Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
A Detailed Examination of Genesis 4:8, 1 Samuel 13:1, Psalm 145:13, Isaiah 53:11, Genesis 10:4, and 1 Samuel 10:27
Introduction: The Role of Textual Criticism in Modern Bible Versions
The discipline of Old Testament textual criticism is not an abstraction relegated to scholarly halls but a practical science that has had direct influence on modern Bible versions. Among these versions, the accuracy, method, and textual basis vary—ranging from formal equivalence translations that adhere more closely to the Masoretic Text (MT), to dynamic equivalents that adopt a more interpretive stance, often influenced by secondary versions such as the Septuagint (LXX), Syriac Peshitta (SYR), Vulgate (VG), and Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).
The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) stands apart in its commitment to restoring the original wording of the Hebrew Scriptures with precision, utilizing rigorous textual criticism rooted primarily in the MT, while consulting ancient witnesses where the MT shows demonstrable corruption. In contrast, versions such as the NRSV, NIV, NLT, NET, and others reflect a range of methodologies, often dependent on the theological and textual philosophies of their translation committees.
This article will analyze six key Old Testament textual issues: Genesis 4:8; 1 Samuel 13:1; Psalm 145:13; Isaiah 53:11; Genesis 10:4; and 1 Samuel 10:27. These passages highlight how various translations engage with textual variants and provide insight into their textual foundations and critical methods.
 |
 |
 |
Genesis 4:8 — The Missing Phrase: “Let us go out into the field”
In the UASV, Genesis 4:8 includes the phrase, “Let us go out into the field,” reflecting the reading found in the LXX, SP, SYR, and VG, all of which preserve this quotation. The Masoretic Text, however, lacks it:
UASV: “Cain said to Abel his brother. ‘Let us go out into the field.’ And it came about when they were in the field…”
This omission in the MT is almost certainly due to haplography—an unintentional scribal error where the scribe’s eye skips from one occurrence of the phrase “into the field” (בַּשָּׂדֶה, bassadeh) to the next, thus deleting the intervening quotation. This is a classic case of parablepsis.
Most formal equivalence versions (e.g., NASB, ESV, RSV, NKJV) preserve the MT reading without the added phrase. The NET Bible footnotes the issue and mentions the LXX and other versions, but refrains from inserting the phrase into the text itself. The NIV and NLT adopt a more interpretive stance and include the phrase in the text, aligning with the LXX. The NRSV also incorporates it, often trusting in the eclectic method that allows broader influence from ancient versions.
The UASV appropriately restores the original wording based on strong external evidence. The wide distribution of the variant across LXX, SP, SYR, and VG, and its explanatory fit for the subsequent murder, argues compellingly for its originality.
 |
 |
 |
1 Samuel 13:1 — The Numerical Problem
The MT reads: “Saul was a son of a year when he became king; and two years he reigned over Israel,” a reading that is clearly corrupt. No modern translation upholds the MT here verbatim.
UASV: “Saul was […] years old when he began to reign, and for […] he reigned over Israel.”
The UASV transparently reflects the textual problem by using ellipses and discusses the variant readings thoroughly in its footnote. Acts 13:21 supplies a precise figure of forty years, affirmed by Josephus and lacking any textual difficulty in the New Testament. LXX has multiple variants: “thirty years,” “one year,” or omits the verse entirely. SYR gives “twenty-one years,” which conflicts with the presence of Saul’s adult son, Jonathan, in the subsequent narrative.
Modern translations vary in approach:
-
NASB and ESV adopt conjectural emendations such as “thirty years old… reigned forty-two years,” often merging Acts 13:21 with the OT narrative.
-
NET explains the corruption in its extensive footnotes and adopts a reconstructed reading.
-
NIV and NLT offer smoothed renderings based on harmonization.
-
NRSV prefers a literal reconstruction influenced by the critical apparatus.
The UASV rightly refuses to fill in the corrupted numbers with conjecture, instead explaining the evidence and upholding transparency, which serves both the textual scholar and the serious Bible student.
|
|
|
Psalm 145:13 — The Missing Nun Verse
Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem, but in the MT, the verse corresponding to the letter nun (נ) is missing. Ancient witnesses such as the DSS (11QPs^a), LXX, SYR, VG, and some Hebrew manuscripts contain the missing verse:
“Jehovah is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works.”
