The Septuagint vorlage in 1 Sam. 14:41 - Give Urim/Give Thumim

Question

The MT text reads thus:

וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָבָה תָמִים וַיִּלָּכֵד יוֹנָתָן וְשָׁאוּל וְהָעָם יָצָאוּ.

Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped. (KJV)

The LXX however reads very differently. It is generally accepted that it reads thus:

Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, “Why have you not answered your servant today? If the fault is in me or my son Jonathan, respond with Urim, but if the men of Israel are at fault, respond with Thummim.” Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared. (NIV)

S. Driver reconstructs the text thus:

אם יש בי או ביהונתן בני העון הזה... הבה אורים, ואם ישנו בעמך ישראל הבה תֻּּמִים

This is a very radical reading of the text, and most scholars believe that it ultimately proves that the Urim and Thumim were a form of lot casting (similar to flipping a coin).

However the NETS has a very different translation:

If this guilt is in me or my son Ionathan, O Lord God of Israel, give clear ones, and if this is what you say "In your people Israel", give now holiness

What is the reason for this change in the NETS? I cannot read Koine Greek so I would appreicate help from anyone familiar with the LXX's language. I know that the words Urim and Thumim are rendered in at least 3 different ways in the LXX, so that may be the reason for the different translations. But my question is, are the terms translated as Urim and Thumim in the LXX here, also used for Urim and Thumim elswhere in the OT, or are these terms not at all related to Urim and Thumim elsewhere? If they aren't related elsewhere, then I would be suspicious of Driver's translation of the Greek.

Answer 1

The reason for the NETS difference is that it is a translation of the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. The so-called LXX reads this way:

• “καὶ εἶπεν Σαούλ Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, τί ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σήμερον; ἢ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ἰωναθὰν τῷ υἱῷ μου ἡ ἀδικία; Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, δὸς δήλους· καὶ ἐὰν τάδε εἴπῃ, δὸς δὴ τῷ λαῷ σου Ἰσραήλ, δὸς δὴ ὁσιότητα. καὶ κληροῦται Ἰωναθὰν καὶ Σαούλ, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐξῆλθεν.” (1 Samuel 14:41 LXXS-T)

The NETS, then, not-surprisingly yields that translation.

The issue, though, before we get to the LXX, is what the Hebrew says. The Masoretic text reads:

• ”וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שָׁא֗וּל אֶל־יְהוָ֛ה אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל הָ֣בָה תָמִ֑ים וַיִּלָּכֵ֧ד יוֹנָתָ֛ן וְשָׁא֖וּל וְהָעָ֥ם יָצָֽאוּ׃“ (1 Samuel 14:41 BHS-T)
• "And Saul said to the Lord God of Israel, 'bring completeness', and Johnathon were selected. and so the people went out." (translation mine)

Due to the succinct, almost apocopated sentence structure, some have concluded that there are parts of the sentence missing. For example, the study notes in the NET version justify their translation in these words:

46 tc Heb “to the LORD God of Israel: ‘Give what is perfect.’” The Hebrew textual tradition has accidentally omitted several words here. The present translation follows the LXX

The problem, of course, with this conclusion, is that the versional support is mixed. Some of the other versions follow the Masoretic text very closely:

• “et dixit Saul ad Dominum Deum Israhel da indicium et deprehensus est Ionathan et Saul populus autem exivit” (1 Samuel 14:41 VULG-T)
• ”ܘܐܡ݂ܪ ܫܐܘܠ. ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܝܣܪܝܠ݂ ܗ݁ܒ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ. ܘܐܬܬ݂ܚܕ ܫܐܘܠ ܘܝܘܢܬܢ݂ ܘܢܦܩܘ ܥܡܐ.“ (1 Samuel 14:41 PESHOT-T)

This diminishes the authority of the LXX. For if the MSS had contained an error, Jerome would have probably picked up on it. Likewise, the Syriac, which is overall a mediating translation and, as a result, has no problem smoothing out the Hebrew text, here includes a translation that corresponds to the Hebrew word for word.

So, there is no 'change' in the NETS. It does a fairly faithful job of translating what it intends to (the LXX).

As to your question of how the LXX treats the urim and thumim, it would be difficult to answer your question. For, as in this example, the concept of urim and thumim are not contained in the nouns. Instead, that concept is contained in the verb (“καὶ κληροῦται” (1 Samuel 14:41 LXX1)). This is typical of working with the LXX. The LXX versions leave themselves open to possibly more objections and weaknesses than just sticking with the MSS.

Finally, when weighty versions go with the MSS and there's absolutely no manuscript evidence to support Driver's conjecture, then we have to conclude that Driver's version is just that: unsupported conjecture.

In previous versions of the BHS, one can look in the apparatus and find many, many unsupported, frankly laughable, conjectural emendations. One of the very welcome benefits of the newer BHQ is the textual commentary. Again and again, the repeated refrain is "there is no support for this emendation." That should tell us everything we need to know about the proclivities of those in the past.