Who Killed Goliath?
- Thread starter Starcrash
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nice post Starcrash. I'd contemplated earlier talking about this, now I won't have to. 
are you planning to start a thread about how John couldn't have written Revelation because he was beheaded by Herod decades earlier?
what is really the point of quoting antichrist websites, so others can respond by quoting apologetics websites?
you guys think that after thousands of years of people trying to discredit the scripture (and failing) that by bringing up some criticism (that's already been brought up and addressed thousands of times) you're going to "win" something?
"o we're teaching you to think for yourselves" -- by following atheist thinkers and parroting their skepticism. sure.
you know if you really believe that billions of people have been tricked by their brains into believing a lie, i don't know what makes you think your brain is any more trustworthy. flesh begets flesh.
Thus Saith Rachel, "**i am no longer posting in threads that get longer than ten pages**"
LOL. Should I swear off posting on threads longer than 1000 pages? Or threads which are in essence duplicates of the same topic now for the 14th time? Duplicate duplicate duplicates running at the same time? LOL.
I don't feel the urge to check out this claim at the moment, but it at least to me seems like a reasonable hypothesis. And it illustrates how IMHO, skeptics who don't want to believe God's Word, insist on finding contradictions where there is no necessary contradiction. Why prefer a lowpothesis to a hypothesis? None of us were there. But some of us hear God's voice in the Bible. We read and are immediately convicted that God is speaking. I don't know of any substitute for that. Is it not like looking at the sky & affirming or denying that the sky is blue? Now how long would one stand out under the hot sun & argue with a fool that the sky is blue? I advise the skeptic to read the Book; then affirm or deny at one's own peril.
Rachel, I give you a "Like" on this post.
LOL. Should I swear off posting on threads longer than 1000 pages? Or threads which are in essence duplicates of the same topic now for the 14th time? Duplicate duplicate duplicates running at the same time? LOL.
I don't feel the urge to check out this claim at the moment, but it at least to me seems like a reasonable hypothesis. And it illustrates how IMHO, skeptics who don't want to believe God's Word, insist on finding contradictions where there is no necessary contradiction. Why prefer a lowpothesis to a hypothesis? None of us were there. But some of us hear God's voice in the Bible. We read and are immediately convicted that God is speaking. I don't know of any substitute for that. Is it not like looking at the sky & affirming or denying that the sky is blue? Now how long would one stand out under the hot sun & argue with a fool that the sky is blue? I advise the skeptic to read the Book; then affirm or deny at one's own peril.
Rachel, I give you a "Like" on this post.
I'm not sure where you get this information about Elhanan from - as far as I know, this is the only place in the entire Bible where a Elhanan is mentioned. The idea of there being two different sources is also rather unlikely, given the virtually identical wording in the relevant passages in 2 Samuel and 1Chronicles - they're clearly working from the same text, most likely 1 Chron working from 2 Sam
It's only a problem if you require the text to read chronologically, or if the text requires itself to read chronologically. I'm not sure that it does. There's certainly nothing in the text that is an outright contradiction.
I'm not sure what relevance this point has to the question. Certainly, the LXX is itself based on earlier texts, most likely the MT or a descendant, rather than the LXX being the source for the MT. It's certainly just as likely, if not more likely, the longer reading was redacted, rather than the shorter reading enhanced (especially given 4QSama).
[quuote]The issue is probably resolved by recognizing that there were different traditions/sources recalling who killed Goliath. One pins it on David the other pins it on David's militia. The writer of Chronicles, writing much later towards the very end of the exile while 1-2 Sam is written much earlier, tries to resolve the difference in his retelling of Israel's history by saying that David's militia killed the brother of Goliath, while David himself killed Goliath.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that, while Samuel is dated earlier than Chronicles on internal evidence, the actual external evidence of the MSS is much less conclusive, and so date of composition is not of much help here in determining the correct reading (because your argument here assumes that both readings are original to both texts, when that is exactly the point under consideration). It seems far more likely to me, given the nature of the differences when examined in the Hebrew, and the otherwise very similar content of both 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel in this passage, that the issue is one of textual transmission, not of largely two independent traditions.
It's only a problem if you require the text to read chronologically, or if the text requires itself to read chronologically. I'm not sure that it does. There's certainly nothing in the text that is an outright contradiction.
