1 Samuel 1:5-- contradictory translations!

  • Thread starter Thread starter fmagill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fmagill

Guest
This past Monday evening, I wanted to study and reflect further on the readings from that day’s Mass. The first reading was 1 Samuel 1: 1-8. However, I was surprised to find a contradiction between the NAB lectionary translation we heard at Mass and that of my favorite personal Bible, the Ignatius RSV-CE. Here are the quotations with the contrasting phrases in bold:

(RSV-CE)

"[4} On the day when Elka’nah sacrificed, he would give portions to Penin’nah his wife and to all her sons and daughters;
[**5] and, **although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion, because the LORD had closed her womb. **

(NAB)

" 4 When the day came for Elkanah to offer sacrifice, he used to give a portion each to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters, 5 but a double portion to Hannah because he loved her, though the LORD had made her barren. "

I don’t see that this has any great impact on the overall meaning of the story of Hannah, but I am curious whether anyone knows the reason for this difference in translations? I find it even more interesting because in the NAB, the cross reference to verse 5 is Deuteronomy 21:15ff. I quote the NAB here; there is no substantive difference from the RSV-CE (as one would normally expect!)

“15 If a man with two wives loves one and dislikes the other; and if both bear him sons, but the first-born is of her whom he dislikes:16 when he comes to bequeath his property to his sons he may not consider as his first-born the son of the wife he loves, in preference to his true first-born, the son of the wife whom he dislikes. 17 On the contrary, he shall recognize as his first-born the son of her whom he dislikes, giving him a double share of whatever he happens to own, since he is the first fruits of his manhood, and to him belong the rights of the first-born.”

The cross-referenced Deuteronomy passage, of course, does not concern what the husband shall give his wives, but rather what he is to bequeath to his sons. But it does suggest Elkanah was wrong to give Hannah a double portion at the sacrifice, as in the NAB translation of 1 Sam 1:5, whereas under the RSV-CE translation, there was no such error on his part. I’m not sure what that proves, but there it is.

So again, does anyone have further information on this difference in translations? Are there any other places where the NAB and RSV-CE seem contradictory? I have never encountered anything like this before.
 
The Hebrew reads “choice porton”. We do not know if that was an extra share or if it was one share of better quality.

Remember translation is interpretation. One translator took it to mean an extra share while the other likely had quality in mind.
 
Hi Daniel,
The LXX Samuel 1:5 greek reads “μεριδ-α μι-αν”
eg “portion, one/first”

The same word “one” is used of the rib of Adam, and of the first child in a sequence of two, and also to inquire whether or not Isaac had more than just “one” blessing (the first son’s blessing). So, “one” is the literal meaning of the Greek.

The first portion, or rib, would often be the choice portion – since people generally pick the best first…

I agree that the NAB is a bit confusing, the double portion – was the one meant for the firstborn child, and is the inheritance of the father’s special blessing – which ought to have been forbidden to Hannah.

The text in 1Samuel is readable in multiple ways from the Greek. It could be that Hanna deserved no portion at all for sacrifice because she had no children – so One or even a Choice portion would be a gift beyond what she deserved in the other women’s eyes – hence the combativeness.

Notice in 1Samuel 1:8, the question the husband asks her: “why do you not eat, am I not better to you than 10/divine sons?”

For she always has a portion.

The Vulgate, also, reads “partem unam” which although my Latin is not strong it sounds like ‘unitive’ and therefore ‘one’.
 
Howz this to add to the confusion…My Douay states it a little differently:
4 Now the day came, and Elcana offered sacrifice, and gave to Phenenna his wife, and to all her sons and daughters, portions:
5 But to Anna he gave one portion with sorrow, because he loved Anna. And the Lord had shut up her womb.

Don’t know how that affects anything, but it is a bit different from the other two.
 
There are many such disagreements between translations. Sometimes it is due to an error on the part of the translator or editor. Sometimes it is due to an abiguity in the text, and differing interpretation. When there is doubt, the Latin text should take precedence.
 
Ron_Conte said:
There are many such disagreements between translations. Sometimes it is due to an error on the part of the translator or editor. Sometimes it is due to an abiguity in the text, and differing interpretation. When there is doubt, the Latin text should take precedence.
Click to expand...
why Latin why not Greek and Hebrew text?
 
juliamajor said:
why Latin why not Greek and Hebrew text?
Click to expand...
Sometimes, especially in the OT, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek LXX is clear enough, and one has to resort to the “ancient versions”, of which perhaps the best preserved is St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
 
Ilroy said:
Howz this to add to the confusion…My Douay states it a little differently:
4 Now the day came, and Elcana offered sacrifice, and gave to Phenenna his wife, and to all her sons and daughters, portions:
5 But to Anna he gave one portion with sorrow, because he loved Anna. And the Lord had shut up her womb.

