“When the young men came they spoke all these words to Nabal in the name of David, but he reacted arrogantly,”

Another textual tid-bit I found in the Word Biblical Commentary is regarding 1 Sam 25:9 in the confrontation of Nabal and David. Apparently, Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts suggest a translation that says that Nabal responded arrogantly to David (instead of the word “ceased” in the KJV). I think this is significant b/c David’s response to Nabal seems rather harsh and this “arrogant” editorial note would help justify David’s actions in this story.

I didn’t find this “arrogant” translation in any standard translation: ESV, NASB, NRSV, NET and NAB all seem to follow the KJV (although they generally say “rested” instead of “ceased”). I can’t remember for sure, but I think at least a few of these translations use Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, so I was surprised not to find the WBC view elsewhere….

A minor footnote: Some may not understand what you are saying when you speak of “translations based on Septuagint manuscripts.” I assume that Robert C means “Septuagint manuscripts for verse 24″ rather than “Septuagint manuscripts for the Old Testament.”

I am not an expert on Bible translations, but I believe that all Old Testament translations are based on the Masoretic text (a 7th-10th AD Hebrew edition of the Old Testament). Nevertheless, they take into account other texts, such as the Septuagint (a 3rd-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament) or texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, to clarify their translation of the Hebrew and to see where the Masoretic text may be mistaken.

However, translations based on Septuagint manuscripts (viz. NRSV, NAB as well as the Word Biblical Commentary and Anchor Bible) have a very different rendering: “Now Saul committed a very rash act on that day” (NRSV”).

If we accept the Septuagint version, this suggests (at least to me) that Jonathan’s “complaint” in 1 Sam 14:29-30 should be taken as a fair indictment of Saul’s poor judgment in calling for a fast at this time. This of course has implications for how we understand Jonathan in later passages. For example, I take Jonathan’s declaration in 1 Sam 14:43 (“I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die”) as a humble confession showing his willingness to own up to his actions (in contrast to Saul’s efforts to evade his culpability before Samuel in chapters 13 and 15). Furthermore, I think this significantly sets up the loyalty that Jonathan shows David (starting in ch. 18) which comes at the expense of loyalty to his father Saul. (Which raises questions of the type: “Is it possible to disobey our parents and honor them at the same time?”)

Our goal is to become like God. To progress to perfection to receive \”all that the Father hath.\” D&C 84. In the \”all that the Father hath\” will a fair degree of authority and power. How will we use that power? How do we use it in our families with our wives, husbands and children?

In other words how often do we experience in our personal and familial lives the corruption of power. \”We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men that when they get a little authority as they suppose . . . .\” D&C 121:39

I think we can find some pretty poignant warnings in the danger of power from the lives of Saul and David who at the commencement of their journey to power were stalwart, dedicated humble persons.

Do you think this fits in with the lesson?

Dennis

Something interesting about 20:30 — the KJV literally translates Saul’s epithet “thou son of the perverse rebellious woman.” This was a hideous phrase in Hebrew, but the shock and force of his statement is lost on the modern reader. A modern rendering that better captures Saul’s meaning is “you son of a b*tch!”

As John C also point outs, the phrase translated (in the KJV) “in the one of the twain” (1 Samuel 18:21b) is found only in the Masoretic text. That means that it is a late addition to the text, after the time of Christ. Word Biblical Commentary and the Anchor Bible volume on 1 Samuel both take the phrase to mean that Saul repeated his promise to David: he made the promise to David a second time rather than he said that David would be a son-in-law twice.

John C.: Your two cents are more than welcome. This isn’t my lesson. Indeed, it isn’t even a lesson. I just try to provide study questions to help people prepare for Sunday School, teachers or not. And anyone who can add something to the material is welcome to do so.