I'm not sure what relevance this point has to the question. Certainly, the LXX is itself based on earlier texts, most likely the MT or a descendant, rather than the LXX being the source for the MT. It's certainly just as likely, if not more likely, the longer reading was redacted, rather than the shorter reading enhanced (especially given 4QSama).
[quuote]The issue is probably resolved by recognizing that there were different traditions/sources recalling who killed Goliath. One pins it on David the other pins it on David's militia. The writer of Chronicles, writing much later towards the very end of the exile while 1-2 Sam is written much earlier, tries to resolve the difference in his retelling of Israel's history by saying that David's militia killed the brother of Goliath, while David himself killed Goliath.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that, while Samuel is dated earlier than Chronicles on internal evidence, the actual external evidence of the MSS is much less conclusive, and so date of composition is not of much help here in determining the correct reading (because your argument here assumes that both readings are original to both texts, when that is exactly the point under consideration). It seems far more likely to me, given the nature of the differences when examined in the Hebrew, and the otherwise very similar content of both 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel in this passage, that the issue is one of textual transmission, not of largely two independent traditions.
Well, if you have certainly, would you mind sharing with us the indisputable proof? What is the certain proof that where the Greek OT differs from the MT, the difference is due to a variant Hebrew text instead of Alexandrian editing? Aside from producing a Hebrew text which corresponds to the Greek, how are you going to have certain proof?
The LXX is based on earlier texts by virtue of it being in Greek. Surely you're not going to argue that the OT was originally composed in Greek? I am of course, quite willing to accept that the LXX is based on a different textual base in the Hebrew than the MT, (indeed, I would say most of the variants in the LXX are probably not original to the LXX itself, but to earlier texts), but that's a slightly different issue. I think it's beyond argument, given points of comparison between the Qumran texts, the MT, and the LXX, that the LXX worked from multiple textual bases, or from a text that itself was derived from multiple textual bases.
The reason I give for why the variants are most likely (at least in general) not original to the Greek composition of the LXX but instead go back further is the existence of LXX readings in Hebrew manuscripts, most particularly the Qumran scrolls. These will often contain readings from the LXX, as well as MT readings, and less often readings not found in either of these traditions. So, while a given reading MAY be unique to the LXX, certainly not ALL are, and indeed MOST antedate the LXX text itself. Each reading needs to be take on a case by case basis, so if you want to argue for an Alexandrian rather than Hebrew edit of a reading, you will need to argue for that specific reading.
The reason I give for why the variants are most likely (at least in general) not original to the Greek composition of the LXX but instead go back further is the existence of LXX readings in Hebrew manuscripts, most particularly the Qumran scrolls. These will often contain readings from the LXX, as well as MT readings, and less often readings not found in either of these traditions. So, while a given reading MAY be unique to the LXX, certainly not ALL are, and indeed MOST antedate the LXX text itself. Each reading needs to be take on a case by case basis, so if you want to argue for an Alexandrian rather than Hebrew edit of a reading, you will need to argue for that specific reading.
Nik, to add another question, I don't know any way to prove that the Greek OT extant in 4th century AD manuscripts is the LXX. So far as I know, the only Greek OT we have before the NT is in fragments. So since we are basically discussing the Greek OT bound in codices with the NT, no earlier than 4th century AD, I prefer to call it the Greek OT, rather than the LXX.
The proof that I ask for is that when the Greek OT differs drastically from the MT, those drastic differences are due to a Hebrew text instead of Alexandrian editing: subtraction, emendation, re-organizing. Is there really any way to prove this without producing a corresponding Hebrew text?
This won't be proven or disproven by putting "surely you" questions to me. I am not arguing anything. I am asking for the one who made assertions to prove the assertions. Saying it is beyond argument proves nothing. Vague references to the DSS prove nothing.
Why not either give the proof or say "I don't know"?
The proof that I ask for is that when the Greek OT differs drastically from the MT, those drastic differences are due to a Hebrew text instead of Alexandrian editing: subtraction, emendation, re-organizing. Is there really any way to prove this without producing a corresponding Hebrew text?
This won't be proven or disproven by putting "surely you" questions to me. I am not arguing anything. I am asking for the one who made assertions to prove the assertions. Saying it is beyond argument proves nothing. Vague references to the DSS prove nothing.
