1 Samuel 1:5-- contradictory translations!

[John_Calvin]

Please clarify: This is the name for Anna, and you are saying it IS a transliteration from the hebrew, or not?

Yes, it is a transliteration from Hebrew.

Sο, you are saying that in Hebrew there is a “masculine” verb?
(That’s new to me! Do you have a link you could point everyone to, to show this – I’m probably not the only one interested in learning Hebrew).
And this is 3rd person (he - only) masculine?

Yes, it is a 3rd m s verb. The transliteration of the Hebrew is 'aHaB (The capitals are the consonants). If it had been 3rd f s, it would have been תאהב Te’əhab.

We’ve already had this conversation. I see no reason to grant authority to any present day text exclusively. The Hebrew is useful, but not to be trusted exclusively. I like to verify everything by looking at multiple translations.

If it is a simple interpretation – show another example as I have asked in Greek. You are a Greek Major, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to find a “clear” example of where πλην does not reverse the sense of a noun list, but brings in a totally unrelated concept?

Why jump to the Hebrew to interpret the Greek? – I am simply trying to interpret the Greek to see what the translators THOUGHT. I would like to fully master Greek, and then Hebrew and Latin. I do appreciate your adding these tidbits, for I don’t know Hebrew (and after our conversation, I trust your comments a bit less than I otherwise might. The reverse is true for you? )

Well, if you’re really interested in the text, you should go with the original which is the Hebrew. The Greek is a translation. The Latin is a translation. The English is a translation. The Hebrew is NOT a translation. I don’t know why you are interested in the usage of the Greek word πλὴν since it is not the original. Furthermore, I don’t care whether you trust what I say or not. If you wish to be ignorant, that is your problem.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, if you’re really interested in the text, you should go with the original which is the Hebrew. The Greek is a translation. The Latin is a translation. The English is a translation. The Hebrew is NOT a translation. I don’t know why you are interested in the usage of the Greek word πλὴν since it is not the original. Furthermore, I don’t care whether you trust what I say or not. If you wish to be ignorant, that is your problem.

John, where do you get the “original” scriptures from? You yourself were quipping earlier in this thread that Deuteronomy was a later addition – a notion from historical critical analysis. By the time the final “version” took form by a large number of “redactors” there is no such thing as an original – the scriptures were continuously edited in the very theory you espoused earlier in this very thread – and now you have the GALL to claim the “Hebrew” is original? IN WHAT SENSE? How do “original” human words record the thoughts of God perfectly if there is “editing” going on… and YAHWIST and ELOHIST sources, etc.

I hardly think anyone reading this thread could say that I “wish” to be ignorant – but that I will put what anyone says to the test, is quite clear. Should you be correct, vindicate yourself, I will listen to a sound argument – but not contradictory dribble.

I respect that you have much to offer, John, but your approach seems quite counterproductive unless you have a master argument which you have been hiding from us all this time…

 

[John_Calvin]

John, where do you get the “original” scriptures from? You yourself were quipping earlier in this thread that Deuteronomy was a later addition – a notion from historical critical analysis. By the time the final “version” took form by a large number of “redactors” there is no such thing as an original – the scriptures were continuously edited in the very theory you espoused earlier in this very thread – and now you have the GALL to claim the “Hebrew” is original? IN WHAT SENSE? How do “original” human words record the thoughts of God perfectly if there is “editing” going on… and YAHWIST and ELOHIST sources, etc.

I hardly think anyone reading this thread could say that I “wish” to be ignorant – but that I will put what anyone says to the test, is quite clear. Should you be correct, vindicate yourself, I will listen to a sound argument – but not contradictory dribble.

I respect that you have much to offer, John, but your approach seems quite counterproductive unless you have a master argument which you have been hiding from us all this time…

Don’t be dense. The original is the canonical text, not some text that was in the process of formation prior to being adopted in its final form.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Don’t be dense. The original is the canonical text, not some text that was in the process of formation prior to being adopted in its final form.

Are you going to try and claim the Qumran community, the dead sea scrolls is the “canonical” text? Anything not in those scrolls is not “canonical”?