Don’t know how that affects anything, but it is a bit different from the other two.
Click to expand...
The full latin sentence is:
Annae autem dedit partem unam tristis quia Annam diligebat Dominus autem concluserat vulvam eius
Click to expand...
Again, my Latin is quite weak, but:
Sad or gloomily is “tristis”, “quia” is because – diligebat must be what the DR translated loved [her], but that probably is a loose translation. diligent is a close word, so I would wonder if it has a slightly different meaning than love (amore?).

There are Greek versions dating from the time of Jerome’s Latin edition too. For example, although not ALL the Septuagint is present – Tischendorf’s copy is from the 400’s. Really, I wouldn’t discount any version of the bible – by comparing them I have noticed many things which do not come out in English translations…
 
fmagill said:
This past Monday evening, I wanted to study and reflect further on the readings from that day’s Mass. The first reading was 1 Samuel 1: 1-8. However, I was surprised to find a contradiction between the NAB lectionary translation we heard at Mass and that of my favorite personal Bible, the Ignatius RSV-CE. Here are the quotations with the contrasting phrases in bold:

(RSV-CE)

"[4} On the day when Elka’nah sacrificed, he would give portions to Penin’nah his wife and to all her sons and daughters;
[**5
Click to expand...
] and, **although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion, because the LORD had closed her womb. **

(NAB)

" 4 When the day came for Elkanah to offer sacrifice, he used to give a portion each to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters, 5 but a double portion to Hannah because he loved her, though the LORD had made her barren. "

I don’t see that this has any great impact on the overall meaning of the story of Hannah, but I am curious whether anyone knows the reason for this difference in translations? I find it even more interesting because in the NAB, the cross reference to verse 5 is Deuteronomy 21:15ff. I quote the NAB here; there is no substantive difference from the RSV-CE (as one would normally expect!)

“15 If a man with two wives loves one and dislikes the other; and if both bear him sons, but the first-born is of her whom he dislikes:16 when he comes to bequeath his property to his sons he may not consider as his first-born the son of the wife he loves, in preference to his true first-born, the son of the wife whom he dislikes. 17 On the contrary, he shall recognize as his first-born the son of her whom he dislikes, giving him a double share of whatever he happens to own, since he is the first fruits of his manhood, and to him belong the rights of the first-born.”

The cross-referenced Deuteronomy passage, of course, does not concern what the husband shall give his wives, but rather what he is to bequeath to his sons. But it does suggest Elkanah was wrong to give Hannah a double portion at the sacrifice, as in the NAB translation of 1 Sam 1:5, whereas under the RSV-CE translation, there was no such error on his part. I’m not sure what that proves, but there it is.

So again, does anyone have further information on this difference in translations? Are there any other places where the NAB and RSV-CE seem contradictory? I have never encountered anything like this before.***Hi, fmagill!

Both my Jerusalem Bible and my New Jerusalem Bible have “one” portion… Ignatius also “one;” but the NAB agrees with the NIV (non-Catholic); still the Good News also uses “one.”🤷

It seems strange to me that there should be such discrepancy–I would love to hear from someone with the copies of the original text (Greek) and its corresponding English translation.

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
juliamajor said:
why Latin why not Greek and Hebrew text?
Click to expand...
The Latin Scriptural tradition is preeminent due to useage in the living Tradition.

Suppose that you find a manuscript, the oldest manuscript of the book of Genesis. You don’t know what the useage was of the manuscript. Was it used by only a few persons? Was it used only by a Jewish sect living in isolation in the desert, having developed their own version of Judaism, distinct from the practice of the religion by most other Jews? And if it has been buried in a cave for somewhat more or less than 2,000 years, it was not in useage for that time.

Whereas the Latin Scriptural tradition benefits from useage by the Living Tradition from the early Church to the present time. The text has been in use in worship and private study/devotion and scholarship for nearly 2,000 years (as opposed to being buried for that time). The useage of the text informs its editing, so that over time the text is freed from any errors that might be particular to one or another translator, copyist, or editor.
 
So far, the point about the firstborn getting a double portion makes the most sense to me.

remember translation is intepretation.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Latin Scriptural tradition is preeminent due to useage in the living Tradition.

Suppose that you find a manuscript, the oldest manuscript of the book of Genesis. You don’t know what the useage was of the manuscript. Was it used by only a few persons? Was it used only by a Jewish sect living in isolation in the desert, having developed their own version of Judaism, distinct from the practice of the religion by most other Jews? And if it has been buried in a cave for somewhat more or less than 2,000 years, it was not in useage for that time.