Why not either give the proof or say "I don't know"?
This is a semantic question, but sure. Call it whatever you like. Often, the LXX is called the OG (Old Greek) anyway. Whether or not a witnesses is fragmentary is irrelevant - most of the NT Greek witness is fragmentary. What matters is what readings are common to which texts, and then if a fragmentary has a high correlation with another less fragmentary text, what the less fragmentary text might tell us about the original reading of the fragmentary one - two texts containing identical or very very close readings is highly suggestive of a genealogical relationship between texts, with the type and degree of variance suggesting the type or degree of relationship.
There are corresponding Hebrew texts, as I have said in my previous post, those from Qumran being perhaps one of the more prominent examples, though by no means the only ones. But the point I am making is NOT that all differences are from the Hebrew text, or that all differences are from the Alexandrian text. There is a mixture of both, and it matters very much which verses and which variants you are talking about. Which particular OT passage did you have in mind?
It would seem very much that you are arguing one of two things - either that such differences are Alexandrian rather than Hebraic in origin, or rather that we must be agnostic about the question. Are you telling me you have absolutely no position of your own on the nature of the relationship between the LXX and the MT? I'm not here for a rhetorical game of hide and seek - what is it that you are interested in proving or defending?
In any case, all I can say is, again, read my previous post. If you want a specific manuscript, go read 4Q119, or 4QSam[SUP]a[/SUP]. The first is a 2nd century BCE fragment of Leviticus in Greek, the second is a Hebrew MS dated around 50-25 BC of large parts of the Samuels, containing readings from both the LXX and the MT (mostly agreeing with the MT, but some distinctives with the LXX), as well as readings disagreeing with both. Between the two of these, it is quite easy to show that the LXX is not simply a corruption of the Masoretic/proto-Masoretic tradition, but contains readings from other Hebrew manuscripts, because those readings also appear in extant Hebrew MSS.
I am happy to walk you through a critical apparatus of 4Q119, or 4QSam[SUP]a, [/SUP]along with critical editions of the LXX and MT, to illustrate this specifically, but it will take up a lot of white space, and you might be better off doing it yourself, or using other people's pre-existing material. If you want somewhere to start, this paper might be good, if only because it bears directly on the question of the David Goliath story in 1 Samuel 17-18, which is what gave rise to this particular little argument of ours. It does also give examples of variants in the MT that disagree against 4QSam and the LXX, but also readings where the MT agrees with 4QSam against the LXX (and also times where everything, including LXX in the Vaticanus, disagrees with Antiochian LXX, but that's irrelevant to the present discussion). It doesn't address your concern specifically, but it does as part of its more specific objective.
There are corresponding Hebrew texts, as I have said in my previous post, those from Qumran being perhaps one of the more prominent examples, though by no means the only ones. But the point I am making is NOT that all differences are from the Hebrew text, or that all differences are from the Alexandrian text. There is a mixture of both, and it matters very much which verses and which variants you are talking about. Which particular OT passage did you have in mind?
It would seem very much that you are arguing one of two things - either that such differences are Alexandrian rather than Hebraic in origin, or rather that we must be agnostic about the question. Are you telling me you have absolutely no position of your own on the nature of the relationship between the LXX and the MT? I'm not here for a rhetorical game of hide and seek - what is it that you are interested in proving or defending?
In any case, all I can say is, again, read my previous post. If you want a specific manuscript, go read 4Q119, or 4QSam[SUP]a[/SUP]. The first is a 2nd century BCE fragment of Leviticus in Greek, the second is a Hebrew MS dated around 50-25 BC of large parts of the Samuels, containing readings from both the LXX and the MT (mostly agreeing with the MT, but some distinctives with the LXX), as well as readings disagreeing with both. Between the two of these, it is quite easy to show that the LXX is not simply a corruption of the Masoretic/proto-Masoretic tradition, but contains readings from other Hebrew manuscripts, because those readings also appear in extant Hebrew MSS.
