK. That's what serves as a hint that the place in text needs drash.

Translaters and interpreters have tried to go around 1Samuel 13:1 by claiming that one year has passed into Saul's reign, but this has several problems which Apikorus has pointed out and which you keep ignoring. One is that 13:1 uses a *formula* found many times in Samuel and Kings, and every single place other than this the first number is the age ot the king at the beginning of his reign. The other is that the translation simply doesn't mean what the Hebrew says and is obviously forced, as anyone reading the Hebrew without translation or interpretation would say.

From my POV why the heck mention Saul's first year if you aren't going to say anything about it?

Apikorus

I provided 38 instances of the use of b'malkho in the Hebrew Bible. Steven continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence for corruption in this case.

The article Steven cites on the Ahaziah issue is laughable! Here is its "solution":

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

The author makes a desperate attempt to associate the number 42 with Ahaziah by adding up the regnal periods of his ancestors. There is of course no warrant to engage in this ridiculous analysis. Clearly the author is engaging in "answer analysis". He must prove the Bible inerrant, so he makes up rules as he goes along to rescue the text from obvious corruption.

Steven Avery

Hi Anat,
That is not my understanding of midrash. There is plenty of midrash on verses whose pshat is perfectly clear. Do you have a source for this 'basis of midrash' concept you offer us?

Actually I answer Api point-by-point and I have ignored nothing.

While Api has no view even on what is the supposed uncorrupted text, a basic component of any textual theory of supposed corruption. First he claimed the "formula" view was key (discussed below), then he made a <edit> about translating a vav, and now he is emphasizing one word, (last post) which opens up one new interesting question.

However the way Api redacts the text, there currently IS no number there at all. ie. one of the components of the "formula" is simply missing. A second component also needs to be redacted. This makes it no more a "formula" than my statement about the carts and horses was an "idiom".

In addition, Api has been stone silent, again and again, when directly asked if this is the ONLY single word corruption/awkward omission in all of Tanach that he claims. If word omissions were reasonably common (even in his own tinted glasses analysis of supposed "corrupt" chapters) then one might simply say "I see one here". When a 50,000 word (or so) text never has such an omission anywhere else, such a claim must be looked at with great suspicion, as it may well be the textual critics hope and fantasy instead.

And this improperly places modern Hebrew straitjacket grammatical construction glasses over the ancient text. I even gave an analagous English example, simply ignored, the Seahawks example, where we would easily speak in a simlar manner, although it is a bit uncommon. Apparently if there is an uncommon usage in the Hebrew Bible, some folks run to their error fabrication machine.

This was the period previously written about in the preceding words (chapter)

John Gill hits the noggin ..
"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"

Martin Antsey, who worked closely with chronology, is very similar.
In 1 Sam. 13:1 we read, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel" he established a standing army. The meaning of this verse unquestionably is that Saul had now, at this point in the narrative, reigned one year, viz. from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second anointing by him at Gilgal after the defeat of Nahash.
The historian proceeds to tell us that he reigned over Israel two years, that is he reigned two years over the whole of Israel now that he was publicly recognised and accepted by all the people at Gilgal, for before, at the public recognition at Mizpeh, there were some who dissented from the appointment and despised him (1 Sam. 10:17-27).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

I am redacting nothing. ben-shanah means "yearling". See Exod 12:5. My translation is literal. The text is defective.

Anat

My notion of how midrash works comes from reading it. Bialik and Ravnitzki's 'sefer ha'agada hashalem' was one of my favorites in my teenage. You read the drash, then go back to the TNK and read the drashed verse in context it becomes obvious what the drash is trying to explain or reconcile. I can't say that's the *only* way drash works but it is *very* common.

Of course there is no number. It is missing. We do not know how old Saul was at the beginning of his reign. Mechon Mamre just leaves a blank: It could have been any number old enough to have a son who was a warrior. And if the story is a composite of different sources even that lower limit isn't required. (Saul in chapters 9-11 reads like a much younger person, someone in his 20s maybe.)
What we do know is that the word 'bmolkho' means 'when he began to reign'. See Apikorus' examples. Is there any other usage of this word?

And the length of Saul's reign - my main problem is consistency with events described that are supposed to fit in this time frame. So either the author of a fictional work had a bad sense of timing, more events were added to the original work, someone shortened the time Saul was described to have reigned, maybe in attempt to belittle him, or the story is of composite origin.

If the author had meant Saul's second year the text would have used ordinal number as in 1Kings 14:25, 1Kings 22:2 or alternatively 'bishnat shtaim' as in 1Kings 15:25.

Steven Avery

In synch with the idea that this refers to the special first year of his reign previously discussed, is the Jewish understanding of the language, explaining why the text has there has "the son of a year".

http://www.yna.edu/torah/wx-display....v.html&search=
Shaul was described as a totally righteous individual. Chazal explain that the pasuk "ben shana Shaul bemalcho" "Shaul was one year old when he reigned" (Shmuel I 13:1), means "keben shana shelo taam taam chet" "like a one year old who had not sampled the taste of sin" (Yoma 22b).

And we can see this innocence in Saul up to chapter 13. He was one-year in his reign, pure, and that purity was like a one-year-old child.

Also some say that the one innocent year was the year when he reigned with Samuel, again answering your question.

http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/te...s/tm-dt-15.htm
What is the source for the Beraisa's statement that Shmuel ruled with Shaul for one year, and afterwards Shaul ruled alone for two years?

The HAGAHOS HA'GRA explains that the source is the verse (Shmuel I 13:1) that says, "Ben Shanah Shaul b'Malcho u'Shnei Shanim Malach Al Yerushalayim" -- "Shaul was one year old when he became king (Ben Shanah Shaul b'Malcho), and for two years he ruled over Yerushalayim." It is obvious that the verse does not mean that Shmuel was one year old when he ascended the throne. What, then, does the verse mean? The Vilna Ga'on explains that the meaning of the verse is exactly what is stated in the Beraisa. The verse is saying that Shaul had already ruled for one year, together with Shmuel, before he ruled independently for two years. (See also Insights to Sanhedrin 14:2.)

===

Whether you agree completely with Ben Gersom, Vilna Ga'on, the Talmud, the Targum et al, you can see that they simply, like the King James Bible, understood 1 Samuel 13:1 as a unique construction used for the unusual situation of the early reign of Saul.

And this makes a lot more sense than theories of obscure unspecified double Api-redactions.

Oh, and Api can't even see that for all his concern about b'malkho
"one year Saul at the beginning of the reign"

is the same meaning of the King James and Judaica Press
and other good translations --
"Saul reigned one year"

Making all his concerns about b'malkho fit in perfectly.

That, btw, was his third effort to try to taint the Masoretic Samuel text.
1) "construction" -- its not the construction
2) "vav" -- total nonsense claim
3) "b'malkho" -- simply the same sense as is in the KJB

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic