2 samuel 15:7

2 Samuel has quite a few textual problems, especially with numbers.

You just have to try to figure out what makes the most sense in the context of the passage.

 

Usually the textual problems (that is a good phrase) are because of the different counting methods and some variant issues between texts.

The NET points out the issue with some reconcilation (they use the word 4 btw)

tc The MT has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom. The Lucianic Greek recension (τέσσαρα ἔτη, tessara ete), the Syriac Peshitta (’arba’ sanin), and Vulgate (post quattuor autem annos) in fact have the expected reading “four years.” Most English translations follow the versions in reading “four” here, although some (e.g. KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV), following the MT, read “forty.”

 

So the question is, should our English Bibles put known textual errors into the text? Or is 40 what the author actually wrote and we just don't understand why? (I'm inclined to think "40" is an error, though.) I'm curious if anyone has defended the "40" reading. How reliable is the Masoretic Hebrew tradition of 1 Samuel? It seems to be less reliable than the Masoretic Hebrew tradition of 1-2 Chronicles when they differ. Why? What copying or editorial process led to this?

 

A long time ago I was a Coast Guard Radioman stationed in Detroit (yes they have CG there). We routinely edited messages coming in over the teletype from our various small units scattered around the lakes.

One day a message came in about a "broken potable water line under the river". My buddy and me hadn't heard of a "potable water line" so we guessed it was "portable water line" and edited accordingly........Well, we were the donkeys that day.

So, I would prefer the text be translated as it reads.


A.F.

 

I agree with A.F. (as I often do). But no common mainstream translation is completely diplomatic (strictly translating a single source text); not even the KJV. Therefore, all I expect from the translators is an indication that a change of source text has occurred (footnote or something). This is an admirable characteristic of the NET.

 

Masoretic Text Only-ists?

Rob

 

This is probably an error in the text(s) underlying the OT of the KJVs. Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta has four years.

I'm sure the Peshitta isn't perfect 100% of the time, but apparently this verse and the harmony in giving Ahaziah's age when he became king are more accurate than in the KJVs and many of the modern Bible translations.

 

Could you let me know where you get " Absalom was dead by age 25" ?

Mikets can be interpretted as " at the end of " 40 years.

I am not sure it had started from Samuel's time.

 

One chronologist takes the incredibly novel approach of reading the phrase together with the words that immediately precede it:

---Chronology of the Old Testament By Floyd Nolen Jones

 

I still wait for the answer from Roby because I think he can be right with 25 years of age.

But this issue can be very similar to Mark 2:26.

Did Jesus make a mistake in acknowledging Abiathar instead of Ahimelek?

It was not Abiathar when David entered the Temple ( 1 Sam 21:1-)
But it was Ahimelek, his father.

Was the Autograph wrong? Were the copies wrong? Was the text (TR) wrong? Was the translation wrong?

In the same way, I think we can find the answer.

In my survey, there are some variances in Elcah ( Let me go) among the manuscripts, but not in Arbaim ( 40).

Then we must check carefully, Mikets. Mikets is not aharei definitely.
In such case we should be based on the first meaning, though it can be " after". So, the nuance is very important in this case.