The NLT's Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls
08/02/2006 12:31 Filed in: Faith & Reason
In writing the previous blog entry on the HCSB’s use of "guy," I happened to notice a rather large block of text appended in brackets to 1 Sam 10:27 in the New Living Translation:
I should note that the above addition to the text is in found the second edition of the NLT (2004) and not the first (1996). There is a footnote attached to this additional text that reads, “This paragraph, which is not included in the Masoretic Text, is found in Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama.”
Since I can search the notes of the NLT using Accordance, I found that there are around two dozen instances in the 2004 edition in which the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are given preference over the Masoretic Text (MT): Deut 31:1; 32:8 32:43; 1 Sam 1:24; 2:20; 2:33; 2 Sam 6:7; 12:14; 22:36; 22:43; Isa 3:24; 14:4; 15:9; 21:8; 33:8; 37:20; 37:25; 37:27; 45:2; 49:12; 49:24; and 51:19. There are also a number of references that compare readings in the MT to the DSS although the former is favored.
From what I found in my search, the only extensive addition to the OT text from the DSS is the one in 1Sam 10 quoted above. But it begs the question as to whether Bible translations are moving further away from sole dependence on the Masoretic Text. A number of contemporary translations give alternate readings from the DSS, but I don't remember if I've ever come across such a major extension to the text of the Old Testament except for the NLT2 and the NRSV (in the same passage). From a theological perspective, there would be issues of inspiration and canonicity to wrangle with, too. Obviously, for the NLT translators to include this passage, they must assume that it was part of the original canonical text.
And less dependence on the MT also makes one wonder if it's not time to create an eclectic Hebrew OT text, much like the Greek New Testaments that are in use today. With some of the DSS manuscripts well over a millennium older than the MT, at the very least they should be given serious consideration as the NLT translators have done.
Redacted 08/05/2006
[Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the people of Gad and Reuben who lived east of the Jordan River. He gouged out the right eye of each of the Israelites living there, and he didn’t allow anyone to come and rescue them. In fact, of all the Israelites east of the Jordan, there wasn’t a single one whose right eye Nahash had not gouged out. But there were 7,000 men who had escaped from the Ammonites, and they had settled in Jabesh-gilead.]
I should note that the above addition to the text is in found the second edition of the NLT (2004) and not the first (1996). There is a footnote attached to this additional text that reads, “This paragraph, which is not included in the Masoretic Text, is found in Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama.”
Since I can search the notes of the NLT using Accordance, I found that there are around two dozen instances in the 2004 edition in which the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are given preference over the Masoretic Text (MT): Deut 31:1; 32:8 32:43; 1 Sam 1:24; 2:20; 2:33; 2 Sam 6:7; 12:14; 22:36; 22:43; Isa 3:24; 14:4; 15:9; 21:8; 33:8; 37:20; 37:25; 37:27; 45:2; 49:12; 49:24; and 51:19. There are also a number of references that compare readings in the MT to the DSS although the former is favored.
From what I found in my search, the only extensive addition to the OT text from the DSS is the one in 1Sam 10 quoted above. But it begs the question as to whether Bible translations are moving further away from sole dependence on the Masoretic Text. A number of contemporary translations give alternate readings from the DSS, but I don't remember if I've ever come across such a major extension to the text of the Old Testament except for the NLT2 and the NRSV (in the same passage). From a theological perspective, there would be issues of inspiration and canonicity to wrangle with, too. Obviously, for the NLT translators to include this passage, they must assume that it was part of the original canonical text.
And less dependence on the MT also makes one wonder if it's not time to create an eclectic Hebrew OT text, much like the Greek New Testaments that are in use today. With some of the DSS manuscripts well over a millennium older than the MT, at the very least they should be given serious consideration as the NLT translators have done.
Redacted 08/05/2006
|