This verse fits seamlessly with the surrounding context and preserves the acrostic integrity of the psalm. The inclusion in the DSS confirms its antiquity and pre-Masoretic origin. The MT omission is likely accidental, perhaps due to parablepsis or an early scribal gloss that was removed or failed to be copied.
Translations diverge again:
-
UASV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, and NET restore the verse based on the external evidence.
-
ESV and NASB often omit it but footnote the issue.
-
NKJV follows the MT strictly and omits the verse.
The restoration in the UASV reflects the best text-critical practice. The extensive witness from non-Masoretic sources strongly favors its originality.
Isaiah 53:11 — “He Shall See” or “He Will Show Light”?
The Hebrew MT reads “he shall see” (יִרְאֶה), whereas the LXX reads “he will show him light” (φῶς δεῖξαι αὐτῷ). The DSS (1QIsa^a) includes the word “light” after “see,” indicating a longer form: “he shall see light.”
UASV: “Out of the trouble of his soul he shall see and be satisfied…”
The inclusion of “light” is supported by DSS and LXX, making it an attractive variant. The idea of seeing light after suffering aligns with resurrection and vindication themes. However, the MT’s brevity and simplicity are not sufficient grounds alone to reject the longer reading. Given the convergence of DSS and LXX, many modern versions (e.g., NRSV, NET, NIV) favor inclusion of “light.”
Still, the UASV preserves the MT reading while acknowledging the variant in its footnotes. This approach is sound: the MT remains the base text, with critical apparatus guiding readers to variants of significance. A translation should not override the MT unless the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
 |
 |
 |
Genesis 10:4 — Dodanim or Rodanim?
The MT at Genesis 10:4 reads “Dodanim” (דֹּדָנִים), while the LXX, SP, and some Hebrew manuscripts read “Rodanim” (רוֹדָנִים). The issue here centers on the similarity between resh (ר) and dalet (ד), which are easily confused by scribes.
Notably, 1 Chronicles 1:7 has “Rodanim” in the MT. This could suggest a harmonization, or that the Chronicler had access to a different Vorlage. In such cases, the more difficult reading—“Dodanim”—is generally preferred. Textual critics apply the principle of lectio difficilior potior, meaning the harder reading is often original because it is less likely to be invented by a copyist.
The UASV retains “Dodanim” in Genesis 10:4, rightly recognizing it as the more difficult and therefore likely original reading. The footnote explains the variant evidence thoroughly. Most modern translations adopt “Dodanim” in Genesis 10:4 and “Rodanim” in 1 Chronicles 1:7, without exploring the textual data in detail.
This is a clear demonstration of how textual criticism enhances our understanding when guided by internal and external evidence, not speculation.
 |
 |
 |
1 Samuel 10:27 — The Omitted Narrative of Nahash
The DSS (4QSama) preserves a paragraph-long account that is entirely absent from the MT, LXX, and all standard Hebrew manuscripts. This passage describes the brutal oppression of Israelites by Nahash, king of the Ammonites:
“Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them…”
Josephus also records this material, indicating that it may have once existed in a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text. However, the fragment in 4QSama is damaged and isolated. No other textual witnesses corroborate it.
Some versions (e.g., NET) include the passage in the text with footnotes. The UASV exercises sound judgment by leaving the passage in a footnote, alerting readers to its existence without disrupting the MT base text. This caution is warranted, given the lack of corroboration in any of the major textual families.
The inclusion of such a unique passage without strong support from the MT or multiple ancient versions would set a dangerous precedent of inserting large textual blocks from single manuscripts.
|
 |
 |
Translation Philosophy and Textual Biases in Modern Versions
The way a translation handles the textual tradition reveals not only its fidelity to the original languages but also the theological and methodological stance of its translators. The six textual cases discussed above offer clear distinctions between translations that prioritize the MT as the authoritative text—unless overwhelming textual evidence demands otherwise—and those that adopt a more eclectic approach, sometimes giving excessive weight to non-Hebrew traditions.