As far as I know, and have ever seen, the official canon was never decided until after the death of Jesus. So, based on the “final” canonical text – the Septuagint which was “translated” before christ ~40 to ~300 years BCe could also be part of that formation.

What exactly is your point?

 

[John_Calvin]

Are you going to try and claim the Qumran community, the dead sea scrolls is the “canonical” text? Anything not in those scrolls is not “canonical”?

As far as I know, and have ever seen, the official canon was never decided until after the death of Jesus. So, based on the “final” canonical text – the Septuagint which was “translated” before christ ~40 to ~300 years BCe could also be part of that formation.

What exactly is your point?

That is incorrect. The canon was decided by the time of the Maccabees. The DSS are an indication of the state of the text at that time, but simply because something was found at Qumran does not make it canonical (e.g. the Manual of Discipline or Rule of the Community).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

What exactly is your point?

1&2 Samuel

For the past two centuries textual critics have recognized that the Masoretic Text (MT) of 1&2 Samuel has much textual corruption. The Samuel MT is shorter than the LXX and 4QSama. The Samuel MT has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems. Certain phrases and clauses go against the Hebrew grammar rules. Parallel passages vary from each other (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.227-8).

bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

You still haven’t answered why the MT is the original, or how we know it isn’t corrupt here in 1Sam1:5, or why the Greek is wrong in preference to it or the Dead sea scrolls.

Where does the idea that the canon was decided by the time of the maccabees come from? (It’s a point out of thin air).
Macabees itself is not considered part of the MT.

Besides, even granting your point – the septuagint is as old AND older than Maccabees. 1Sam being older…

Again, what EXACTLY is your point?

 

[John_Calvin]

What exactly is your point?

bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

You still haven’t answered why the MT is the original, or how we know it isn’t corrupt here in 1Sam1:5, or why the Greek is wrong in preference to it or the Dead sea scrolls.

Where does the idea that the canon was decided by the time of the maccabees come from? (It’s a point out of thin air).
Macabees itself is not considered part of the MT.

Besides, even granting your point – the septuagint is as old AND older than Maccabees. 1Sam being older…

Again, what EXACTLY is your point?

Would you not agree that the language in which something is first written is the original and that any translation of it is thereby derivative and only as good as the translation? Even a good translation is not the authority. The authority is the writing as it came from the pen of the author. That the LXX was not a single translation executed at one time. The Pentateuch seems to have first been translated then other books. The text of the LXX was not stabilized until the 1st or 2nd cent AD. As for the canon of the OT having been established, I suggest that you read The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church by Roger Beckwith. He goes through the evidence and makes a convincing case. The point is that the Greek word πλὴν is totally irrelevant to the discussion since it was not written in Greek. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Would you not agree that the language in which something is first written is the original and that any translation of it is thereby derivative and only as good as the translation?

We already discussed that.

Yes, but then one could argue that what God said in his own internal language never made the translation into Hebrew perfectly either.
…
My problem is – who is the author of the translation – are all translations, then purely translating – or is it not possible for God to author his scriptures (inspire them) during translation too?
Or else, we have no truly inspired scripture…
…
…
I like the Dead Sea scrolls, although their biases are somewhat of a mystery, … This leads me to my favorite question, what is the “original” scripture, since God inspires the writer and preserves it somehow through the ages of ever changing slang…

The answer to your qeustion is “No” now even as it was NO in my earlier post.

It isn’t the “first” appearance of a letter or word which is NECESSARILY the inspired intention of God – and I have never seen scripture which says that only the writing as FIRST WRITTEN letters are authoritative…

Even a good translation is not the authority. The authority is the writing as it came from the pen of the author.

You appear to have this “theory” that the first thing written is the “original” – and yet then rationalize that “redacting” prior to writing doesn’t affect it – and then don’t even notice that the Septuagint could have affected the final writing of the Hebrew scriptures – and that the MT is ERRANT according to historical critical scholarship!

That the LXX was not a single translation executed at one time. The Pentateuch seems to have first been translated then other books. The text of the LXX was not stabilized until the 1st or 2nd cent AD.

So What?! – I am not arguing a hypocritical first penning.
I am saying all translations are valuable. This is only a magical argument for people like yourself.