I am happy to walk you through a critical apparatus of 4Q119, or 4QSam[SUP]a, [/SUP]along with critical editions of the LXX and MT, to illustrate this specifically, but it will take up a lot of white space, and you might be better off doing it yourself, or using other people's pre-existing material. If you want somewhere to start, this paper might be good, if only because it bears directly on the question of the David Goliath story in 1 Samuel 17-18, which is what gave rise to this particular little argument of ours. It does also give examples of variants in the MT that disagree against 4QSam and the LXX, but also readings where the MT agrees with 4QSam against the LXX (and also times where everything, including LXX in the Vaticanus, disagrees with Antiochian LXX, but that's irrelevant to the present discussion). It doesn't address your concern specifically, but it does as part of its more specific objective.
As far as him being a memebr of David's militia? I got that from the same passage
21:15 Another battle was fought between the Philistines and Israel. So David went down with his soldiersand fought the Philistines.
The whole passage at the end of ch21 recounts some encounters of David's militia.
I don't think you can justify the unliklihood of 2 sources based on a passage from Chronicles. Chronicles is writing later - much later. He's writing toward the end of the exilic period, and of course 1-2 Sam and 1-2 Kings (written possibly as much as several hundred years prior) are his primary sources, which means his work is not independent of them. What you have to posit is (a) that the Chronicler had some previous version of 1-2 Sam, that is now lost, where the reading of "brother of Goliath" was the reading found and (b) that said version was the original version of 1-2 Sam. You would have to do this in the face of the evidence - there is no evidence that the original reading of the passage in question read anything other than Elhanan killing Goliath. You have both the MT and the LXX (more on this below) agreeing in a passage that Elhanan killed Goliath.
How can you possibly assing a liklihood of there not being two sources based on Chronicles?
True. It does look to me that it's intended to be read chronologically. We start at David's discovery followed by his annointing, his difficulties with Saul, his becoming king, his battles, his marriages and sons, and his death. It looks chronological to me.
And you can reverse the order of the passages if you wish. Posit that 1 Sam 17 happens chronologically prior to 1 Sam 16 and you still have the same problem. It seems David is unknown and discovered by Saul twice and enters into Saul's service twice. This is easily understandable if there are two different sources recalling how Saul discovers David and how David enters into Saul's service.
The relevance is the LXX's independency of the MT in this passage. There is no evidence that the LXX is using the MT or a descendent of the MT (especially considering the relative dating of the LXX and MT). Tov, whose paper I linked to previously, and others argue that the LXX is based on an earlier Hebrew edition that circulated independently from
proto-MT editions. The DSS lend evidence to this position, where in many cases (Samuel being one of them) the Hebrew DSS will agree with an LXX reading over an MT reading. Quoting Tov's paper I linked to:
For the specific issue over Elhanan killing Goliath, you essentially have two different sources, the LXX and MT, which both say that Elhanan killed Goliath. So the evidence is strongly in favor of this being the original reading.
Fair point, but I think it doesn't carry much weight considering that even the textual transmission of 1-2 Sam, in the form of the LXX and MT traditions, indicates that the original reading was that Elhanan killed Goliath, not his brother. What you have to posit is that there is a Samuel source earlier than the Hebrew version the LXX was using and a version earlier than the proto-MT that read "brother of Goliath"; a version that remains undiscoverd at this point in time.
21:15 Another battle was fought between the Philistines and Israel. So David went down with his soldiersand fought the Philistines.
The whole passage at the end of ch21 recounts some encounters of David's militia.
I don't think you can justify the unliklihood of 2 sources based on a passage from Chronicles. Chronicles is writing later - much later. He's writing toward the end of the exilic period, and of course 1-2 Sam and 1-2 Kings (written possibly as much as several hundred years prior) are his primary sources, which means his work is not independent of them. What you have to posit is (a) that the Chronicler had some previous version of 1-2 Sam, that is now lost, where the reading of "brother of Goliath" was the reading found and (b) that said version was the original version of 1-2 Sam. You would have to do this in the face of the evidence - there is no evidence that the original reading of the passage in question read anything other than Elhanan killing Goliath. You have both the MT and the LXX (more on this below) agreeing in a passage that Elhanan killed Goliath.
How can you possibly assing a liklihood of there not being two sources based on Chronicles?
True. It does look to me that it's intended to be read chronologically. We start at David's discovery followed by his annointing, his difficulties with Saul, his becoming king, his battles, his marriages and sons, and his death. It looks chronological to me.
