By academic training I am a text critic, specifically of the Old Testament. Years ago, during graduate school, I had a thought-provoking conversation with a fellow student. We were discussing the master’s courses upon which we had both embarked: he was studying Second Temple Judaism, chiefly from an historical perspective, whereas I was on a master’s by research, focusing on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. During our conversation, my fellow student made an off-handed remark about my course: “From my perspective, you are basically a mechanic.” I confess I cannot recall exactly how, or even if, I responded.

While I knew at that time his characterization was, at best, an oversimplification, it was only after many years that I came to realize just how gross an oversimplification it really was. Study of the Hebrew text and its ancient versions encompasses far more than “fixing” the “original” text so that it “runs” well, like a mechanic a car. Study of the Hebrew text and its ancient versions ideally encompasses the whole of textual history, including (but not limited to): the Vorlage of those versions (i.e., the Hebrew they translated), the translation techniques the translators employed, their exegesis, and other related subjects, such as the history of individual manuscripts, editorial or scribal techniques, recensional developments, annotation practices, etc. Thus, on an academic level, my student-colleague’s characterization of this field of study was/is inadequate.

Be that as it may, this view seems to persist. Even amongst those who write leading commentaries, “textual criticism,” if it is engaged at all, is lamentably still treated as a preliminary chore with which all who deal with the Hebrew of the Old Testament must deal, preferably as quickly and painlessly as possible. This is a false understanding. And I would argue that embracing such a view is to the detriment of sound exegesis of the Hebrew text—and here I wish to underscore the effects of such on Bible translation.

What hath “Textual Criticism” to do with “Translation”?

Most students of biblical languages encounter “textual criticism” at the very end of their coursework. Often in the back of grammar textbooks, there will be a few pages provided with plates of the relevant critical edition, usually the BHS, which are annotated with captions explaining how the various apparatuses and associated annotations function. The degree to which students absorb or appreciate these data tends to depend on the enthusiasm, and, frankly the skill, of the instructor who guides them.

Of course, most students take biblical languages for the sake of better understanding translation and exegesis. Most often, teachers introduce the very notion of “textual criticism” is at the front end of this process: first we must establish the base-text of a given passage, and then, having done so, we may proceed to translation and broader exegetical or other interpretive matters. As a result, students learn to grapple with the various textual witnesses, assess their value vis-à-vis the current textual standard, and make justified changes, as needs be, applying sound textual principles, and—as we are always encouraged—showing restraint. This, we are told, is the chief value of “textual criticism.” Only after having accomplished the unpleasant task of doing God’s paperwork, may we then proceed to translation first and then other “higher” exegetical matters. Because of this process, many students, and even much more experienced researchers, cease to deal with the manuscripts and versions after this crucial initial step. Thereafter, only the latest Hebrew lexicon is needed along with a major commentary or two for when one gets “stuck” trying to translate.

I would argue this mentality is greatly mistaken. Rather, these various texts and ancient versions can, and indeed ought to, inform the exegetical process—translation especially—even beyond the initial establishing of the translation’s base-text. (Though, obviously the latter too is critical.) Further, I would argue thus irrespective of the style of translation employed, viz., whether one adheres to a “literal” or “dynamic” approach, or (more likely) something in-between. In order to illustrate the benefits of my thesis, I believe some examples are in order. Thus, for this and the following parts of this article, I will outline a selection of examples as a case study from some of my recent translator work on 1 Samuel. After supplying analysis of the data from these examples, I will summarize the discussion, and make suggestions as to how textual scholars can better assist Bible translators in utilizing these witnesses in their work.

Case Study: The Hebrew Text of Samuel and its Translation

The traditional text (the “Masoretic Text”, hereafter MT) of Samuel has historically been described as one of the worst preserved in all the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Henry P. Smith, writing in 1899, claimed: “The text of these books in the current Hebrew recension is more corrupt than the text of any other part of the Old Testament … .”¹ Most scholars have since echoed a version of this statement, and the discoveries from Qumran and elsewhere have not substantially altered this opinion, even if some would dispute the precision of his characterization.² As one would expect, the lower quality of the MT base-text complicates translation. Thus, the United Bible Societies (UBS) Handbook on 1 Samuel underscores this problem in its introduction: “One of the most difficult problems in translating 1 and 2 Samuel lies in deciding what to translate.”³ This is correct, and one only need compare the various modern translations and commentaries for 1 Sam 13.1 (just how old was Saul?) to come to this exact conclusion.

However, as stated above, I would argue that issues in translation pertain not only to establishing the Hebrew base, but also how to translate that base once it is established. And I would argue that the various texts and ancient translations of Samuel can—and indeed should—aid in that pursuit. Doing so allows us to come to a better understanding of the Hebrew text and its exegesis, materially affecting how we translate.