As for the canon of the OT having been established, I suggest that you read The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church by Roger Beckwith. He goes through the evidence and makes a convincing case. The point is that the Greek word πλὴν is totally irrelevant to the discussion since it was not written in Greek. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, obviously it is. For I don’t have any proof of when the inspiration of God ended – and you obviously don’t either.
Beckwith’s case, as represented by your logic, is hypocritical.

If translation from one form of thought to another is the impassible barrier for inspiration – then nothing God ever thought in his own mind could make it into Hebrew language the first time written. If you argue the opposite (that God’s thoughts DO translate into Hebrew) what basis do you have for saying NO OTHER language can support these ideas – eg: why is the New Testament ONLY in Greek today, and no original Hebrew is authoritative???

(And you accused me of squirming!)

 

[adriancombe]

and with a good bishop to allow it to be published…?

But this brings one reason I did not translate LORD as Yahweh or Adonai – since there are pagan lords too, and we had not yet determined what is what in that passage, a lord without a definite article could refer to any lord. I would agree, that it is very likely that LORD in 1Sam 1:5 would read YAHWEH, but is there a way to be more certain?

.

Yes. The Hebrew reads Yahweh.

Also note in the revelation to Moses, although three revelations of the “name” of god happen, only one reference is made to LORD – not two. As a guess, would the personal name YAHWEH have been the likely candidate (I haven’t checked) – I just understand Adonai as a less personal name, and am surmising from the context that it should be “lord” without the personal article…

Excellent point.

You lost me here. I assume you are referencing Exodus 3 but all the uses of kyrios in the LXX for this chapter (and maybe even the whole book) are translating YHWH.

 

[John_Calvin]

We already discussed that.

The answer is “No” now even as it was NO then.

It isn’t the “first” appearance of a letter or word which is the original, but that which God intended for us to read which is the original inspiration – and I have never seen scripture which says that only the writing as FIRST WRITTEN is authoritative…

You appear to have this “theory” that the first thing written is the “original” – and yet then rationalize that even though it was edited – somehow the later version is the original … and you accused me of squirming!

So What?! – I am not arguing a hypocritical first penning.
I am saying all translations are valuable. This is only a magical argument for people like yourself.

Yes, obviously it is. For I don’t have any proof of when the inspiration of God ended – and you obviously don’t either.
Beckwith’s case, as represented by your logic, is hypocritical.

If translation from one form of thought to another is the impassible barrier for inspiration – then nothing God ever thought in his own mind could make it into Hebrew language the first time written. If you argue the opposite (that God’s thoughts DO translate into Hebrew) what basis do you have for saying NO OTHER language can support these ideas – eg: why is the New Testament ONLY in Greek today, and no original Hebrew is authoritative???

Obviously a conversation with you is impossible since you are irrational. I should have followed my first inclination to no longer discuss this with you. Our discussion is finished.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yes. The Hebrew reads Yahweh.

So here the Hebrew is in agreement with the general translation principle. Great that is supporting evidence that the translation is correct.

You lost me here. I assume you are referencing Exodus 3 but all the uses of kyrios in the LXX for this chapter (and maybe even the whole book) are translating YHWH.

Yes, that is right. So, even more than I was thinking – there is very strong evidence that this chapter uses the Hebrew word which can be translated, I AM, I AM who Am, or I AM He Who is… etc.
(Because of the missing vowels in the word YHWH) is the idea of YHWH in Exodus 3. That’s perfect – it makes wonderful sense.

Do you have other information/thoughts from the earlier posts concerning πλην `οτι, et. all. I have to do some work now, so it will be a while before I can spend some serious time comparing the information I have learned so far…

 

[adriancombe]

Well, if you’re really interested in the text, you should go with the original which is the Hebrew. The Greek is a translation. The Latin is a translation. The English is a translation. The Hebrew is NOT a translation. I don’t know why you are interested in the usage of the Greek word πλὴν since it is not the original. Furthermore, I don’t care whether you trust what I say or not. If you wish to be ignorant, that is your problem.