And you can reverse the order of the passages if you wish. Posit that 1 Sam 17 happens chronologically prior to 1 Sam 16 and you still have the same problem. It seems David is unknown and discovered by Saul twice and enters into Saul's service twice. This is easily understandable if there are two different sources recalling how Saul discovers David and how David enters into Saul's service.
The relevance is the LXX's independency of the MT in this passage. There is no evidence that the LXX is using the MT or a descendent of the MT (especially considering the relative dating of the LXX and MT). Tov, whose paper I linked to previously, and others argue that the LXX is based on an earlier Hebrew edition that circulated independently from
proto-MT editions. The DSS lend evidence to this position, where in many cases (Samuel being one of them) the Hebrew DSS will agree with an LXX reading over an MT reading. Quoting Tov's paper I linked to:
1. Confidence in the reliability of the LXX of Samuel has been
enhanced in recent years by the finds of Hebrew scrolls of Samuel in
Qumran. These scrolls contain many readings which had been
reconstructed previously from the LXX (either the mainstream or
LXXLuc). This situation thus gives the LXX more credibility in those
chapters of which no ancient Hebrew manuscripts have been found. At
the same time, the differences between MT and the reconstructed parent
text of the LXX are larger in 1 Samuel 17–18 than in any other section of
the book; nor do any of the Qumran scrolls differ as much from MT.
The only parallels showing similarly extensive divergence from MT
which come to mind are the large plus of 4QSama before the beginning
of 1 Samuel 11 (five lines) and the beginning of the second column of the
same scroll (1 Sam 2:13 ff.), which differs considerably from MT. (p 348)
enhanced in recent years by the finds of Hebrew scrolls of Samuel in
Qumran. These scrolls contain many readings which had been
reconstructed previously from the LXX (either the mainstream or
LXXLuc). This situation thus gives the LXX more credibility in those
chapters of which no ancient Hebrew manuscripts have been found. At
the same time, the differences between MT and the reconstructed parent
text of the LXX are larger in 1 Samuel 17–18 than in any other section of
the book; nor do any of the Qumran scrolls differ as much from MT.
The only parallels showing similarly extensive divergence from MT
which come to mind are the large plus of 4QSama before the beginning
of 1 Samuel 11 (five lines) and the beginning of the second column of the
same scroll (1 Sam 2:13 ff.), which differs considerably from MT. (p 348)
For the specific issue over Elhanan killing Goliath, you essentially have two different sources, the LXX and MT, which both say that Elhanan killed Goliath. So the evidence is strongly in favor of this being the original reading.
Fair point, but I think it doesn't carry much weight considering that even the textual transmission of 1-2 Sam, in the form of the LXX and MT traditions, indicates that the original reading was that Elhanan killed Goliath, not his brother. What you have to posit is that there is a Samuel source earlier than the Hebrew version the LXX was using and a version earlier than the proto-MT that read "brother of Goliath"; a version that remains undiscoverd at this point in time.
Last edited:
Ah, cool. Thanks for that.
The main problem is that what you are saying about 2 Samuel 19 could otherwise be said in reverse of the reading in 1 Chronicles - both the MT and LXX at that verse agree Elhanan son of Jair killed Goliath's brother, and there is, at least as far as I know, no (external) evidence the reading at 1 Chronicles 20:5 should say anything else. Out of all the OT, the extant MSS are probably thinnest in precisely 1-2Samuel, and the textual issues myriad (not least the long minus in 1 Sam 17 in the LXX, as Tov points out). At this point, your argument essentially relies on datings for the autographs in order to not cut both ways.
The internal evidence that should give us pause is the name Jaareoregim. Given there is no antecedent use of this name in Scripture, or anywhere or time afaik, this seems to me a clear case of parablesis, repeating the word from the end of the same verse, most likely in the same position on the lower line (the word 'weaver'), and that the original word is Jair, the reading found in the 1 Chronicles passage. So we already have a case of a variant, not the original, in the parallel verse in 2 Samuel 19. Whether this was a recent error relative to the MSS or is much older is irrelevant.
