1 Samuel 13:1
ContextNET © | Saul was [thirty] 1 years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] 2 years. |
NIV © | Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for forty- two years. |
NASB © | Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years over Israel. |
NLT © | Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned for forty–two years. |
MSG © | Saul was a young man when he began as king. He was king over Israel for many years. |
BBE © | *** |
NRSV © | Saul was…years old when he began to reign; and he reigned…and two years over Israel. |
NKJV © | Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, |
KJV | |
NASB © | |
HEBREW | |
LXXM | |
NET © [draft] ITL | |
NET © | Saul was [thirty] 1 years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] 2 years. |
NET © Notes |
1 tc The MT does not have “thirty.” A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, “a son of a year”) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! The KJV, attempting to resolve this, reads “Saul reigned one year,” but that is not the normal meaning of the Hebrew text represented by the MT. Although most LXX 2 tc The MT has “two years” here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul’s reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows (cf. KJV, ASV, CEV). But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul’s reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. Some English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT), taking this forty to be a round number, add it to the “two years” of the MT and translate the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as “forty-two years.” While this is an acceptable option, the present translation instead replaces the MT’s “two” with the figure “forty.” Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text (note the ellipsis marks at this point in NAB, NRSV). The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1. |