Example #1: 1 Sam 14.13 (Targum and LXX vs Jerome and Symmachus)

After Jonathan and his armorbearer decide to attack the Philistine garrison at Michmash, the MT describes their advance on the Philistine position as follows:

וַיַּעַל יוֹנָתָן עַל־יָדָיו וְעַל־רַגְלָיו וְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו אַחֲרָיו וַיִּפְּלוּ לִפְנֵי יוֹנָתָן וְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו מְמוֹתֵת אַחֲרָיו׃

Preliminarily, we might translate, somewhat literally:

And Jonathan went up [to the Philistine garrison on the high ground] on his hands and feet [sc. climbing?⁴] with his armorbearer [also going up] behind him. And the Philistines fell before Jonathan while his armorbearer was מְמוֹתֵת after him.

The issue, for the sake of translation and exegesis, is the precise activity assigned to Jonathan’s armorbearer. For this, we may initially consult the lexica. HALOT glosses the polel of מות as having two senses: 1) “to make a full end of, deliver the death blow” and 2) “to slay” outright. Of these, HALOT assigns the present case to the former, and thus it is Jonathan who wounds the Philistines while his armorbearer delivers the final death blow behind him. Seems simple enough, and this is the interpretation adopted by many, not the least of which was Samuel R. Driver in his well-known Notes.⁵ However, not all see a distinction here. For example, David Cline’s DCH simply lists all cases of polel מות under the gloss “kill, put to death” without sorting them further.⁶

Lexica aside, one might legitimately consider whether the staging of the narrative really envisions the process as HALOT and Driver would have it. After all, the text states Jonathan and his armorbearer killed “about 20 men” (v 14) in just this fashion; and given they were at a positional disadvantage (i.e., the Philistines had the high ground), one might wonder if such a description is tenable. More logical is that both men took on the ca. 20 Philistines in whatever formation the latter approached, perhaps spread out and attacking simultaneously, as opposed to approaching Jonathan one at a time, like a bad modern action film. Also, from the perspective of ancient combat, it would have been much safer for Jonathan and his armorbearer to keep a tight formation (back-to-back?), to disallow space permitting the Philistines opportunity to strike at them separately.

Turning to the textual data: for this passage we have the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and the Aramaic Targum. As only the latter half of the verse is in dispute, only that will be supplied for each, respectively:

LXX (Rahlfs’ edition):

καὶ ἐπέβλεψαν κατὰ πρόσωπον Ιωναθαν, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτούς, καὶ ὁ αἴρων τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐπεδίδου ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ.

“… and they looked intently at the face of Ionathan, and he smote them, and his armor-bearer behind him was providing supplies.” (NETS)

Peshitta (Leiden/Amsterdam edition):

... ܘܢܦܠ ܩܝܡܐ ܕܦܠܫ̈ܬܝܐ ܩܕܡ ܝܘܢܬܢ ܘܫܳܩܶܠ ܡܐ̈ܢܘܗܝ ܡܩܛܠ ܗܘܐ ܒܬܪܗ

“… And the garrison of the Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armorbearer was killing (or: killing much) after him.” (ETs of Syriac are my own throughout.)

Vulgate (Weber edition):

… itaque alii cadebant ante Ionathan alios armiger eius interficiebat sequens eum.

“And some fell before Jonathan, others his armourbearer slew as he followed him.” (DRC)

Targum (CAL edition):

... וּנפַלוּ מְטָעְנִין קְָדָם יֹונָתָן וְנָטֵיל זֵינֵיה מְמָתֵית בָתְרֹוהִי׃

“… And [the Philistines] fell wounded before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer was killing after him.”⁷

Thus, we have a few interpretations for the latter half of the verse. Of these, the Peshitta is the closest to MT and, as such, does not really provide any exegetical clues. However, it should be mentioned that the use of “killing” or “killing much/many” (ܡܩܛܠ ܗܘܐ; pael act ptc.) does not bear any putative nuance of “finish them off” in Syriac. For the Targum and Vulgate, we have opposing interpretations. The former adheres to the sense of HALOT’s gloss, i.e., that Jonathan at least wounded all 20 Philistines, and his armorbearer only brought up the rear and finished them off. The latter, on the other hand, shows that Jerome interpreted the Hebrew as meaning that both Jonathan and his armorbearer each vanquished their own portion of the ca. 20 Philistines. This is a reasonable interpretation of the Hebrew, especially since one might contest HALOT’s gloss categorizations. After all, Hebrew idiom allows for “falling (in battle)” as meaning they died (thus DCH, s.v., qal, 2)—no further life remains to be taken. The verbal variation between qal נפל and polel מות then could be attributed to the original author’(/s) literary artistry of which he(/they) had much.