Having established that, it is also worth considering the other differences that exist in this verse, and to consider typographical reasons for these (the similarity of the Hebrew for 'brother' and the accusative sign, the relation of 'Bethlemite' to 'Lahmi'' typographically, etc) - there are reasons for suspecting typographical difficulties elsewhere in this passage as well. Of course, this is internal evidence, but the external evidence in the Samuel generally, but particularly this section, is pretty thin, and fairly unstable (I don't believe any of the editions from Qumran contained 2 Sam 21, though happy to be corrected), certainly relative to 1 Chronicles.While I'm willing to acknowledge it's hard to settle the case either way, it would seem to me to be far more problematic to suspect the earlier reading is that in 2 Samuel MSS, instead of 1 Chron MSS.[/quote]
I meant in the sense of their being an actual narrative tradition, saying that Elhan killed Goliath, and killed his brother - I think the reason for these differences is more likely typographical than narrative - if you simply meant textual traditions, I agree.
Again, this is probably one of the the most unstable passages textually in the OT. Again, literarily, there's no particular reason to assume the text requires a chronological reading, however, I'm also willing to accept there are two traditions behind the LXX and MT readings at this point that go back earlier than either.
I'll admit to not having studied the topic all that closely, but I do know the LXX rendition of the text misses a large part of the difficult reading of 1 Samuel 17 (although not all the problematic bits, which makes it strange as a deliberate redaction.) There's always the possibility that Saul simply didn't recognise David or forgot his name as one of his courtiers, that David came of age in the intervening period on returning home for a while, and looked unfamiliar - all of which are simply possibilities. But, again, it's hard to make distinct calls on the merits of the text as it stands. Two early and entirely distinct sources are quite possible, though, but I'm still not convinced how much that question should bear directly on the OP, as I'll address below.
As I recall, the textual issues surrouding 1 Samuel 16-18 have mostly to do with David's sojourn back home to the 'farm', rather than the actual confrontation with Goliath. The combat itself is in both the MT and the LXX.
As for the likes of 4QSamA, the LXX and MT, certainly there are many instances, particularly in 1 Samuel, where the LXX agrees with 4QSamA over the MT, but also occasions where 4QSamA disagrees with the LXX, both in Vaticanus and in the Byzantine versions, but with the MT. Now, certainly the LXX is arguably based on some independent MSS. But I think it's a stretch to say that is the case exclusively so, especially given the fact that the DSS texts have readings from both, and its own idiosyncratic readings.
Agreed, but again, It doesn't appear 'who killed Goliath' is one of the textual problems in these differences, at least on the basis of the MSS themselves. If you have an internal argument, go nuts.
But, again, you have the reverse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 : 'καὶ ἐπάταξεν Ελλαναν υἱὸς Ιαϊρ τὸν Λεεμι ἀδελφὸν Γολιαθ τοῦ Γεθθαίου'
I see where you're coming from, and if we solely go by external evidence, your argument carries wait. But I don't think we can ignore the internal issues in this verse in 2 Samuel 19. Again, both the LXX and MT have Jaareoregim (Αριωργιμ in the LXX, which is essentially a transliteration and certainly not Jair), which in the Hebrew seems a clear parableisis within the same verse (I cannot find any other attestation to this name anywhere). It would seem there are clear typographical issues around the same verse and scribe aside from the ones concerning a potential brother, unless you think Jaareoregim is the original name, and Jair is a redaction. If I am correct, and Jaareoregim is an error, that would seem to me to suggest that 1 Chronicle may well preserve a better reading in this verse than 2 Samuel, at least at that point.
The main problem is that what you are saying about 2 Samuel 19 could otherwise be said in reverse of the reading in 1 Chronicles - both the MT and LXX at that verse agree Elhanan son of Jair killed Goliath's brother, and there is, at least as far as I know, no (external) evidence the reading at 1 Chronicles 20:5 should say anything else. Out of all the OT, the extant MSS are probably thinnest in precisely 1-2Samuel, and the textual issues myriad (not least the long minus in 1 Sam 17 in the LXX, as Tov points out). At this point, your argument essentially relies on datings for the autographs in order to not cut both ways.
The internal evidence that should give us pause is the name Jaareoregim. Given there is no antecedent use of this name in Scripture, or anywhere or time afaik, this seems to me a clear case of parablesis, repeating the word from the end of the same verse, most likely in the same position on the lower line (the word 'weaver'), and that the original word is Jair, the reading found in the 1 Chronicles passage. So we already have a case of a variant, not the original, in the parallel verse in 2 Samuel 19. Whether this was a recent error relative to the MSS or is much older is irrelevant.