John,
This is really a terrible oversimplication. While it is true that the Hebrew is the original, there is no guarantee that the extant Hebrews manuscripts are faithful to the original Hebrew manuscripts. The oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts are younger than the oldest available LXX MSS, and the Dead Sea Scrolls have sided with the LXX on several points of discordance with the available Hebrew. At the same time, there are proven (or thought to be proven so far…) instances where the Hebrew MSS correct the LXX…So it is indeed better to compare both and try to make the best objective decision possible, realizing that it may not be possible, using merely human means, to arrive at an absolute certainty on LXX vs. Hebrew.
For the record, I agree with what you are saying about the waw and the gender driven conjugation of Hebrew verbs. I did not notice if you responded to Huiou Theou’s request for documentation, if not, somebody let me know, I can probably dig something up. These are simple issues and no ‘court of appeals’ with the LXX is necessary.

 I also observe that the NT writers rely much more on the LXX than the Hebrew...but not exclusively.  Finally, I note one very interesting instance of Jesus using the LXX over the Hebrew:
 
 In Mark 7:7 (same as Matthew 15:9), Jesus, criticizing the scribes and Pharisees, says "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."  This is practically verbatim from the LXX (Isaiah 29:13), only the word order is changed, and the word "and" is dropped.  The Hebrew for this part of the verse is quite different: "Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."  
 This is noteworthy because many protestant apologists, criticizing the Catholic Church for its inclusion of deuterocanonicals as inspired books, insist (following Jewish teaching developed after the time of Christ) that only books originally written in Hebrew can be inspired.  It is thus with some irony that Catholics can retort, with Mark 7:7, that in this respect the protestant apologist in question is 'teaching as doctrine the precept of men.'

Adrian

 

[adriancombe]

Do you have other information/thoughts from the earlier posts concerning πλην `οτι, et. all. I have to do some work now, so it will be a while before I can spend some serious time comparing the information I have learned so far…

Only to reaffirm that JC got it right with the Hebrew on waw and gender based conjugation.

I recommend you download the Interlinear Hebrew as pdf files here: %between%.

There is also some software from the same source here: scripture4all.org/download/download_ISA20.php. I have not tried it yet but judging from my luck with their pdf files I am guessing it is pretty good.

Adrian

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Adrian,
Thanks – the windows version.
I trust you, but it will be next saturday before I can install this – sigh.

But also, with respect to the MT not necessarily being faithful to the original Hebrew – do you have evidence this is the correct gendered verb reading (Eg: Does the DSS corroborate it, since they are in Hebrew – and I don’t have access to it?)

I ask especially because the Latin appears to go the other way, and I would like to understand that too eventually.

And also, in Greek – do you have you any counter examples to “except that” in Greek, or a way to pin down what “beyond this” means in Greek?

So I can eliminate the “girl child” theory if possible?

–Thanks, I’ve really enjoyed your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[John_Calvin]

John,
This is really a terrible oversimplication. While it is true that the Hebrew is the original, there is no guarantee that the extant Hebrews manuscripts are faithful to the original Hebrew manuscripts. The oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts are younger than the oldest available LXX MSS, and the Dead Sea Scrolls have sided with the LXX on several points of discordance with the available Hebrew. At the same time, there are proven (or thought to be proven so far…) instances where the Hebrew MSS correct the LXX…So it is indeed better to compare both and try to make the best objective decision possible, realizing that it may not be possible, using merely human means, to arrive at an absolute certainty on LXX vs. Hebrew.

The DSS are for the most part in agreement with the MT text. While there are some places where they seem to support the reading of the LXX, this is not very frequent. On the contrary, the DSS support the position that the text has been very stable from prior to the Christian era. The oldest extant biblical MSS are the DSS and they antedate the LXX.

 For the record, I agree with what you are saying about the waw and the gender driven conjugation of Hebrew verbs.  I did not notice if you responded to Huiou Theou's request for documentation, if not, somebody let me know, I can probably dig something up.  These are simple issues and no 'court of appeals' with the LXX is necessary.

I am no longer going to respond to him. He exhibits an irrational tendency so there is no point in attempting to reason with him.

 I also observe that the NT writers rely much more on the LXX than the Hebrew...but not exclusively.  Finally, I note one very interesting instance of Jesus using the LXX over the Hebrew:

 In Mark 7:7 (same as Matthew 15:9), Jesus, criticizing the scribes and Pharisees, says "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."  This is practically verbatim from the LXX (Isaiah 29:13), only the word order is changed, and the word "and" is dropped.  The Hebrew for this part of the verse is quite different: "Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."