The most exegetically complicated version is clearly the LXX. What exactly does ἐπεδίδου mean? In NETS, Bernard Taylor translated it as “was providing supplies”; this is a reasonable interpretation of the Greek.⁸ If this is so, then the armorbearer only made sure to manage Jonathan’s arsenal during the skirmish. However, the active imperfect of ἐπιδίδωμι need not only mean this. Scanning Greek lexica offers any number of senses, including “advancing” / “proceeding”, i.e., following behind him,⁹ or even “adding [to whatever Jonathan was doing].”¹⁰ LXX variants also supplement the interpretation of LXX. For instance, the Old Latin (OL) attests two witnesses as follows (from Brooke-McLean-Thackeray’s apparatus): tradebat ei a retro facie eius 𝔏^b and porrigebat ei iacula a retro 𝔏^v. These may be translated “and he was handing over [supplies? weapons?] to him from behind him,” and “he was handing him javelins/darts from behind,” respectively. The OL then certainly supports Taylor’s translation, although perhaps more actively, i.e., he supplied weapons specifically, something probably having been influenced by the following verses.

Lastly, in the LXX manuscript tradition, we have at least two readings from the hexaplaric revisers, as follows (again from Br.-M.-Th.¹¹):

επεδιδου] εθανατου M 93^mg : σ´ ανηρει 108^mg 93^mg.

The latter from Symmachus reads: “he was destroying/killing/taking up (arms?)” (imperf. act. ind. of ἀναιρέω). Note, that there is nothing in Symmachus here to support HALOT’s distinction of “finishing [them] off.” The other reading, clearly from either Aquila or Theodotion (or both¹²), simply means “he was putting to death”, i.e., “killing” (imperf. mid. ind. of θᾰνᾰτόω). Thus, the extant hexaplaric data at 1 Sam 14.13 does not clearly presuppose the armorbearer was doing anything else other than killing, just like Jonathan.

So how does all this data affect our translation of 1 Sam 14.13? Checking some commentators may prove useful. Driver, mentioned above, has had much influence on the literature (at least in English) as a quick survey will show. Smith (ICC) rendered “… his armour-bearer kept despatching them after him.” Kyle McCarter (AB) translated “… his weapon-bearer dispatching them behind him (with darts and crude flint weapons).” Ralph Klein (WBC) follows with “… the weapon-bearer would finish them off behind him.” David Tsumura (NICOT) offers a more literal “… with his armor-bearer killing behind him”; however, in his commentary, he explains that this verbal form represents the idea of “dispatching,” i.e., “finishing them off.’

Also of interest are the English translations (ETs). A brief sampling may be broken down interpretively¹³ as follows:

**Jonathan strikes and his armorbearer finishes them off:

NRSV: … fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer, coming after him, killed them.

NJPS: … fell before Jonathan, and his arms-bearer finished them off behind him.

NET: … Jonathan struck down the Philistines, while his armor bearer came along behind him and killed them.

NAB-RE: …  As the Philistines fell before Jonathan, his armor-bearer, who followed him, would finish them off.

GNB: … Jonathan attacked the Philistines and knocked them down, and the young man killed them.

CEB: … The Philistines fell before Jonathan. His armor-bearer, coming behind him, would then finish them off.

NEB/REB: … fell before Jonathan, and the armour-bearer, coming behind, dispatched them.

John Goldingay: … fell before Yonatan, with his equipment-bearer putting them to death behind him.

Robert Alter: … fell before Jonathan with his armor bearer finishing them off behind him.

ERV-04: … Jonathan fought the men who attacked from the front. His helper came behind him and killed the men who were only wounded.¹⁴

**Both kill (or the language is neutral permitting such an interpretation):

Geneva Bible: … and some fel before Jonathán, & his armour bearer slewe others after him. (= Vulgate!)

KJV/AV: … fell before Jonathan; and his armourbearer slew after him.

NIV: … fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him.

NASB: … they fell before Jonathan, and his armor bearer put some to death after him. (= Vulgate!)

CEV: Jonathan killed the Philistines who attacked from the front, and the soldier killed those who attacked from behind.

NLT: … fell before Jonathan, and his armor bearer killed those who came behind them.

Thus, many commentators and ETs follow HALOT by adhering to Driver’s interpretation. Nevertheless, the UBS Handbook was careful to observe that not all interpreters and translations make this distinction:

The text seems to mean that Jonathan first knocked the Philistines unconscious and then his armorbearer “finished them off behind him” (NJPS). But others take the verb fell before him to be a euphemism for dying in battle. If this is the case, the meaning would then be that “some fell to Jonathan himself, and some to the squire [armorbearer] as he came up behind him” (Knox). And it is true that in some contexts “fall before” someone means to be killed (Lev 26:7, 8).¹⁵

However one might decide to translate, this case well illustrates my point: Whatever the final judgment, translators would clearly benefit from consulting the ancient versions. After all, no one would accuse the LXX translator, or the Targumist, or Symmachus, or Jerome of failing to understand Hebrew. Yet, these learned translators came to different conclusions—just like today.