The UASV consistently uses the MT as the base text while being fully informed by the major ancient versions and manuscript finds. Its footnotes demonstrate a rigorous textual-critical method that informs the reader rather than silently inserting reconstructions or conjectural emendations into the text. This transparency strengthens the reliability of its translation choices.
On the other hand, NET stands out for its extensive textual and translation notes, which are valuable, yet the version tends toward inclusivity, sometimes favoring reconstructions that rely heavily on single manuscript traditions or ancient versions with ambiguous authority. This is evident in the inclusion of the Nahash narrative (1 Samuel 10:27) in the main text and the preference for the longer reading of Isaiah 53:11 (“light”) despite the absence of this reading in the MT.
NIV, NLT, and NRSV typically favor a dynamic equivalence or moderate eclectic textual philosophy. They are more willing to adopt readings from LXX, SYR, or VG when those are seen as potentially older or explanatory. While this can aid clarity and comprehension for the modern reader, it occasionally obscures the Hebrew original or favors conjecture.
ESV, NASB, and RSV generally adhere more closely to the MT, especially in their primary text, while relegating significant variants to footnotes. This approach maintains textual integrity but can leave the reader unaware of important textual questions unless one consults critical apparatuses or commentaries.
NKJV, based on the Textus Receptus in the New Testament and the MT in the Old Testament, often avoids engaging with critical textual issues altogether. It tends to mirror the KJV’s wording even when superior manuscript evidence suggests correction is warranted.
 |
 |
 |
Broader Implications of Textual Critical Decisions
Textual criticism is not merely academic; it has real consequences for understanding doctrine, narrative flow, and historical context.
In Genesis 4:8, the omission of Cain’s dialogue changes the dynamic of premeditation in the murder narrative. The presence of the invitation “Let us go into the field” adds critical insight into Cain’s intentionality.
In 1 Samuel 13:1, the numeric corruption raises essential questions of chronology and Saul’s career. A version that leaves the passage as-is without clarification (as some older translations do) misleads readers. The UASV’s transparency in indicating missing numbers aligns with both scholarly integrity and the needs of readers who seek accuracy.
Psalm 145:13’s missing verse disrupts the acrostic pattern. Versions that ignore the acrostic structure and omit the restored verse undercut the literary design of the text and fail to convey the original composition’s completeness.
In Isaiah 53:11, the difference between “He shall see” and “He shall see light” introduces a theological nuance. The addition of “light” may point toward resurrection imagery, yet the MT preserves a sufficient reading. The UASV wisely retains the MT while noting the variant, thereby avoiding theological overreach based on a variant found in one DSS scroll and the LXX.
In Genesis 10:4, understanding whether “Dodanim” or “Rodanim” is original affects historical-geographical identifications. The UASV footnote provides readers with clarity on the internal scribal issue (resh/dalet confusion), reflecting the complexity of scribal transmission rather than editorial preference.
The 1 Samuel 10:27 variant—adding a full paragraph from 4QSama—is perhaps the most controversial. It exemplifies the temptation some translations face to include sensational material on the basis of limited evidence. The UASV avoids this error, maintaining fidelity to the manuscript tradition while acknowledging secondary evidence in its notes.
 |
 |
 |
Manuscript Traditions: The Weight of Evidence
The Masoretic Text (MT), especially as preserved in Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex, remains the most reliable textual base for the Old Testament. Its meticulous transmission, particularly from the 6th to 10th centuries C.E., is unmatched. Though not flawless, the MT’s internal consistency, vocalization system, and marginal notes provide a dependable platform for reconstructing the original Hebrew Scriptures.
The Septuagint (LXX), while valuable as a textual witness, should never override the MT without substantial corroboration. Its interpretive nature, translational liberties, and theological overlays (particularly post-Christian usage) demand careful scrutiny. Its usefulness is maximized when aligned with Hebrew textual evidence, as in Psalm 145:13 or Genesis 4:8.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), particularly 1QIsa^a, 4QSama, and others, offer snapshots of pre-Masoretic textual traditions. They are invaluable for assessing earlier forms of the text but must be weighed with caution, especially when they stand alone (as in 1 Samuel 10:27).