Whereas the Latin Scriptural tradition benefits from useage by the Living Tradition from the early Church to the present time. The text has been in use in worship and private study/devotion and scholarship for nearly 2,000 years (as opposed to being buried for that time). The useage of the text informs its editing, so that over time the text is freed from any errors that might be particular to one or another translator, copyist, or editor.
Click to expand...
Excellent points Ron. The Vulgate has pride of place because of it’s relationship to the teaching authority of the church – not because of it’s perfection (it is after all revised occasionally). The early church before 400 often used the Greek scriptures – which are the originals for the NT translations, and the eastern churches still use the Greek of the Septuagint which predate the Vulgate – but none the less, the usage of the Vulgate and the Greek LXX are associated with the church in both the eastern and western traditions. It is from a careful analysis of Tradition and a review of various early scriptures that the Vulgate is revised by competent priests.

On the other hand, TR Stephanus (Greek) is mostly revised by a holy priest in conformity with the Vulgate. This, I understand, is the Greek which was later used for the KJV … ohhh … trivia is so much fun.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
So far, the point about the firstborn getting a double portion makes the most sense to me.

remember translation is intepretation.
Click to expand...
And none of the other sons explicity received the massive blessing of God which Hanna’s son Samuel received – did they? So, even though neither the Latin nor the Greek support it very well – I can understand why the NAB authors might have wished to suggest that Hannah received the portion for the blessed son – however, in the END Samuel’s own son’s fared no better than Eli’s – sin took over, and the blessing was NOT passed down that way, but there was a cutting off.

How terribly interesting…
 
Huiou_Theou said:
And none of the other sons explicity received the massive blessing of God which Hanna’s son Samuel received – did they? So, even though neither the Latin nor the Greek support it very well – I can understand why the NAB authors might have wished to suggest that Hannah received the portion for the blessed son – however, in the END Samuel’s own son’s fared no better than Eli’s – sin took over, and the blessing was NOT passed down that way, but there was a cutting off.

How terribly interesting…
Click to expand...
***Hi, Huiou Theou!

…I must be thick… but aren’t you jumping ahead… the original question was in reference to verse 5; at this particular point Hanna/Anna was still baren and did not receive preferred treatment though she was the favored one. Only many years later did she make a special request from Yahweh, and in exchange for His Favor she offered to dedicate the child to Him.

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
Thanks to all for the replies and discussion, it is most enlightening. Which is, of course, why I posted the question here to begin with!! Please continue!
 
Jchrichton,

I must be thin – you see right through me.

Think of it this way, the NAB translators read ahead and wrote in anticipation of what was going to come – so they justified double portion on that basis – but perhaps I am just surmising. I haven’t found ANY original text which supports a “double portion” directly… so, yeah, you are right, I am jumping ahead.
 
Huiou_Theou said:
Jchrichton,

I must be thin – you see right through me.

Think of it this way, the NAB translators read ahead and wrote in anticipation of what was going to come – so they justified double portion on that basis – but perhaps I am just surmising. I haven’t found ANY original text which supports a “double portion” directly… so, yeah, you are right, I am jumping ahead.
Click to expand...
***Hi, Huiou Theou!

…I cuncur–I find that it easy to get into hindsight application because I suffer from it terribly (thinking that my thoughts are perceived as I formulate them)… the NAB translators and others may well have been thinking of the prophet and not the immediate time frame of the text.

That is why, when it comes to simple discrepancies, I think that having a copy of the original text, and the correct translation, can truly benefit the Bible-phile. 😛

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: …you did get me with the thin line! 👍 ***
 
I would love to be able to read the original text…unfortunately I can’t read either Greek or Hebrew, and it’s been a LONG time since Latin III in high school…37 years to be exact.

I am eagerly awaiting completion of the work-in-progress Ignatius Study Bible being produced by Scott Hahn and others at Franciscan U. It’s either that or try to re-learn Latin. Not exactly a fun prospect, at least not while I’m still employed full time. 😃
 
fmagill said:
I am eagerly awaiting completion of the work-in-progress Ignatius Study Bible being produced by Scott Hahn and others at Franciscan U. It’s either that or try to re-learn Latin. Not exactly a fun prospect, at least not while I’m still employed full time. 😃
Click to expand...
Re-learning Latin may not be fun, but it’ll give you a better sense of what the Greek and the Hebrew are saying than most English translations, including those made “from the original languages”.

If you’re hoping that either the Ignatius Study Bible or the Navarre Bible will give a careful analysis of any textual discrepancies, I think you are in for a disappointment, as these series don’t tend towards what I refer to as “the technical” side of bible study, viz, which rendering is preferred among the various ones available. The New Jerusalem Bible does do this in many places, but not all (I was disappointed there was no rationalization for their rendering of Isaiah 26:3.).

Ron Conte makes some excellent points; he makes full use of the Latin and and puts forth a decent case for so doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top