Example #2: 1 Sam 14.16 (LXX/Vulgate vs Peshitta/Targum)

A further example is found a couple of verses later, which describes the results of the attack by Jonathan and his armorbearer (irrespective of how the latter contributed). The MT reads as follows:

וַיִּרְאוּ הַצֹּפִים לְשָׁאוּל בְּגִבְעַת בִּנְיָמִן וְהִנֵּה הֶהָמוֹן נָמוֹג וַיֵּלֶךְ וַהֲלֹם׃

Provisionally, we may render:

And Saul’s lookouts in Gibeah of Benjamin were watching, and behold, the [Philistine] throng melted, and going on וַהֲלֹם.

Driver, in a fine display of British understatement, described the matter: “וַהֲלֹם is untranslateable.”¹⁶ So what do the ancient versions have to say for the latter part of the verse?

LXX:

… καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ παρεμβολὴ τεταραγμένη ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν.

“… and behold, the camp was in commotion on this side and that.” (NETS)

Peshitta:

ܘܗܐ ܚܝܠܐ ܕܦܠܫ̈ܬܝܐ ܙܥ ܘܐܙܠ ܘܐܬܬܒܪ ܀܀܀ …

“And behold, the army of the Philistines quaked/was shook up and went on and was shattered.”¹⁷

Vulgate:

… et ecce multitudo prostrata et huc illucque diffugiens.

“… and behold a multitude overthrown, and fleeing this way and that.” (DRC)

Targum:

וְהָא הָמֹון מַשרִית פְלִשתָאֵי אִתְבַר אָזֵיל תְבָרֵיה וְסָגֵי.

“… and behold the multitude of the camp of the Philistines was broken; its breaking grew more and more.”

Thus, we have two distinct interpretations for the issue at hand: namely, was the Philistine horde (1) scattered this way and that (LXX/Vulgate) or was it (2) shattered (Peshitta/Targum)? Again, we may consult the commentaries. Driver, for his part outlines the matter concisely:

LXX [properly retroverted would represent] והנה המחנה נמוג הֲלֹם וַהֲלֹם, which yields a thoroughly satisfactory sense. וילך [in MT] is a corruption of הלם: and the meaning is that the camp melted away, i.e. was disorganized, and dispersed in alarm, hither and thither, i.e. in every direction.¹⁸

This explanation has been embraced by many other commentators and most ETs:

Smith (ICC): והלם] is impossible, and to be corrected according to 𝔊 הלם והלם.

McCarter (AB): “… surging back and forth.” His note: “Reading … on the basis of LXX. MT’s … is untranslatable (cf. Driver).”

Klein (WBC): “… going this way and that.” Following LXX.

A notable exception is Tsumura (NICOT): “… going back and forth.” His explanation seems to argue that MT’s phrasing is somehow elliptical here. The USB Handbook argues similarly:

The notion of total dissipation of the army is reinforced by the words translated hither and thither (literally “and they went and further”), which is an archaic way of saying “here and there” or “in every direction” (CEV). Knox has “this way and that.”¹⁹

Most ETs, at least those I typically compare when translation checking, follow suit. A sample is worth surveying:

NRSV: surging back and forth. (citing LXX)

NJPS: scattering in all directions. (note: Lit. “shaken and going thither.” Meaning of Heb. uncertain.)

NET: melt away first in one direction and then in another. (tn Heb “the crowd melted and went, even here.”)

Other ETs mostly have “hither and thither” (RSV), “in all directions” (NAB-RE), “running all over the place” (CEB), “to and fro” (NEB/REB), and the like.²⁰ Whether or not the translators in each case were emending the text to follow LXX or reading MT through LXX’s “interpretive lens” is difficult to tell since translations have varying policies regarding emendation and/or footnotes. E.g., even the Koren ET (3^rd ed) has “rushing back and forth,” and John Goldingay chose “hither and thither,” each without a translator note. Since both translations, as a rule, follow MT without emendation (like Tsumura), this is worth underscoring. Can MT really be understood this way “as is”?

ETs reading otherwise merit attention. For example, Robert Alter renders, in a fine example of a “blur” translation: “and going off yonder.” Another exception is the Judaica Press ET which translated “… and it [sc. the horde] was coming closer [i.e., to Saul’s position].”²¹ This translation follows the great Rashi’s (1040–1105) exegesis of the passage:

והנה ההמון. של פלשתים, נמוג ממקומו וילך, וקרב הלום לצד ישראל:

Behold the multitude. Of the Philistines [who] melted away from its position and kept coming nearer to הֲלֹם i.e., Yisroel's side.²²

