The Samuel manuscript in Qumran stands as the finest example of biblical preservation from Cave 4, despite retaining only approximately 15% of its original text on the leather fragments. Each chapter of 2 Samuel is represented by at least one fragment, whereas 1 Samuel is missing fragments from chapters 13, 16, 19, 21 and 23 (Cross et al. 2005:3). The most well-preserved sections of the manuscript showcase a refined light tan leather, with inscriptions on the exterior (hair side), a customary practice at Qumran, contrasting with later parchments that featured writing on the interior. Regrettably, much of the scroll is in a deteriorated state. The deterioration of the manuscript was accelerated when exposed to light. However, the most significant damage was caused by worms. Evidence of their activity is visible throughout the leather, with trails left by hungry worms sometimes causing shallow surface damage that removes the inked letters and more frequently creating complete holes in the leather. The combination of wormholes and the crumbling edges of the decaying fragments often made it difficult to piece together and join the fragments (Cross et al. 2005:3). The surviving fragments of 4QSam^a contain only 1 Samuel 1:9, 1:11–13, and 1:17–18 from the first chapter of 1 Samuel, as the manuscript is in a deteriorated state (Cross et al. 2005:4). Nevertheless, Andrew Fincke endeavoured to reconstruct 4QSam^a into a comprehensive text, presenting his findings through meticulously crafted handwritten notes in his research. His analysis reveals that ‘אפים’ in 1 Samuel 1:5, as interpreted by 4QSam^a, is traced back to ‘אפס’ (Fincke 2001:283). Nevertheless, the primary issue with Fincke lies in his approach, as he reconstructs the absent text of 4QSam^a by drawing parallels with the LXX. Consequently, 4QSam^a presents a more extensive reading, akin to that of the LXX. This study will refrain from utilising Fincke’s reconstructed version of 4QSam^a and will acknowledge the absence of the text from 1 Samuel 1:5 as a notable omission.

The LXX interprets ‘אפים’ as ‘πλήν’ or ‘but’ (Rahlfs 1952). Barthélemy observes that the LXX interprets ‘אפים’ as derived from ‘אפס’, noting that the phrase ‘כי אפס’ is also found in 2 Samuel 12:14 and Amos 9:8, where it is translated as ‘πλὴν ὅτι’ (Barthélemy, Hulst & United Bible Societies Committee of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project 1982:138). This research, however, introduces an alternative perspective, suggesting that the LXX may have derived ‘אפים’ from the conjunction ‘אף’. In this context, ‘אף’ means as ‘but’ (see Ps 44:10; 88:3; and Jdg 5:29; cf. Brown, Driver & Briggs 1996:64). Thus, this article proposes that the LXX’s translation ‘πλήν’ is triggered by the conjunction ‘אף’.

A remarkable 77.78% of the ancient manuscripts support the notion that the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ derives from the noun form of ‘אף’, as evidenced by the Aleppo codex, the Leningrad codex, Greek Lucian, Άλλος, the Peshitta, the Targum and the Vulgate. Despite the support from the majority of texts, the earliest attested text – the LXX – favours the reading ‘πλήν’ or ‘but’. This information indicates that although external evidence is helpful, it is still limited. Thus, internal evidence, especially the argument from the context, will provide a helpful analysis of this enigmatic Hebrew word. Consequently, the external evidence that considers the age, reliability and geographical distribution of the manuscripts supports the noun ‘אף’ for ‘אפים’. Nonetheless, there are four reading variants for the noun ‘אף’ for ‘אפים’: nostril (face or anger), double, sad and approved (chosen). Table 2 incorporates the ancient sources with their translations.

Both Άλλος (ed. Field 1875:487) and the Peshitta (Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden 1978) render the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ as ‘double’. This translation stems from the dual absolute form of ‘אף’. In other words, ‘אפים’ is the noun masculine dual absolute from ‘אף’, leading both Άλλος and the Peshitta to adopt this dual form in their translations. As a result, they both arrive at the translation of ‘double’, reflecting the inherent grammatical characteristic of duality.

In contrast, the Masoretic texts and the Greek Lucian do not acknowledge the intrinsic grammatical feature of duality (eds. Elliger & Rudolph 1997); instead, they opt for a straightforward literal translation of the term as ‘face’. While the Masoretic texts and the Greek Lucian have a literal rendering, both the Vulgate (Weber & Gryson 2006) and the Targum (McNamara 2010) translate ‘אפים’ figuratively: with sorrow and approved (chosen), respectively. While both translations render figuratively, they interpret 1 Samuel 1:4–5 in distinct ways. For instance, the Latin Vulgate translates the noun ‘אף’ and frames it within a context of negativity of sorrow. Elkanah gave portions (plural) to Peninah, his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters (1:4), but (autem to indicate contrast in Latin) to Hannah, he offered only a single portion, filled with sorrow, because he loved Hannah. However (autem to indicate contrast in Latin), the Lord had shut up her womb. This illustrates that despite Elkanah’s love for Hannah, he was unable to provide her with more portions because of her childlessness. Consequently, he presented her with one portion, tinged with sadness. Conversely, the Targum offers a positive interpretation of the noun ‘אף’, interpreting it within a context of love. The Targum states that Elkanah gave portions (plural) to Peninah, his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters (1:4), but Elkanah gave one approved (chosen) portion to Hannah because he loved her. Thus, the Targum highlights the significance of the quality of this portion as a true expression of Elkanah’s love, rather than focusing on the mere number of portions given.

