The Narrow Path Ministries

The Masoretic text of the Old Testament contains the following sentence:

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite; (2 Samuel 21:8)

This can be verified by checking out this site with the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text side by side with the translation into English:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b21.htm

The text quoted above is clearly false. For Michal never bore any children:
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23)

Also Michal was not married to Adriel. Rather her older sister Merab was Adriel's wife.
But at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. (1 Samuel 18:19)

So how do translators alter 2 Samuel 21:8 so that it will not be false? Before considering this, I would like to point out that a number of translations do not alter it, but leave it just as the Masoretic Text has it, namely Douay, JPS, Rotherham, WEB, and YLT.

But those who do change it, do so in the following ways:
1. Change the verb "bore" in "whom she bore to Adriel".
The verb in the Masoretic text clearly means "bore." Also in the Septuagint the Greek verb "ετεκεν" (gave birth to) is used. But the following translations have changed "whom she bore to Adriel" to "whom she brought up for Adriel." I am surprised at this, for the word just doesn't mean "brought up." The meaning "bear" or "give birth to" is given by all the lexicons. The change from "bore" to "brought up" is employed by the King James and related versions, such as the NKJV and the RWebster.

2. Change the name "Michal" to that of her older sister "Merab."
The following translations take this approach: the RSV, the ESV, the NASB, and the HCSB.

3. Add the words "the sister of" before the name "Michal."
I have encountered only one translation that does this, Darby's.

However, I discovered that the Jewish Study Bible also has "Merab" in the text rather than "Michal." The footnote indicates that two Hebrew manuscripts and many Septuagint manuscripts have "Merab." So those of you who believe the Bible to be flawless in the original manuscripts may find support in this fact. For it is possible that the original manuscript had "Merab" rather than "Michal" as the Masoretic text has it.

The NRSV uses "Merab" with the note: "Two Heb Mss Syr Compare Gk: MT Michal"

Heb = Hebrew of the consonantal Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
Mss = Manuscrpits
Syr = Syriac version of the Old Testament

MT = Masoretic text.
Gk = Septuagint.

If there is an error such as this in an ancient manuscript why should we be surprised or concerned? Are we to suppose that God ensures that every transcription down through the ages will be miraculously preserved without error?

Thanks Morbo for that information. I wasn't aware of that NRSV note.

Hi Homer, you wrote:If there is an error such as this in an ancient manuscript why should we be surprised or concerned? Are we to suppose that God ensures that every transcription down through the ages will be miraculously preserved without error?

There are a huge number of people that believe that God has preserved his "word", and many of them think it was done via the King James Version. As someone declared, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!"

However, I began this thread, not come against anyone's beliefs, but because I thought the attempts to correct the error were interesting, and I thought others might find it so, too.