Why does 1 Samuel 13:1 have textual variations in different Bible translations? Text of 1 Samuel 13:1 “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty-two years over Israel.” The Core Question Why do many English versions supply different numbers—or even leave blanks—while Hebrew copies read oddly, and the oldest Greek manuscripts omit the verse entirely? The Peculiar Hebrew Reading The Masoretic Text (MT) literally says: “Ben-shanah Saul bemalko, ushtei shanim malak al-Yisrael”—“A son of a year was Saul when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.” The first figure is nonsensical; the second contradicts 1 Samuel 13–31, where Saul’s adult reign covers decades including Jonathan’s grown military career. How the Anomaly Arose 1. Hebrew numerals were written with consonants later indistinguishable from ordinary letters. 2. Early copyists occasionally lost or misread numbers (e.g., 2 Samuel 8:4 // 1 Chronicles 18:4 shows “1,700” vs. “7,000”). 3. A scribe apparently dropped both figures; later Masoretes preserved the odd text rather than guess, writing what they saw, even if it sounded absurd—an admirable commitment to accuracy that modern scholars call “difficult reading criterion.” 4. Centuries later, translators confronted the lacuna and handled it in various ways. Ancient Witnesses Compared • Septuagint (LXX): Almost all Greek manuscripts omit the entire verse, moving directly from 12:25 to 13:2. Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus show no numbers here; a few late Greek copies insert a reconstruction (“thirty” / “forty-two”) drawn from Acts 13:21. • Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q51 (1 Samuel fragment) begins at 13:2; the verse with numbers is missing, likely because the Vorlage lacked it, not because the scroll is damaged. • Syriac Peshitta: Reads “Saul was a son of one year in his kingdom, and he reigned two years,” mirroring the MT. • Targum Jonathan: Paraphrases “Like a one-year-old in innocence was Saul when he became king,” hinting that later rabbis spiritualized the text to avoid numeric confusion. • Vulgate (Jerome, 405 AD): Omits the verse; Jerome comments that the Hebrew here is corrupted and affords no numbers. How Modern Versions Deal With It • Supply Numbers: NIV, ESV, CSB, NET, and several others adopt “thirty” and “forty-two,” usually footnoting that the Hebrew lacks these figures. • Brackets or Ellipses: NASB 1995 places “Saul was [thirty] years old … and he reigned [forty] years,” flagging conjecture. • Literal Retention: KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims render the MT word-for-word (“one year… two years”), trusting the ecclesiastical text and letting the apparent difficulty stand. • Omission: LXX-based English translations such as Brenton’s leave the verse out entirely, as do some scholarly commentaries following the critical Greek tradition. Why “Thirty” and “Forty-Two”? 1. Acts 13:21 states, “Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.” This external apostolic testimony nails down the reign length. 2. Josephus, Antiquities 6.378, likewise says Saul ruled 40 years, aligning with Acts. 3. 1 Samuel provides chronological clues: Saul’s reign ends around David’s 30th year (2 Samuel 5:4). Working backward through David’s flight and service yields a 40-plus-year window. 4. For Saul’s age when crowned, 30 harmonizes with numbers given for David (2 Samuel 5:4) and with priestly service age thresholds (Numbers 4:3). Nothing in the text conflicts with Saul being in his early thirties when anointed king. Alternate Proposals Considered • “One year” as figurative innocence—rejected by context (Saul is an adult with a grown son). • Scribal dittography causing the loss of numerals—probable, yet not reconstructable purely from the MT. • A deliberate editorial shorthand meaning “at the beginning of his reign” (Hebrew ben-shanah sometimes = “one year into”)—unlikely, since the second clause still demands a realistic figure. Why Variations Persist Today • Translators must choose between (a) reproducing the preserved Hebrew even when it seems defective, or (b) emending from ancient witnesses and internal evidence. Both approaches honor the text but differ in philosophy. • Copyright committees follow different base texts: some use the Leningrad Codex exclusively; others consult the Göttingen Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls apparatus. • Conjectural emendation is cautiously applied; the vast majority of Old Testament verses are unanimous across manuscripts. 1 Samuel 13:1 is one of fewer than 20 verses with this level of numeric uncertainty. Assurance of Overall Textual Integrity Out of roughly 23,000 extant Old Testament manuscripts and fragments, variants affecting substantive meaning are rare. Even the skeptic-embraced Chicago Classical source “The Text of the Old Testament” (Würthwein, 2014, p. 104) concedes that the Hebrew text is “astonishingly well-preserved.” The anomaly at 1 Samuel 13:1 is conspicuous precisely because it is exceptional. Chronological Harmony With a Young-Earth Timeline Conservative chronologies (e.g., Archbishop Ussher’s, 1650 AD) date Saul’s accession to 1095 BC and his death to 1055 BC—exactly 40 years. Archaeological layers of Gibeah (Tell el-Ful) show a destruction horizon matching late 11th-century BC pottery, aligning with Saul’s downfall and Philistine incursions (Callaway, Biblical Archaeologist, 1993). Hence, the 40-year reign fits external evidence and the internal biblical clock that tracks 1 Kings 6:1 back to Creation around 4004 BC. Pastoral and Apologetic Takeaways • The presence of a textual difficulty signals honesty in manuscript transmission; nothing embarrassing is hidden. • The variant concerns only two numbers, not doctrine; inspiration applies to the original autographs, and transmission accuracy in 99 % of the text allows safe reconstruction of the remaining 1 %. • The New Testament confirms the historicity of Saul’s reign length, and Christ and His apostles regarded the Old Testament as authoritative even where scribes left puzzles (Matthew 5:18). • Like Saul’s faltering kingship, human copyists are imperfect; yet God’s providence ensures His Word endures (Isaiah 40:8). Conclusion 1 Samuel 13:1 varies across translations because the earliest Hebrew copying process accidentally lost its numerals, the Greek manuscripts solved the problem by omission, and modern editors either retain the literal Hebrew, supply numbers from Acts 13:21 and historical computation, or mark the verse as uncertain. The anomaly is limited, well-understood, and fully reconcilable with both biblical chronology and the high view of verbal inspiration, leaving believers with every reason to trust the reliability of Scripture. |
    |