DID MICHAL HAVE ANY CHILDREN? (II SAMUEL 6:23; II SAMUEL 21:8)

Critics see a clear contradiction between these two verses since 6:23 says that Saul's daughter, who was also David's wife, had no children. In contrast, verse 21:8 says that she had five sons.

If you look up these passages in your Bibles, you may be hard pressed to find any contradiction whatsoever, unless you are relying on the King James Version. Again, critics have purposely quoted KJV to make their point, when in fact almost all modern translations will read “Merab,” Michal's sister, as the one with five sons. But where did this confusion come from in the first place? Obviously, it is not a mere case of the same Hebrew word being translated in different ways. This example introduces us to the whole subject of textual criticism.

Textual criticism is a branch of study that tries to establish as well as possible the original Hebrew and Greek wording of the biblical text. This is a necessary exercise to do before translators can even begin their job of rendering the original languages into a modern one. You may ask why that was needed at all when you could obviously go to the Vatican and haul out the author's original manuscript (i.e., hand- written document). The problem is that we have none of the original writings (also called autographs) to consult, only a myriad of copied manuscripts from many years later.

At this point, some of you may be thinking that I must be parroting some liberal nonsense to throw doubts on the accuracy of the Bible. That is not at all the case. We believers must face up to the fact that the transmission of Scripture over the generations was not as divinely inspired a process as its actual writing. We know this because there are many differences between the ancient manuscripts that we do have. However, to put this into proper perspective, the vast majority of these different readings are very minor “typos” that have no effect on doctrinal issues. In addition, we have many more manuscripts to rely on (and they are much closer in date to the original writings) than any other ancient documents we know of. If you are interested in this issue, read Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict for much more information.

Let's get back to the question of why KJV reads “Michal” and other translations read “Merab” in II Samuel 21:8. Here I must make a plug for the most indispensable study tool you need in your home library. We have already talked about the valuable information one can get from an analytical concordance, word study books, and commentaries. But by far the most valuable is a good study Bible, which will have much of what is in those books and more.

Many study Bibles will have brief commentaries on the text at the bottom of each page. Also found there will be brief footnotes on individual words or phrases found in the passage. These take two forms: (a) alternative translations that may be considered and (b) textual variations in the ancient manuscripts. The case at hand deals with the latter, and so here are a few examples of how to decipher these sometimes rather cryptic notes.

As a footnote to II Samuel 21:8, Jerusalem Bible has:

    “Merab” versions, cf. I S 18:19; “Michal” Hebr

This means that the reading “Merab” is found in some of the versions (i.e., ancient translations into languages other than Hebrew). One should consult I Samuel 18:19 for why they read that way. And lastly, the reading “Michal” is found in the Hebrew manuscripts we have.

By contrast, the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) has a note saying:

    Two Hebrew Mss Gk: Heb Michal

As with the JB, the note first explains its reason for chosing “Merab” in place of “Michal.” The evidence includes two Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Greek translation. The evidence for “Michal” is found in the majority of the Hebrew mss.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) has the following note:

    Two Heb Mss Syr Compare Gk: MT Michal

Thus, Merab is the reading found in two Hebrew manuscripts and in the Syriac version, and is the original behind the early Greek translation. By contrast, the Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew text) has “Michal” instead.

Just to confuse things, the textual notes will sometimes use Ar(amaic) in place of Syr(iac); substitute LXX or Sept. to refer to the Greek Septuagint; and add Q to refer to the Qumran documents in the Dead Sea scrolls in case of a variant reading there. Additional abbreviations you may encounter in textual notes include Tg or Tar (Targums – ancient rabbinical commentaries on the text), Vg (the Latin Vulgate translation) and Sam (Samaritan Pentateuch).

Another question that may arise is: Why did all the modern translators go with only a few ancient manuscripts when the standard Hebrew text overwhelmingly reads “Michal”? Textual critics have to weigh a lot of evidence before going with one reading over another. In this case, the decision was a rather easy one in light of the evidence within other passages in II Samuel. If 21:8 reads “Michal,” then it would clearly contradict the statement in II Samuel 6:23 which unequivocally says that Michal had no children until the day she died. In addition, I Samuel 18:19 says that Merab (Michal's sister) should have been given to David in marriage, but instead she was married to Adriel the Meholathite. This is the same man listed in II Samuel 21:8 as being Merab's husband, not Michal's. So we have to either change these two other passages to remove the apparent contradiction or admit that the Hebrew is in error in its reading in that last verse. That, coupled with the fact that we have existing manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic all supporting “Merab” as the proper reading, is why the KJV rendering must be incorrect.

A final question: Then why would the majority of the Hebrew manuscripts have made such a mistake? Tsumura (The Second Book of Samuel) explains, “'Michal' is likely a scribal error substituting a more familiar name for a less familiar name.” So it was an accidental mistake perpetrated by the generations of scribes who followed.