Yes, the bible of the early church tended to be the LXX since that was the lingua franca of the day. It is as though we were talking about using the Authorized Version [AKA: King James] in any English-speaking country a century ago. The people in English-speaking countries quite naturally used an English bible [Of course, today there a multitude of different translations so we cannot speak of **one nearly universally accepted translation]. That does not mean, however, that we are justified in using the LXX to determine any matter which depends upon the exact presentation originally used. Paul may have frequently used the LXX, but he also understood Hebrew.

 This is noteworthy because many protestant apologists, criticizing the Catholic Church for its inclusion of deuterocanonicals as inspired books, insist (following Jewish teaching developed after the time of Christ) that only books originally written in Hebrew can be inspired.  It is thus with some irony that Catholics can retort, with Mark 7:7, that in this respect the protestant apologist in question is 'teaching as doctrine the precept of men.'

Adrian

It is not the language in which they are written which disqualifies the apocryphal works as inspired works to be used by the church. It is that

(1) They were never a part of the canon of the Jews prior to the beginning of the church.
(2) When Jesus himself referenced the canon of scripture he stated

49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ 50 so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Lk 11:49-51). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Now, what is the significance of this? It is in the fact that the Hebrew order of the scriptures is not the same as the LXX. In the Hebrew order you first get the Torah or Pentateuch, then the Prophets and finally the Writings. The blood of Able appears in the first book of the Torah (Genesis). Zechariah is mentioned in Chronicles which is the last book of the Writings. Thus he was referring to the scripture in its entirety. The apocryphal works do not fit into this.

(3) You will not find any of the early fathers who refer to the apocryphal books as canonical. Jerome himself stated that they were not to be accorded the authority of scripture.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

He isn’t going to respond, so I will just critique.
Like Pythagoras, sometimes the “irrational” is right.
And, I can’t allow my method to be smeared to the rest of the world. What of my humility?

That does not mean, however, that we are justified in using the LXX to determine any matter which depends upon the exact presentation originally used. Paul may have frequently used the LXX, but he also understood Hebrew.

And since this is not to be off topic, right? that means that 1Samuel1:5 depends somehow on the “original” presentation…
Nor does Paul have much to do with this particular passage…
AFAIK…

But since we don’t KNOW the original presentation, even though it isn’t justifed to use the LXX to DETERMINE the matter – neither is it justified to use the MT to DETERMINE the matter!
Either one could be more faithful, or more wrong, in any given passage. Even Jerome’s copy might be more faithful depending on what Hebrew manuscripts He translated from…

Generalization is a random shot here; He’s guessing at things…
The more complicated an argument, and the more scholars it relies on, the higher the odds that one of them has made a mistake. (I stick with the authority of the Church.)

Now, what is the significance of this? It is in the fact that the Hebrew order of the scriptures is not the same as the LXX. In the Hebrew order you first get the Torah or Pentateuch, then the Prophets and finally the Writings. The blood of Able appears in the first book of the Torah (Genesis). Zechariah is mentioned in Chronicles which is the last book of the Writings. Thus he was referring to the scripture in its entirety. The apocryphal works do not fit into this.

How interesting that the particular Zechariah being mentioned could also be Zechariah the last high priest whose blood was shed according to tradition on account of Herod’s attempt to murder Jesus. After all, everyone thought John the baptist was the messiah – and therefore the father of John was a prime target for Herod – and when was this statement of Jesus made, before or after John was executed? Or perhaps there is another son of Barchiah named Zechariah? Why is this definitely a reference to the order of Books?

Untangling that rabbit hole is a bunch of scholarly arguments too.

members.aol.com/insight944/APOL/Proto.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

(3) You will not find any of the early fathers who refer to the apocryphal books as canonical. Jerome himself stated that they were not to be accorded the authority of scripture.

