Not Negated

In the second chapter of First Samuel, the translators added two words to the text of the third verse [“not” and “is”, respectively]: the first of which is unnecessary from a grammatical viewpoint; the second of which is entirely necessary from the same point of view. The selected verse is taken from a prayer Hannah, Samuel’s mother, recited upon occasion of “loaning” her firstborn and– thus far– only child to the service of the LORD at “the temple of the LORD [1 Samuel 1:9 & 3:3, et. al.]” in Shiloh.

The verse under review reads: "Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed [1 Samuel 2:3]." As previously stated, the added “is” is a grammatical necessity; the added “not” is, however, not only unnecessary, but an obfuscating negation of the text to boot.

When the unnecessary addition to 1 Samuel 2:3 is removed, the verse reads: “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” The seemingly- negligible addition of the simple term “not” to the text obscures the sense of the verse in multiple and substantial ways.

The most obvious change which occurs in the comprehension of the reader, when the added “not” is understood to be a bastardization of the text of scripture as the translators encountered it, is the realization that– contrary to popular belief– exceeding pride and arrogance do not equate. “Talk no more so exceeding proudly” means “let arrogancy come out of your mouth.” [See Luke 18:9 - 14, for example.]

Simply stated, this means it’s not the proud, confident rager; but rather the weaker, “meeker” man lying prone on his face “worshipping the holiness” with tears running out of his snake- in- the- grass eyes who is exceeding proud: at least in the eyes of Hannah (minus the translators’ subtle manipulations). The text of the Old Testament of the 'Holy Bible' canon unequivocally supports Hannah's perception in this matter– with few, if any, exceptions– if the New Testament doesn't. [Admittedly, the doctrine of the New Testament replaces everything good and sensible with worship (as per Revelation 13:15, for instance); but that's beside the point.]

The question, given Hannah's declaration that “the LORD is a God of knowledge,” is: what does it matter how anyone talks to the LORD? Doesn't the LORD know who's speaking to Him and why? If the LORD isn't a liar, and likewise really knows anything: isn't it a delusion to think that there's a proper way of speaking to (or for) the LORD which could be correctly characterized as anything other than truthful? Why does Hannah speak of pride and arrogance? Why not rather of truth and guile? Are the “actions… weighed [ibid.]” by the LORD the knowledge born of carnality [Genesis 19:5 & Judges 19:22, for example]? Is the Bible a rainbow- flavored Harlequin romance?

Hosea says the LORD told him, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge [Hosea 4:6a].” Is this the curse the rapist directs toward the victim who won't submit to the unlawful carnal knowledge of the rapist’s weighty actions? Ye “men” of the LORD: where is your Jesus coming?