Not a biggie, just sort of interesting, as it touches on several concepts.
I follow Marg Mowczko on Facebook. Monday she posted that she'd been asked about 1 Sam. 1:28 -- In the final clause, is it "he," "she," or "they" that are doing the worshiping; if "he," who is the "he"; and is "worshiping" even happening?
Most translations (e.g. NET, NIV2011, HCSB, KJV, NASB2020, ESV2011) have "he" and "worshiped."
NRSV has "she" and omits anything about "worship." ("She left him there for the LORD.") HCSB (and CSB) cite the DSS as alternatively supporting "she" with "worshiped."
CEB, ISV, NKJV, and Amp have "they" with "worshiped." The latter two surprise me, since, respectively, the "regular" KJV has "he," and the other Lockman product, the NASB has "he." (NET note and HCSB notes have "they" as an alternative supported by a few ancient and medieval mss.)
Marg notes: Most commentators regard "he" to be Samuel, but some, like Keil and Delitzch and the "Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges" view "he" as Elkanah; in the latter case, they explicitly link it to Elkanah being the "head of the household."
It's interesting on one level because theological presuppositions affect who "he" is believed to be. I wonder about the extent to which they also determine which mss. have the supposed "correct" reading (of he, she, they).
It's also an interesting challenge for those for whom "inerrancy" is a big deal. Which translation reflects the "inerrant" original?
I follow Marg Mowczko on Facebook. Monday she posted that she'd been asked about 1 Sam. 1:28 -- In the final clause, is it "he," "she," or "they" that are doing the worshiping; if "he," who is the "he"; and is "worshiping" even happening?
Most translations (e.g. NET, NIV2011, HCSB, KJV, NASB2020, ESV2011) have "he" and "worshiped."
NRSV has "she" and omits anything about "worship." ("She left him there for the LORD.") HCSB (and CSB) cite the DSS as alternatively supporting "she" with "worshiped."
CEB, ISV, NKJV, and Amp have "they" with "worshiped." The latter two surprise me, since, respectively, the "regular" KJV has "he," and the other Lockman product, the NASB has "he." (NET note and HCSB notes have "they" as an alternative supported by a few ancient and medieval mss.)
Marg notes: Most commentators regard "he" to be Samuel, but some, like Keil and Delitzch and the "Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges" view "he" as Elkanah; in the latter case, they explicitly link it to Elkanah being the "head of the household."
It's interesting on one level because theological presuppositions affect who "he" is believed to be. I wonder about the extent to which they also determine which mss. have the supposed "correct" reading (of he, she, they).
It's also an interesting challenge for those for whom "inerrancy" is a big deal. Which translation reflects the "inerrant" original?
Comment