I just love hypocritical arguments. So, the cannon was determined before Jesus ever walked the earth, and now JC wishes to cite Jerome who lived AFTER the death of Jesus as a witness – even though Jerome’s inability to find the 2nd cannon works in Hebrew, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist at one time. Besides what Makes Jerome the last word on this??? He wasn’t pope.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Transmission error. added 6/29/06 – This may have happened, inasmuch as Jerome noted that a Hebrew version of Matthew in his day read differently: “In the Gospel the Nazareans use, we find ‘son of Johoiada’ instead of ‘son of Barachia.’” It could have been an error created by the transition from Matthew’s Hebrew/Aramaic original to Greek.

tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.html

if you like Jerome as an authority…

Nor, is it impossible, that Zacharias in the time of Jesus (This Generation of whom is guilty of his blood, too) might not ALSO be in the line of the more ancient Zacharias – there is a commonality of naming sons. ( There is no one in your family named “John” )
Zacharias comes with a partial geneology…

His course is that of “Abia” αβια Luke 1:7, which is also is a name in the Geneology of Jesus: Matth 1:7, and historically comes up 1Samu 8:2, 2Kings12:2, etc.

Geneologies are, after all, both blood and covenental.

 

[adriancombe]

tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.html

if you like Jerome as an authority…

Nor, is it impossible, that Zacharias in the time of Jesus (This Generation of whom is guilty of his blood, too) might not ALSO be in the line of the more ancient Zacharias – there is a commonality of naming sons. ( There is no one in your family named “John” )
Zacharias comes with a partial geneology…

Huiou Theou

Good work, I totally missed that one!

Adrian

 

[jcrichton]

I am not certain Haydock’s speculation concerning the geography is exactly right (thanks Manford)
haydock1859.tripod.com/id611.html, but the author of 1Sam bothers to indicate the “Ephramite” origin with no clarification – which would lead me to believe the author did not think it important that Elkanah was a Levite – and for some reason wished to bring the Ephramite lineage up (not as an irrelevant fact).
No later editor ever deletes this reference in preference of a Levite reading…
In contrast: note Jesus being from “Nazareth” is brought up in the Gospel to explain why no one knew where he came from, but the Gospel does take care to emphasize “Bethlehem” as the truth.

As Haydock notes
1Chron 6:16 is a geneology of the sons of Levi; and Elkanah with his son is included in that geneology. However, Haydock does not seem to notice that geneology can trace according to biology (literal father & mother) or covenant – so there is probably more than one reason to call him an Ephramite or a Levite (he could be both), The child, “Samuel”, would have been a Levite by covenental offering. And his geneology would reflect the covenant if politically expedient.

Although some of the scholarship is dubious, the traditions associated with Ephraimite give another reason a vague reference to “double portion” might have been desired by the author of 1Sam. ( A pun ).
Eg: The author of 1Sam may have been PURPOSELY calling him an Ephramite to recall how fertile Joseph (the tribe of Egypt) who had both Hebrew and Egyptian wives was doubly fertile. (Although the “Half-tribe” Manassah was ostracized for not being a “pureblood”)

The second thing I would like to point out is that in the naming of the wives (1Sam 1:2) they are not just called Annah “and” Penniah, but the “deutero” or second wife was “Penniah”. Like Abraham and Sarah, then, I would expect Elkanah to have married one woman first – and the second in desperation.
Is it not also possible that the second wife was a slave of Hannah? (and therefore not a true wife, since Hannah had rights over her and the child?)

The order is in 1Sam 1:2

Yet Hannah is the one he married first is suggested quite strongly in the second verse, because she is his “woman” first. If she was not a whore, then even if sterile – she was his wife. And since bidirectional love is required for marriage – that is more important to me than the grammatical constructions, and is in part why I am determined to find out as close as possible the amount of freedom allowed in the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

I am glad you and others are able to study the text with such in-depth… it makes my job easier (finding things out) and can support my personal understanding of the various passages…

…the possibility of Penniah being Hanna’s servants clarifies the status of Samuel’s Blessings and sheds some light on why she would use Hanna’s infertility as a means to torture her.

“Samuel”, would have been a Levite by covenental offering. And his geneology would reflect the covenant if politically expedient.

---

…couldn’t this type not also be applicable to Jesus since Mary was of the same tribe as Joseph? (Jesus being a descendant of David through both parents…)

Maran atha!

Angel