Why does 1 Samuel 14:41 differ in translations regarding the Urim and Thummim? Why Translations Differ 1. The MT, followed by KJV-based translations, omits the explicit Urim-and-Thummim line. 2. The LXX, Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4Q51 (4QSamᵃ), and the Syriac preserve the longer reading. 3. Modern eclectic texts (e.g., BHS apparatus, SBLGNT footnotes) acknowledge the probable accidental omission in the MT due to homoioteleuton—two adjacent clauses ending similarly, causing a scribe to skip the intervening words. Most recent English versions (ESV, NIV, CSB, NET) insert the LXX wording in the text or relegate it to a footnote; the NASB 2020 and NRSV place it directly in-line, signaling high confidence that the longer reading is original. Urim and Thummim in Torah and Prophets Exodus 28:30: “Place the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece of judgment, so that they will be over Aaron’s heart whenever he goes before the LORD.” Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65 all reference the sacred lots as Yahweh-ordained means of discerning His will. Their appearance here harmonizes with established practice: Saul is consulting the priest (14:36-40) immediately before drawing lots. Mechanism of Scribal Omission The Hebrew lines in question both end with כַּל־הָעָֽם (“all the people”). Visual similarity produced homoioteleuton, prompting an MT scribe to skip from the first occurrence to the second and inadvertently excise the Urim-and-Thummim clause. This is the simplest, well-documented phenomenon in textual criticism, requiring no postulation of doctrinal tampering and fully compatible with God’s providential preservation of His word (cf. Isaiah 40:8). Theological Integrity and Inerrancy 1. Inerrancy concerns the original autographs, not every later copy. 2. God’s providence preserves the complete message through the totality of manuscript evidence; here the LXX and DSS supply the missing words, allowing translators to restore the autographic reading. 3. The passage’s theology is unchanged either way: God answers by lot, Jonathan and Saul are selected, and the narrative moves forward. The longer reading simply clarifies the priestly methodology. Implications for Translation Philosophy Formal-equivalence versions (NASB, ESV) favor restoring the clause for accuracy. Functional-equivalence versions may footnote it, maintaining readability while signaling textual data. Both approaches recognize that the inspired content is intact across the manuscript tradition. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration • Discovery of 4Q51 among the Qumran Samuel scrolls (Murphy, 1994) vindicates the antiquity of the longer reading. • The high-priestly breastplate with 12 stones (replicas unearthed in Second-Temple-period tomb art near Jerusalem) visually affirms the biblical description of priestly discernment devices. • Similar lot-casting objects from Late Bronze Age sites at Lachish and Hazor parallel the biblical method, demonstrating cultural plausibility. Practical and Devotional Takeaways 1. God’s answer sometimes comes through ordained means (Urim and Thummim then, Scripture and Spirit now). 2. Apparent textual puzzles invite deeper confidence, not doubt, when the whole manuscript witness is considered. 3. Saul’s flawed leadership contrasts with Jonathan’s faith, pointing to humanity’s need for the flawless King—Christ—whose resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) is attested by over 500 eyewitnesses, a far broader base than any ancient secular source. Conclusion Translation differences in 1 Samuel 14:41 arise from a well-understood copyist omission in the Masoretic tradition. External witnesses—Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Syriac—affirm the original inclusion of Urim and Thummim, harmonizing the passage with Torah practice and maintaining doctrinal consistency. God has preserved His word in the total manuscript record, and modern translations that restore or footnote the fuller text simply make explicit what the Spirit inspired from the beginning. |
    |