Qumran and 1 Samuel 10 NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronyodish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ronyodish

Guest
Hi everyone,

I’m taking a course on the Dead Sea Scrolls this semester, and I just learned this following interesting thing:

Check out the end of 1 Samuel 10 (New Revised Standard Version), and you will notice this paragraph:
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.*

*Q Ms Compare Josephus, Antiquities VI.v.1 (68-71): MT lacks Now Nahash . . . entered Jabesh-gilead.​

Now, I’m not a fan of the NRSV due to its inclusive language, but I find it interesting that this Bible version is, as far as I read, the only version, among the Bible versions, which has added this paragraph found at the collection of the Quman Scripture manuscripts. Notice that there is(are) no verse number(s) assigned to the paragraph.

Just thought I’d share.

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish said:
Hi everyone,

I’m taking a course on the Dead Sea Scrolls this semester, and I just learned this following interesting thing:

Check out the end of 1 Samuel 10 (New Revised Standard Version), and you will notice this paragraph:
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.*

*Q Ms Compare Josephus, Antiquities VI.v.1 (68-71): MT lacks Now Nahash . . . entered Jabesh-gilead.​

Now, I’m not a fan of the NRSV due to its inclusive language, but I find it interesting that this Bible version is, as far as I read, the only version, among the Bible versions, which has added this paragraph found at the collection of the Quman Scripture manuscripts. Notice that there is(are) no verse number(s) assigned to the paragraph.

Just thought I’d share.

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Is there a reason this should be included? It seems like it might be good to include it in a footnote to indicate the variant text. Is there an argument that it is part of the Holy Scriptures?

What standard is appropriate? Surely not every variant is inspired and not every deletion is uninspired. Should one not rather look to the text as used by Jesus and the Apostles as validated by the Savior? If this paragraph is not included in the Septuagint, is there any argument to be credibly made that it was accepted at the time of the Public Ministry?

Should editors or publishers be making these decisions, or should they not rather include detailed and honestly argued footnotes, thus exercising extreme caution in introducing novelties into purported editions of Holy Scripture, or for that matter, exercising equal caution in deleting long accepted passages from current editions without so much as footnote justifying the excision.

I have trouble understanding the goals of editors who make these decisions – they often seem diabolic rather than scholarly or religious.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
Good questions John. Unfortunately, I do not have a whole lot of time and expertise to give detailed answers to the questions.

If we have any Scripture scholars or experts on this forum, perhaps it would be good to make a comment here.

I do, though, want to make this comment: Since we do not have the original inspired autographs of the Holy Scriptures, we rely on the various available manuscripts, which are copies of copies, to give us the closest possible rendition of the originals. The Scripture portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls happen to be the oldest manuscripts that we have, and I personally do not see a problem with using them in Bible versions, but at the same time, do not consider it a necessity that we use them.

I know the Catechism mentions and uses the NRSV in addition to the RSV. I don’t have the Catholic edition of the NRSV, so I’m curious if any one has that edition, and if you can tell us whether or not the paragraph in question has been retained.

God bless,

Rony
 
This passage is included in the text of my NRSV-CE Bible. It seems to contribute to the flow of the Scripture as well.

Hope that helps.
 
Is there a reason this should be included? It seems like it might be good to include it in a footnote to indicate the variant text. Is there an argument that it is part of the Holy Scriptures?
Click to expand...
Josephus quoted that passage.
It was lost for 2000 years by a copyist mistake.
Good to see is back were it belong.
So much for the fundamentalist belief in a infallible Bible.
 
ronyodish,

First of all, I hope you enjoy this class of the DSS! I have studied the DSS for some time, I love it! I am working on a project, well it is on hold right now due to another project, but I have been working on a Greek manuscript of the minor prophets called 8HevXIIgr. I am lining up the readings of the manuscript fragments with the LXX and the existing fragments of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion, and translating them.

