The NAB on I Samuel

[Hananiah]

A few excerpts from my latest submission to CAI:

IX. The First Book of Samuel

The NAB pulls all its usual tricks in the First Book of Samuel. There is a bit of demythologizing, one (that I have detected) deliberate mistranslation, a footnote which teaches Modernist spirituality, a claim that the book was complied by a faceless editor rather than written by the man whose name it bears, and, as always, many allegations of contradiction and error, in one case even of moral error. I will here attempt to refute them. Now, I may only be one layman, up against a horde of men with doctorates, several languages under their belts, and the indellible mark of Holy Orders on their souls, but I will draw inspiration from the story of David and Goliath, which, incidentally, is contained in 1 Samuel, and, trusting in David's intercession, attempt an upset victory.

footnote on 8:1
These allegations of contradiction are entirely baseless. First, the idea that 1 and 2 Samuel contain irreconcilable reports of Saul's death is about as inane as these types of claims come. 1 Samuel records what actually happened; 2 Samuel records what an Amalekite said happened. The Amalekite was lying. He made up a story in hopes of garnering from King David some type of reward. However, his plan backfired, and David executed him.

Second, the alleged contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:19-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58 regarding whether or not Saul knew David can also be satisfactorily reconciled. David was a young boy in ch. 16, and the Scripture does not tell us how much time elapsed between the end of ch. 16 and the beginning of ch. 17. Perhaps months or maybe even years passed, and David's appearance changed significantly in that time. Moreover, given that King Saul was at this point a demonically possessed lunatic, it is entirely possible that his memory was, say, less than reliable.

I will deal with the claim regarding the disparate accounts of Saul's accession to power in detail below.

footnote on 10:5
Rather than attribute the "prophetic state" to a movement of God's Spirit, the NAB suggests that it is merely "an ecstatic condition due to strong feelings of religious enthusiasm induced by a communal observance." This is, of course, the Modernist principle of vital immanence, which explains every religious sentiment as internal "feelings of religious enthusiasm" rather than supernatural revelation, etc. To top things off, the NAB suggests that liturgical dancing was involved as well!

footnote on 11:12-14
The ubiquitous "editor" strikes again, this time to harmonize two allegedly disparate accounts. In the one, teaches the NAB, Saul is enthroned at Mitzpah after being chosen by lot, wheareas in the other he is enthroned at Gilgal after saving the Jews of Jabesh-gilead. But the text as it stands is a unified whole. There is quite simply no contradiction there. Saul is chosen for king by lot at Mitzpah (vv 10:20f), but many of the Jews do not accept him (v 10:27). However, after he demonstrates his leadership by winning a decisive military victory (vv 11:1-11), he gains the people's unqualified support, so the prophet Samuel decides to renew the kingdom by repeating the coronation rites. There is no need to posit two disparate sources, and one desperate editor; the narrative is perfectly coherent as is.

What is more, the NAB has deliberately mistranslated Scripture in v 11:14 in order to make their charge of contradiction seem more plausible. The NAB scholars, alone in the wide field of biblical translation, have chosen to render chadash in this verse as inaugurate, instead of "reaffirm" (NIV), "renew," (NAS, KJV, DRV, RSV), egkainidzo (LXX, =renew, cf. 1 Mac 4:36; Ps 50:12; Sirach 36:6), or the like. And given that they translate the word properly elsewhere [74], this error cannot be ascribed to incompetence. It is evident that they have purposely chosen to mistranslate chadash in order to make Scripture to be in error. As I explained above, they believe that vv 10:24ff and 11:15 were originally two independent and contradictory accounts of Saul's one-and-only coronation, but that an editor weaved them together and attempted to harmonize them by positing that, while both events happened, the second rite of coronation was merely a renewal of the first. But the NAB scholars have seen through the editor's thin veneer; they have gone behind the scenes and discerned the original, contradictory sources from which the final product was made; they know that 1 Samuel 11:14f did not originally describe a "renewal" of Saul's kingship but the inauguration thereof; therefore they are perfectly justified in manhandling and mistranslating the word of God, that we might be able to see as clear as them.

footnote on 15:3
Here the NAB outright charges Scripture with a moral error: Samuel, speaking as God's prophet, tells Saul that God wishes him to "attack Amalek" and to kill all the "men and women, children and infants." The NAB blatantly asserts that "the slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God." [75] So where did Samuel get his message from? The NAB assures us, this is merely "the interpretation of God's will," and it is only "attributed to Samuel." It is part of the Biblical text, they say, because it is consonant with the "abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among ... peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been." In other words, this inspired text, breathed by God, condones an "abhorrent practice," and is really just a time-conditioned element of Scripture that can be attributed to outmoded Hebrew ideas. The only problem is that this is a moral statement within Scripture, and thus, the very Modernists who say that Scriptural inspiration is limited to matters of faith and morals, now reverse themselves by charging Scripture with a moral error. Liberal Catholic scholars seem to narrow the Bible's domain of inerrancy a little more every few years.

footnote on 16:14
More demythologizing. Whereas the Douay takes this passage at face value [76], the NAB makes it a statement of pre-scientific ignorance. Saul was not actually possessed by an evil supernatural being with an intellect and a will, but only "tormented with violent fits of rage."

footnote on 17:54
According to Fr. Haydock, "The lower part of Jerusalem was already in the hands of the Israelites. [David] might place the armour for the present in the tent of his brethren. We find that the sword was deposited in the tabernacle, at Nobe (v 21:9)." [77]

[74] The NAB translates the various forms of chadash as restore (2 Chr 15:8; 24:4; Is 61:4), restored (Lam 5:21), renew (Job 10:17; Ps 51:12; 104:30), and renewed (Ps 103:5).

[75] cf. Bishop Challoner's commentary in the Douay-Rheims: "The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children."
(The Douay-Rheims Old Testament [Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1002] p. 358)

[76] "An evil spirit, by divine permission, and for [Saul's] punishment, either possessed or obsessed him."
(Ibid., p. 360)

[77] Ibid., p. 363

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
10/2 - Guardian Angels

Good stuff, but one of your points of textual criticism needs clarifying.

[quote]a claim that the book was complied by a faceless editor rather than written by the man whose name it bears[/quote]

If that is true, then what you you make of 1 Samuel 25:1?

[quote]And Samuel died, and all Israel was gathered together, and they mourned for him, and buried him in his house in Ramatha. And David rose, and went down into the wilderness of Pharan. (1 Kings 25:1 DRV)[/quote]

[Hananiah]

The traditional view of the books of Samuel is that Samuel wrote most of the first book himself, and that the prophets Nathan and Gad finished it and wrote the second.