Having established that, it is also worth considering the other differences that exist in this verse, and to consider typographical reasons for these (the similarity of the Hebrew for 'brother' and the accusative sign, the relation of 'Bethlemite' to 'Lahmi'' typographically, etc) - there are reasons for suspecting typographical difficulties elsewhere in this passage as well. Of course, this is internal evidence, but the external evidence in the Samuel generally, but particularly this section, is pretty thin, and fairly unstable (I don't believe any of the editions from Qumran contained 2 Sam 21, though happy to be corrected), certainly relative to 1 Chronicles.While I'm willing to acknowledge it's hard to settle the case either way, it would seem to me to be far more problematic to suspect the earlier reading is that in 2 Samuel MSS, instead of 1 Chron MSS.[/quote]
I meant in the sense of their being an actual narrative tradition, saying that Elhan killed Goliath, and killed his brother - I think the reason for these differences is more likely typographical than narrative - if you simply meant textual traditions, I agree.
Again, this is probably one of the the most unstable passages textually in the OT. Again, literarily, there's no particular reason to assume the text requires a chronological reading, however, I'm also willing to accept there are two traditions behind the LXX and MT readings at this point that go back earlier than either.
I'll admit to not having studied the topic all that closely, but I do know the LXX rendition of the text misses a large part of the difficult reading of 1 Samuel 17 (although not all the problematic bits, which makes it strange as a deliberate redaction.) There's always the possibility that Saul simply didn't recognise David or forgot his name as one of his courtiers, that David came of age in the intervening period on returning home for a while, and looked unfamiliar - all of which are simply possibilities. But, again, it's hard to make distinct calls on the merits of the text as it stands. Two early and entirely distinct sources are quite possible, though, but I'm still not convinced how much that question should bear directly on the OP, as I'll address below.
As I recall, the textual issues surrouding 1 Samuel 16-18 have mostly to do with David's sojourn back home to the 'farm', rather than the actual confrontation with Goliath. The combat itself is in both the MT and the LXX.
As for the likes of 4QSamA, the LXX and MT, certainly there are many instances, particularly in 1 Samuel, where the LXX agrees with 4QSamA over the MT, but also occasions where 4QSamA disagrees with the LXX, both in Vaticanus and in the Byzantine versions, but with the MT. Now, certainly the LXX is arguably based on some independent MSS. But I think it's a stretch to say that is the case exclusively so, especially given the fact that the DSS texts have readings from both, and its own idiosyncratic readings.
But, again, you have the reverse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 : 'καὶ ἐπάταξεν Ελλαναν υἱὸς Ιαϊρ τὸν Λεεμι ἀδελφὸν Γολιαθ τοῦ Γεθθαίου'
I see where you're coming from, and if we solely go by external evidence, your argument carries wait. But I don't think we can ignore the internal issues in this verse in 2 Samuel 19. Again, both the LXX and MT have Jaareoregim (Αριωργιμ in the LXX, which is essentially a transliteration and certainly not Jair), which in the Hebrew seems a clear parableisis within the same verse (I cannot find any other attestation to this name anywhere). It would seem there are clear typographical issues around the same verse and scribe aside from the ones concerning a potential brother, unless you think Jaareoregim is the original name, and Jair is a redaction. If I am correct, and Jaareoregim is an error, that would seem to me to suggest that 1 Chronicle may well preserve a better reading in this verse than 2 Samuel, at least at that point.
Last edited:
I agree the original name was certainly Jair. It looks to me like the Chronicler was trying to make corrections to issues he found in his sources. As you point out, there is good reason to think that Jaareoregim was one of the things he corrected, and rightfully so. He probably did the same sort of thing in saying that Elhnan killed Goliath's brother rather than Goliath, especiallly since there is textual evidence for the reading "Elhnan...killed Goliath." Throughout his work, the Chronicler seems to have glossed over things and attempted to correct things he thought needed correcting; the conflict over who killed Goliath seems to me to be one of those.
I do agree that this is at least possible, and I think I acknowledged it in my initial response on the thread.