In summary, the external evidence strongly supports the notion that the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ originates from the noun form of ‘אף’, as confirmed by most ancient manuscripts. Although the noun ‘אף’ for ‘אפים’ is indeed favourable, it can be interpreted in four distinct ways: nostril (face or anger), double, sad and approved (chosen). The variations arise from the author’s intention to translate either lexically or grammatically, particularly concerning the dual form of ‘אפים’. Should the focus be on lexical translation, the choice between a literal or figurative interpretation will ultimately shape the understanding of ‘אפים’.

The LXX’s translation of ‘πλήν’ serves to contrast ‘καὶ τῇ Αννα ἔδωκεν μερίδα μίαν’ or ‘and to Hannah, he gave one portion’ with ‘ὅτι τὴν Ανναν ἠγάπα Ελκανα ὑπὲρ ταύτην’ or ‘Elkanah loved Hannah more than this one’. The demonstrative pronoun of ‘ταύτην’ refers to ‘μερίδα μίαν’ because it matches the gender and the number. The LXX uses the adverb ‘πλήν’ to explain the text: Elkanah, despite presenting Hannah with a single portion, held a deeper affection for her that transcended this gift. Therefore, the translation of the LXX does not align with the principle of lectio difficilior.

The concept of ‘double’ translation arising from the dual absolute form of ‘אף’ alleviates the harder reading of the Hebrew word ‘אפים’. Both the Peshitta and Άλλος convey to the audience that Hannah is granted a double portion compared to Peninah and her offspring, a reflection of Elkanah’s love for Hannah, especially because the Lord had closed her womb. In essence, while LXX’s translation highlights the love of the giver (Elkanah), both the Peshitta and Άλλος focus on the quantity of the gift itself.

As previously mentioned, both the Vulgate and the Targum provide interpretations of the Hebrew word ‘אפים’. The Vulgate translates the noun ‘אף’ and places it within a context of sorrow and negativity. Elkanah distributed portions to Peninah, his wife, along with all her sons and daughters (1:4). However, to Hannah, he offered only a single portion because the Lord had closed her womb, reflecting the depth of his love for her. In contrast, the Targum provides a more positive interpretation of the noun ‘אף’, framing it within a context of love. The Targum notes that Elkanah gave portions to Peninah and her children (1:4), but he reserved one special portion for Hannah, chosen specifically because of his love for her. This interpretation emphasises the significance of the quality of that portion as a genuine reflection of Elkanah’s love, rather than merely the quantity of portions distributed.

The Masoretic texts, namely the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, along with the Greek Lucian, provide a literal translation of ‘אפים’ derived from the noun ‘אף’, which can signify nostrils, face, or anger. This translation poses difficulties for two primary reasons. Firstly, the noun ‘אף’ encompasses three different meanings: nostrils, face, or anger. Secondly, the meaning of the noun ‘אף’ does not fit in 1 Samuel 1:5. Did Elkanah offer a portion of nostril, face, or perhaps anger? The interpretation of the noun ‘אף’ does not align with the context in 1 Samuel 1:5. Thus, the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ stems from the noun ‘אף’, satisfying the principles of lectio difficilior.

Most ancient manuscripts render the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ with a single word, approximately 77.78%, with the exception of the Greek Lucian version, which uses ‘κατὰ πρόσωπον’. Consequently, lectio brevior does not assist in uncovering the original reading of ‘אפים’.

The Hebrew word ‘אפים’ appears four times in 1 Samuel (1:5; 24:9; 25:41 and 28:14). In addition to 1 Samuel, ‘אפים’ occurs 24 times in the Old Testament. Table 3 summarises the appearance of ‘אפים’ in the Old Testament with its meaning in the context.

Table 3 illustrates that the Hebrew word ‘אפים’ is predominantly influenced by a preceding or following word, approximately 89.28%. When ‘אפים’ is followed by the word ‘the ground’, it signifies a direction: face towards the ground. Conversely, if ‘אפים’ is preceded by the word ‘long’, it translates to a state of prolonged anger and vice versa. When ‘אפים’ appears in isolation, it may denote a proper name (1 Chr 2:31) or anger (Pr 30:33). Consequently, harmonisation provides only minimal insight into the enigmatic Hebrew term ‘אפים’, as it exists in solitude, apart from the references in 1 Samuel, where it consistently translates to ‘face’ (1:5; 24:9; 25:41; and 28:14).

In conclusion, although the internal evidence offers a limited understanding of the mysterious Hebrew term ‘אפים’, lectio difficilior and harmonisation suggest that ‘אפים’ or ‘face’ is likely the original reading.