It is critical to observe that Rashi’s hyper-literalistic reading of MT results in the exact opposite situation: namely that Jonathan (and his armorbearer!) struck the Philistines such that they ran—not in all directions (thus Tsumura et al)—but fled towards Saul’s position at Gibeah. As the notes in the Judaica edition show, Rashi’s interpretation was followed by other medieval Jewish scholars, who typically always follow MT (and/or Targ.). As a result, interpretations like Rashi’s would be expressed by R. Joseph Kara (11^th cent.) and much later by Malbim (R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Weisser; 1809-79).²³

Despite this general tendency, for this passage some medieval Jewish exegetes departed from a strict reading of MT and followed the Targum’s interpretation, viz., that the Philistines were shattered in battle. These include Kimchi (also commonly called Redak, 1160—1236)²⁴ and Ralbag (sc. R. Levi ben Gershon, 1288—1344).²⁵ Later, the Mezudath Zion (a compendium compiled by R. David Altschuler, 18th cent.) would echo Kimchi.

Yet the shattered interpretation is much earlier than even these exegetes, as seen above in the Peshitta and Targum. Both of these translators clearly viewed הלם as a verb. Believe it or not this is how the KJV/AV translated: “… the multitude melted away, and they went on beating down one another.”²⁶ This was later echoed in Noah Webster’s translation (1833) and later (somewhat ironically) in Young’s Literal Translation (1862): “and it goeth on, and is beaten down.”

Driver considered the shattered interpretation in his Notes:

[KJV/]AV. ‘and they went on beating down’ connects the word with הָלַם to hammer (so Targ.): but besides the word being unsuitable, and one never used in such a connexion, the construction is an impossible one (the inf. abs. would be required: וילך הָלֹךְ וְהָלֹם).

In the end, the decision a translator must make in this case requires some emendation. MT “as is”, i.e., as vocalized by the Masoretes, must be adjusted, or added to, to attain good sense. (The “elliptical” interpretation in Tsumura is not at all convincing and lacks a parallel elsewhere attested with הֲלֹם.) In reference to my above thesis, this case illustrates the value of the whole text-critical endeavor: both establishing the base text (i.e., which words?) and deciding how that base is to be understood (e.g., הלם is a verb?). At each step, translators must weigh all the textual evidence to come to a more accurate understanding.

Example #3: 1 Sam 20.19 (Consultation of the Hexaplaric Revisers)

For the first couple of examples, the first-tier, i.e., direct from Hebrew, witnesses featured more prominently, namely LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate, and Targum. However, for this example, the potential value of the hexaplaric revisers, often called the recentiores, namely the Jewish revisers of LXX—Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion—will be kept in view.

וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ תֵּרֵד מְאֹד וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־נִסְתַּרְתָּ שָּׁם בְּיוֹם הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְיָשַׁבְתָּ אֵצֶל הָאֶבֶן הָאָזֶל׃

Provisionally:

(Jonathan speaking to David:) “Now שִׁלַּשְׁתָּ, you shall go down quickly[?] and come to the place where you hid yourself earlier [thus NRSV, lit. “in the day of the work”²⁷], and you should stay near הָאֶבֶן הָאָזֶל.”

There are, in fact, three exegetical issues for this verse. However, considering the textual evidence, we shall deal only with the first and the third, viz., those represented by the Hebrew in the provisional ET.

Issue #1: What does שִׁלַּשְׁתָּ mean?

We consult the lexica: HALOT lists the piel of שׁלשׁ as meaning: to divide in three, to do something on the third day, or to do a third time. Of these options, only the second is suitable to the context; however, the only citation for that understanding is the present case. Thus, the reasoning is circular. Realizing this philological problem, many ETs emend MT ever so slightly, as the NET Bible note explains well: “The [NET] translation assumes an emendation of the verb from שִׁלַּשְׁתָּ (shillashta, “to do a third time”) to שִׁלִּישִׁית (shillishit, “[on the] third [day]”).” Yet, upon checking DCH, another gloss can be found, “stay three days,” but again citing only this case.²⁸ What argument may be made for this understanding, other than context?

For this, we must check the textual data, as follows:

LXX: καὶ τρισσεύσεις “And you shall do²⁹ it three times …” (NETS)

Peshitta: ܘܠܬܠܬ ܫ̈ܥܝܢ  “and three times [you will be sought] …”

Vulgate: usque perendie “(your seat will be empty until) after tomorrow …” (DRC)

Targum: וּכתַלָתוּת “And at the third (day) …”

According to these data, we see two options for translation: 1) do something thrice, and 2) do something the day after tomorrow. However, none of these relieves the exegetical issue of MT: do what? Going deeper, we find two further readings coming from the recentiores:

Aquila: εις το και, τρισσευσεις, αντι του, τρεις ημερας αναμενεις "instead of [LXX's] 'you shall do thrice', Aquila reads 'wait three days'." This scholion, which occurs with attribution in ms 85,³⁰ is confirmed by Theodoret (d. ca. 460) and Procopius of Gaza (d. ca. 538), both citing Aquila’s reading with attribution in their commentaries.³¹