But anyway, as for your post, it is very interesting! It may have been an original reading or an oral tradition that was added by a scribe at one point in time. Josephus obviously was aware of the event and recorded it in his Antiquities 6:5:1. Since 4QSama is the oldest DSS manuscript and it contains it, then that carrys alot of weight as far as reliablity!

If you want some excellent DSS resources then find a theological library that has “The Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series” orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/resources/djd.shtml this contains the readings of the scrolls. Its the best! Plus for some easy reading of the Biblical scrolls get the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, its a bargain! centuryone.com/0063-2.html
 
John_Hiner said:
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Is there a reason this should be included? It seems like it might be good to include it in a footnote to indicate the variant text. Is there an argument that it is part of the Holy Scriptures?

What standard is appropriate? Surely not every variant is inspired and not every deletion is uninspired. Should one not rather look to the text as used by Jesus and the Apostles as validated by the Savior? If this paragraph is not included in the Septuagint, is there any argument to be credibly made that it was accepted at the time of the Public Ministry?

Should editors or publishers be making these decisions, or should they not rather include detailed and honestly argued footnotes, thus exercising extreme caution in introducing novelties into purported editions of Holy Scripture, or for that matter, exercising equal caution in deleting long accepted passages from current editions without so much as footnote justifying the excision.

I have trouble understanding the goals of editors who make these decisions – they often seem diabolic rather than scholarly or religious.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
Click to expand...

There is a reason 🙂 - several, which are​

  • explained by Frank Moore Cross
  • on pages 157-62 of an article by him
  • in “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”
  • edited by Herschel Shanks
  • published in 1992
  • by Random House (for the US that is - the SPCK is the English publisher)
    It’s part of an essay in a Reader containing the work of the Biblical Archaeology Review.
The restored passage would not be the only one to be left out by accident - there is another in chapter 14, that is in the LXX, but absent from the Hebrew. It suits the context, & it explains who this Nahash is - otherwise, he is introduced abruptly, which is not the author’s usual way. If this were any ancient text but the Bible, it would probably have been corrected without any fuss at all. But no other text has quite the status of the Biblical writings - so people notice these details - sometimes. 🙂
 
explained by Frank Moore Cross
on pages 157-62 of an article by him
in “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”
edited by Herschel Shanks
published in 1992
by Random House (for the US that is - the SPCK is the English publisher)
Click to expand...
I got that book, excellent:thumbsup: .
 
COPLAND 3,

Good stuff, thank you!

As part of my class, I was required to buy these books:

The Dead Sea Scrolls Today by James C. Vanderkam

The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition by Florentino Garcia Martinez, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Two Volumes)

The Old Testament: Pseudepigrapha by James H. Charlesworth (Two Volumes)

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish

The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition is an excellent resource! Have you had any Hebrew? That would be help with this set, but not vital, since it does provide English translations for the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.
 
Have you had any Hebrew?
Click to expand...
Not any formal classes, but being a Chaldean Catholic, I am familiar (though not fluently) with Aramaic and Arabic, and these are close to Hebrew. There are terms in Hebrew that I can pick up right away by virtue of them being similar to Aramaic and Arabic.

God bless,

Rony
 
Not any formal classes, but being a Chaldean Catholic, I am familiar (though not fluently) with Aramaic and Arabic, and these are close to Hebrew. There are terms in Hebrew that I can pick up right away by virtue of them being similar to Aramaic and Arabic.
Click to expand...
Yes, you sure do have an advantage. I was very surprised when I took Hebrew and then took Syriac afterwards, like you said, there are words you recognize right off.

Has your professor gotten into the theories of who the handlers of the DSS were, such as the Essenes? The Essenses is the concensus among scholars but there are other theories too.
 
Has your professor gotten into the theories of who the handlers of the DSS were, such as the Essenes? The Essenses is the concensus among scholars but there are other theories too.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, he mentioned a couple:

There is a view that it was a military fortress, whereas another view says that it was someones’ villa/home.

The professor argued that the place was a pre-monastic community of males. He takes the general consensus of the Essenes.

God bless,

Rony
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top