The Syriac Peshitta, Targums, and Latin Vulgate also contribute to understanding variant traditions. However, they often reflect theological interpretations or harmonizations and must be evaluated accordingly. For instance, the Vulgate’s inclusion of the missing nun verse in Psalm 145:13 confirms the existence of the verse in ancient Vorlage texts but cannot establish its originality on its own.
The UASV reflects a textual criticism methodology that places the MT at the center while acknowledging where it requires correction due to demonstrable scribal error. This balanced method avoids the extremes of blind MT allegiance or unwarranted eclecticism.
 |
 |
 |
Summary of How Versions Handle Textual Issues
Across the six test passages, patterns emerge:
UASV: Follows MT as base; includes detailed, evidence-based footnotes; restores likely original readings based on cumulative manuscript evidence.
NRSV / NIV / NLT: More willing to include or reconstruct texts based on ancient versions; dynamic in translation; often more interpretive.
NET: Highly informative with detailed notes; sometimes overconfident in including reconstructed text in the main translation.
ESV / NASB / RSV: Generally conservative; adhere to MT with marginal notes; avoid bold emendations.
NKJV: Retains the KJV tradition; avoids engaging with textual criticism; not suitable for readers seeking manuscript accuracy.
In conclusion, the use of textual criticism in modern Bible versions reflects deeply ingrained methodological assumptions. The UASV stands out for its faithfulness to the Hebrew textual tradition, coupled with careful application of textual criticism to restore the original wording where manuscript evidence supports such a move. This approach provides a reliable, transparent, and intellectually honest translation that serves both scholars and serious Bible readers.
 |
 |
 |
Final Reflection on the Use of Textual Criticism
Textual criticism is indispensable for restoring the original Hebrew Scriptures. The stability of the Old Testament text is a testimony not to miraculous preservation, but to the faithful transmission by generations of scribes, copyists, and scholars. Where the MT shows clear signs of corruption, ancient versions—used cautiously and corroboratively—allow for reconstruction. However, the MT must remain the primary anchor.
The modern versions that either disregard textual issues or lean heavily into speculative reconstructions ultimately compromise either their reliability or their fidelity to the preserved text. A conservative, evidence-based approach, such as exemplified by the UASV, provides the most accurate and faithful rendering of the Old Testament Scriptures.
 |
 |
 |
THE UPDATED AMERCAN STANDARD VERSION AND FOOTNOTES
Genesis 4:8 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
8 Cain said to Abel his brother. “Let us go out into the field.”(a) And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
(a) Likely Genesis 4:8 originally included two consecutive clauses that end with the expression “in(to) the field” (bassadeh). It is most likely that the scribe’s eye skipped over the earlier expression ending with the expression “into the field” to the same word in the second instance; therefore, accidentally omitting the quotation. Clearly, the LXX, as well as the SP, SYR, and the VG have been useful in identifying this error in the Hebrew text. The odds are increased greatly that “let us go over into the field” was in the original because of it being found in such a wide number of versions, especially with the Septuagint being one of those versions.
1 Samuel 13:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 Saul was […](a) years old when he began to reign, and for […](b) he reigned over Israel.
(a) MT has a corrupt reading of “a son of a year,” for it means Saul was one year old when he began to reign; LXX a few MSS “thirty,” most LXX lack the verse, a few others “one year;” SYR “twenty-one years old,” which is impossible when we consider the age of Saul’s son in the next verse. The LXX’s “thirty” is possible but unlikely. Because Saul’s son Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, the 1901 ASV has offered a conjectural emendation of “forty years.”