“the rest”: τη τριτη καταβηση “In the third (day) you shall go down …” This reading is found in ms 243 (= Br.-M. ‘j’), a known hexaplaric carrier. The same witness claims that Aquila reads τρισσευσας “after having done three times …”; however, this latter claim can be safely dismissed as the united witness of ms 85, Theodoret, Procopius clearly attest the correct reading.³²

It must be remembered that Aquila’s exegesis was considered very literal, or in modern translator’s parlance, isometric. He then evidently interpreted (the piel presumably) of שׁלשׁ as primarily related to timeframes, something also seen in the pual of the same verb (see lexica). Later, post-biblical Hebrew would evince continued usage of the senses “to do three times” or “divide in three parts.” As such, Aquila’s here seems to be unique. Note that “the rest” seem to interpret the phrasing as if it read שִׁלִּישִׁית perhaps presuming it was written defectively.

Interestingly, Rashi’s explanation looks fairly similar to Aquila: “For three days. You shall triple the days [by waiting?], and then you should go down very much, i.e., when the third day arrives, you should go down into a secret place, and hide very well, because they will seek you then.”³³ Other traditional Jewish interpreters differ: “stay hidden for three days” (Abarbanel), “divide the field in three parts” (Malbim; he cleverly explains that David was to hide in a different area of the field each day), “three days later” (Mezudath David), “hide three days just as I say and you shall be hidden in the field until the evening of the third day” (Kimchi), “they remained there until the evening of the third day” or “he stayed until the morning of the third day” (Ralbag, he seems to prefer the second).³⁴

Although Field recorded the hexaplaric data for this reading, Driver in his Notes did not consider Aquila’s reading, perhaps since there was more than one reading claimed under his attribution. Smith was unsure what the intended meaning was. McCarter opted for “On the third day …”, emending as the NET note explains; Klein follows. Exceptionally, Tsumura rendered:

“you shall wait three days …”, explaining: “For wait three days (w^ešillaštā; lit., “do for the third time”), … the New Moon festival seems to have lasted no longer than two nights. The translation “spend” or “stay” “three days” goes well with “hide myself in the field until the third evening” (v. 5).

In essence, Tsumura translates according to the context. One other interpreter rendered similarly, namely R. Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz (d. 2020) in his annotated Tanakh (2019 ET of the Hebrew original published in 2017), where he glossed MT:

וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ, המתן עד היום השלישי

[lemma] “Wait three days …”³⁵

Of commonly used Bibles I regularly check, this rendering of the verse is only found in the Koren³ (the “Magerman Edition”, 2020).³⁶ Much earlier the RV read "… thou hast stayed three days …” following the AV/KJV. However, I find this understanding less helpful as it seems to imply David remained in that same location for the duration of the three days, whereas Aquila’s is best understood as David needing simply to wait³⁷ for three days, after which he was to meet Jonathan at the agreed hiding location. Perhaps David went elsewhere in the meantime to make preparations.

Issue #2: What is הָאֶבֶן הָאָזֶל?

Our second issue relates to “the Azel Stone” as it is in MT. Scholars have no idea what the place was or even the precise derivation of the terminology: e.g., Driver: “Here האזל is a vox nihili.”³⁸ For this HALOT recommends following LXX; differently, DCH is open to either MT or LXX. When checking the ancient versions, an array of interesting data surface, as follows:

LXX: τὸ εργαβ ἐκεῖνο "that ergab" – a transliteration, probably for אַרְגָּב (see HALOT and commentaries).

Lucianic: τω λιθω εκεινω “that stone” – this is from Symmachus/Theodotion.

OL: iuxta lapidem Argabel – note the conflation of “stone” and a version of the LXX transliteration!

Peshitta: ܥܠ ܓܢܒ ܟܐܦܐ ܗܝ "beside this stone" – a simplification (or with Symmachus?).

Vulgate: iuxta lapidem cui est nomen Ezel "beside the stone, which is called Ezel." – clearly MT.

Targum: בִסטַר אַבַן אָתָא "near ‘Stone Coming’" – translated as if it were Aramaic.³⁹

Aquila and Symmachus were recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca 340) in his Onomasticon:

Εργαβ, ενθα Ιωναθαν ακοντιζει τας σχιζας́. Ακυλας τους λιθους. Συμμαχος τον λιθον. και εν ετερω σημαινει την περιμετρον

Ergab. There Jonathan threw javelins. Aquila: the stones; Symmachus: [the] stone. Elsewhere [at Deut 3.4] Symmachus translated: the perimeter.⁴⁰

Theodotion: λιθον “a stone” as recorded in ms 243.

What do these data tell us? Many commentators and ETs are quick to adopt LXX here and render something like “mound,” reflective of Hebrew אַרְגָּב (cp. רגב in both biblical and later Hebrew). This is a fair assessment; after all, a transliteration is certainly what the LXX translator produced. Thus, Driver renders "mound of earth" with LXX presuming the Hebrew Vorlage הָאַרְגָּב הַלָּז.⁴¹ This is followed by McCarter and Klein. Tsumura, as usual, supports MT.

Most remarkable of these data is the rendering by Aquila. Strictly speaking as a rule, Aquila should always support MT. However, assuming Eusebius’ testimony,⁴² Aquila instead supports LXX, albeit interpreting the “mound” not as one of earth (thus HALOT) but of “stones” plural, i.e., “a heap of stones.” Here Smith’s translating is best: “stone heap.”⁴³ I would argue that Aquila’s witness is most important here, not only as corroboration of LXX’s underlying Hebrew, but also for its interpretation, viz., that the “mound” was of stones (plural), not earth.

Surveying a sampling of modern ETs, we may outline them as follows:

"that stone there": NRSV = Peshitta/Symmachus/Theodotion/Lucianic LXX

"Ezel stone" (or similar): N/JPS, NET, NIV, NCV, Goldingay, Alter, Koren³ (w/ footnote: “traveler's") = MT/Vulgate

"stone heap": RSV, GNB, NLT = Aquila⁴⁴

"mound": NAB-RE, CEB, NEB/REB = LXX (assuming of dirt, not stone)

"Going Away Rock": CEV, Judaica ET (“traveler’s stone”) = Targum

Ultimately, translators should probably opt for footnoting this case whatever the decision made for the running text. As the Handbook observes, even for those who follow MT, two options remain: transliterating “Ezel,” or translating the name (but via Aramaic?) as in the case of the CEV.⁴⁵

Irrespective of which witnesses are followed for either issue, #1 or #2, this verse ably demonstrates how consultation of the ancient versions helps guide not only the determination of the Hebrew base, but how to exegete that base in translation.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In closing, I would reiterate my thesis: study of the ancient textual witnesses of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is fundamental for both establishing the base-text and exegeting that text, especially as it concerns translation. And while I only supplied a few examples of textual criticism’s utility for translation and exegesis, I would note that cases akin to the above could be multiplied exponentially. So having thus argued, I will make some suggestions which, if acted upon, would greatly aid those specifically concerned with and engaged in Bible translation.

First, textual criticism must be taught—from the outset—as an avenue of study that benefits the whole of the exegetical process. It is no longer legitimate to characterize textual criticism as an obnoxious, even if necessary, preliminary step. Doing so only impoverishes modern exegesis, for no good reason, against all recent text-critical theory.

Second, study of the textual witnesses is needful even for those who stick with MT as closely as possible. Here the hexaplaric witnesses are of particular importance. Their collective preservation (where extant) of ancient exegesis is of the utmost consequence for understanding MT in situ. Moreover, this does not negate the advancements of modern comparative Semitic philology; rather it should compliment them. The potential benefits of giving ear to hexaplaric witnesses far outweighs their neglect.

Third, while only having been a translation consultant professionally for nearly two years now, I have already experienced a strong desire from partners in the field for training in textual criticism and the ancient versions. While I can provide some of that training, practical considerations remain as concerns the wider field’s access to and interaction with these textual data. From my view, I see two major difficulties regarding the full integration of textual study into the wider field of Bible translation:⁴⁶

1) Even the most highly touted critical commentaries do not exhaustively cover the ancient versions, with perhaps the ICC volumes coming closest (though most of the volumes in the series are nearly a century old). Crucially, the UBS Handbook series, in my experience, is much less inclined to discuss textual variants; and when it does so, it tends to be overly dismissive, only really recommending those which ETs like the RSV adopted. This means that even if a consultant or translator wanted to check, say Symmachus or Aquila or the Peshitta, they would have to hunt down editions of these themselves—and translate them. Clearly this is not an ideal situation, especially for those working in under-resourced contexts. But even if the latter obstacle is overcome, we run into the second major problem.

2) Most translators or consultants only know (biblical) Greek and/or Hebrew. This means that without a modern translation, preferably annotated, most ancient witnesses are of little use. It is not practical to presume knowledge of Aramaic/Syriac, Latin, or even of Greek beyond that found in the New Testament. It is even less practical to learn or teach each of these languages.

Short of a full-scale overhaul of consultant or translator training, I see only one practical solution: these data must be translated, annotated, and then made more widely available, gratis if possible. Scholarly English translations already exist for the LXX, some of the Peshitta, and the Targums. However, these are still of limited use as they: a) translate only the main text of a given critical edition (e.g., LXX/NETS), b) are incomplete (Peshitta⁴⁷), or c) are very difficult/expensive to get ahold of (Targums). An English translation of the Vulgate has existed for some time, i.e., the Douay-Rheims (1610; rev. 1790 by Richard Challoner), however its textual base was not critically constructed,⁴⁸ and those who speak English as a second language may find its antiquated phrasing difficult.