(b) Acts 13:21 attributes “forty years” to Saul. Most LXX MSS lack this verse. MT has “two years” (this could be a corruption), which has motivated some to believe that Luke in Act 13:21 was rounding the number with “forty years” and so they render it here as “forty-two years.” If MT “two years” is correct it could be as the 1901 ASV took it, “and when he had reigned two years over Israel, vs 2 Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel,” meaning that after the initial two years of Saul’s reign, he then went about building an army. SYR lacks this part of the verse. In Antiquities of the Jews, book 10, chapter 8, paragraph 4, the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus ascribes twenty years to King Saul. However, in Book 6, chapter 14, paragraph 9, Josephus has: “Now Saul, reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive, and after his death two,” with some of Josephus’ manuscripts adding: “and twenty;” which adds up to forty years. The fact that Luke was inspired by God and fully inerrant, stating that Saul was king for forty years is absolutely inerrant because Acts 13:21 has no textual issues, and because we do not have a number given in the OT, it does not conflict with the OT evidence and is found in Josephus (Ant. 6.378): eighteen years during the life of Samuel and twenty-two more after his death.
Psalm 145:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures throughout all generations.
Jehovah is faithful in all his words
and kind in all his works.(a)
(a) Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm. Each verse following one another begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. However, in the MT there is no verse that begins with the letter nun (נ). LXX SYR VG DSS some Heb. MSS the vs beginning with the Hebrew letter Nun reads: “Jehovah is faithful in all his words, and kind in all his works.” MT lacks
Isaiah 53:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
11 Out of the trouble of his soul he shall see(a) and be satisfied;
by means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant,
will bring a righteous standing to many people,
and he shall bear their errors.
(a) MT VG “he shall see” LXX “[he will] show him light” DSS includes “light” after “see.”
Genesis 10:4 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
4 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.(a)
(a) Most of the MT has the reading “Dodanim” in verse 4 of chapter 10. On the other hand, the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and some Hebrew MSS have “Rodanim” in verse 4 of chapter 10. “Rodanim” is also found in the Masoretic Text (MT) at 1 Chronicles 1:7. However, many of the Hebrew manuscripts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate read “Dodanim.” In Hebrew, the letter resh “r” (ר) and the letter dalet “d” (ד) are very similar graphically and were often confused by a copyist. (e.g., “Riphath” in Gen. 10:3 appears as “Diphath” at 1 Chron. 1:6 in the MT) Most translations present Dodanim in Genesis 10:4 and Rodanim at 1 Chronicles 1:7. Dodanim is the more difficult reading to explain, which usually means the preferred reading if the change was intentional. Biblica Hebraica by Rudolf Kittel (1905) gives דודנים (“Dodanim”) in Genesis 10:4 with רודנים (“Rodanim”) listed as a textual variant in the critical apparatus. Assyriologist Pinhas Artzi writes, “It is possible that the Rodanim should be equated with the Dananians (?) who are mentioned in the El-Amarna letters (J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, 1 (1907), 151, lines 48–58, letter from Tyre) and in the Karatepe Inscriptions (see Donner and Roellig, in bibl.) or with Yadnâna, perhaps Cyprus (cf. Elishah). However, the most plausible, although not entirely satisfactory, explanation remains that the Rodanim were inhabitants of Rhodes.”
1 Samuel 10:27 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
27 But certain sons of wickedness said, “How can this man deliver us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. And he was like someone speechless.(a)
(a) DSSB 4QSama; See Josephus. The following passage in 4QSama is one of the single most dramatic discoveries among the biblical scrolls. 4QSama has an entire three-and-a-half-line paragraph missing from the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and all other biblical manuscripts. The first-century historian Josephus, however, documents that the passage was in the ancient form of the Bible that he used.
11* [Na]hash king of the [A]mmonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right [ey]e of a[ll] of them and brought fe[ar and trembling] on [Is]rael. Not one of the Israelites in the region be[yond the Jordan] remained [whose] right eye Naha[sh king of] the Ammonites did n[ot pu]t out, except seven thousand men [who escaped from] the Ammonites and went to [Ja]besh-gilead. (Square brackets [ ] surround areas lost in the scroll due to various types of damage.) MT LXX does not have.
What we have is a mutilated DSS fragment (4QSama) that is uncertain on its reliability and stands alone, aside from the first century Jewish historian Josephus. So, I would say more caution is required than the NET suggests. Even so, we have it in a footnote, so readers have access to it.
You May Also Enjoy
Hebrew Old Testament Textual Transmission Prior to 300 B.C.E.: An Analysis of Preservation, Scribes, and Manuscript Traditions
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