Those seeking the hexaplaric data are in even worse circumstances. To truly appreciate these fragments, one must have some experience with Greek, Syriac, and Latin (for Jerome’s witness), as well as be able to decipher manuscript data when witnesses disagree or are ambiguous. (Compare the variants for Aquila from Example #3 above.) Further, the old edition by Frederick Field is obviously in need of, not only revision and expansion, but more modern analyses for the sake of properly interpreting the data.

These are all areas where scholars can greatly aid the entire field of Bible translation, having a practical effect far beyond academia (and for far more readers!). But I am hopeful for the future in this regard. Examples of academic endeavors which would help this situation include, e.g., the Bible of Edessa project, for which the Peshitta will be translated into English—variants from the critical apparatuses included—with annotations. Another project with great potential includes the forthcoming editions of the Hexapla Institute. For this, editors are to present a more complete record of the hexaplaric revisors with commentary. Yet even for those editions, translations will be necessary, as facility with (“non-biblical”) Greek, Syriac, or even Armenian should not be assumed of most working in the field of Bible translation, even those with doctoral-level training.

Clearly, there remains much work to be done in the field of biblical textual criticism, but the potential benefit of this work for Bible translation is very great. Students and scholars of textual criticism should then be encouraged. They are not “mechanics,” nor is their work “mechanical”—their work is imperative for exegesis, and especially so, I argue, for Bible translation.

Bibliography

Abbreviations of primary sources

MT: Masoretic Text as found in Elliger, K., W. Rudolph, and Gèrard E. Weil. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003.

LXX: Septuagint as found in Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: SESB Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

BA: M. Lestienne and B. Grillet (transls.). 1997. La Bible d’Alexandrie. Premier Livre des Règnes. Vol. 9.1. Les éditions du Cerf: Paris.

NETS: Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts). New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 1 Samuel was translated by Bernard Taylor.

Brenton: Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee (trans.). The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870.

LES: Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Michael Aubrey, Israel Loken, and Isaiah Hoogendyk (transls.). The Lexham English Septuagint. Second Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.

Hexaplaric fragments: Field, Frederick (ed.). Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt… . 2 Vols. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875.

P(eshitta): The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version. Part II Fasc. 2. Judges; Samuel. Edited by P.A.H. de Boer. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

V(ulgate): Weber, Robertus, and R. Gryson (eds.). Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969.

DRC: The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009. This edition was that revised by Richard Challoner in 1750.

Targum: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Hebrew Union College, 2005.

Targum ET: Cathcart, Kevin, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara (eds.) The Aramaic Bible: Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Translated by Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini. Vol. 10. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Lexica

BDB: Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. in Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

DCH: Clines, David J. A., ed. in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011.

HALOT: Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. in The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000.

LEH²: Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. in A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003.

Bible Translations

Alter: Robert Alter’s The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (2018)

CEB: Common English Bible (2011)

CEV: Contemporary English Version (1995)

ERV-04: Easy-to-Read Version (Bible League International; 2004)

Geneva: Geneva Bible (1560)

Goldingay: John Goldingay’s OT translation (2018) The Bible for Everyone: A New Translation. London: SPCK.

GNB: Good News Bible (1992)

Judaica Press ET: Samuel I. A New English Translation. Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg. The Judaica Press, New York: 1993 (orig. 1976).

KJV/AV: King James Version / Authorized Version (1611)

Koren³: The Koren Tanakh Maalot, Magerman Edition. Translated by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks , Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb et al. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2021. For a complete list of all the translators and consulting scholars, see pp. xxii—xxiv.

NAB-RE: New American Bible: Revised Edition (2011)

NASB: New American Standard Bible (1986)

NEB/REB: New English Bible (1970) / Revised English Bible (1989)

NET: New English Translation (2005)

NIV: New International Version (2011)

NJPS: New Jewish Publication Society (1985)

NLT: New Living Translation (2015)

N/RSV: New/Revised Standard Version (1989/1971 rev.)

RV: Revised Version (1895)

Works Cited

Chapman III, Rupert L. with Eusebius of Caesarea. 2003. The Onomasticon: Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Edited by Joan E. Taylor. Translated by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville. First English-Language edition. Jerusalem: Carta.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Klein, Ralph W. 1983. 1 Samuel Word Biblical Commentary 10. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

McCarter, P. Kyle. 1984. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes & Commentary. Anchor Bible 8. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.

Omanson, Roger L. and John Ellington. 2001. A Handbook on the First Book of Samuel. UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies.

Smith, Henry P. 1899. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. International Critical Commentary; New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.

Steinsaltz, R. Adin Even-Israel. 2019. The Steinsaltz Neviim: Neviim Translation and Commentary. Steinzaltz Center. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers. (The Hebrew was originally published in 2017.)

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2012. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Tsumura, David. 2007. The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.