Unless I missed it, I don't think 2 Sam 21 survived at Qumran. And sure, these passages (especially 1 Sam 16-18) are some of the most notoriously difficult in the OT as far as transmission and composition issues are concerned. I wouldn't stake my life either way, though I do think there were two seperate traditions of how David met Saul and who killed Goliath.
Fair enough. I think it was intended to be read more or less chronologically, and irregardless of the chronological ordering, it still appears David meets Saul and enters into Saul's service twice.
Ok. I just think it unlikely that Saul wouldn't recognize his armor bearer and the guy who soothed his bad moods by playing a lyre. I also think it unlikely that the king's armor bearer would have been absent from a battle when it's his job to carry the armor.
Fair enough. Our respective hard evidences run thin at this point and require some inference that's difficult, and becomes much more complex, to argue either way.
There is no problem in the extant textual tradition, since according to those traditions, Elhnan kills Goliath in 2 Sam. I was simply arguing that the LXX and MT represented independent textual traditions both saying that Elhnan killed Goliath.
Fair point. And I don't discount the possibility that there is a scribal error there in 2 Sam 19, and it's not totally without warrant if you think there is, I would just need more evidence to conclude that. If such evidence ever popped up, I could change my mind.
In any case, regarding the original poster, I guess he thought Christians had only very superfically considered these things? Or maybe his audience was only those people who hadn't really thought much about this? But what fun is there in that? I wonder what his thoughts are on our two views?
I do agree that this is at least possible, and I think I acknowledged it in my initial response on the thread.
Unless I missed it, I don't think 2 Sam 21 survived at Qumran. And sure, these passages (especially 1 Sam 16-18) are some of the most notoriously difficult in the OT as far as transmission and composition issues are concerned. I wouldn't stake my life either way, though I do think there were two seperate traditions of how David met Saul and who killed Goliath.
Fair enough. I think it was intended to be read more or less chronologically, and irregardless of the chronological ordering, it still appears David meets Saul and enters into Saul's service twice.
Ok. I just think it unlikely that Saul wouldn't recognize his armor bearer and the guy who soothed his bad moods by playing a lyre. I also think it unlikely that the king's armor bearer would have been absent from a battle when it's his job to carry the armor.
Fair enough. Our respective hard evidences run thin at this point and require some inference that's difficult, and becomes much more complex, to argue either way.
There is no problem in the extant textual tradition, since according to those traditions, Elhnan kills Goliath in 2 Sam. I was simply arguing that the LXX and MT represented independent textual traditions both saying that Elhnan killed Goliath.
Fair point. And I don't discount the possibility that there is a scribal error there in 2 Sam 19, and it's not totally without warrant if you think there is, I would just need more evidence to conclude that. If such evidence ever popped up, I could change my mind.
In any case, regarding the original poster, I guess he thought Christians had only very superfically considered these things? Or maybe his audience was only those people who hadn't really thought much about this? But what fun is there in that? I wonder what his thoughts are on our two views?
G
The issue is not one of contradiction. The issue here is that there are multiple textual issues that stem from the transmission of the text... of course, scribes do make errors when copying texts. Some folks here on the forums have touched only vaguely on the issue, but you can find a more complete treatment of the issue here.
Last edited:
Wait. So I'v got this right. You reckon the reading that the Chronicler had available to him was JaareOregim (in other words, he was working from something essentially identical to our
MSS of 2 Samuel), not Jair in what MSS he had, and he (correctly) as it turns out, recognised the error and changed it back. You therefore think this is what he did with brother, although it is not clear to you that brother is the original reading, unlike Jair. Is that correct?
What is your basis for preferring that, instead of thinking the more straightforward solution, which is that a scribe had an MS reading Jair? I notice you make a reference to a rading of "Elhanan... killed Goliath". Can you cite an MS and also explain a little bit more about why this supports your take? The textual witness on this point in 1 Chronicles is unanimous, and obviously we're discussing MSS closer to their autographs than 2 Samuel.
And I reckon youre last statement is presuppositional - the point of this discussion is whether the Chronicler had a separate witness to the current MSS of 2 Samuel (either in earlier 2 Sam MSS, or a proto-2Samuel, or some other line of text), or whether he just made wholesale editorial changes in light of the difficult readings in 2 Samuel.
I am happy to think there is a reasonable probability there are two separate traditions of David met Saul. It seems, however, less likely in the case of who killed Goliath, and the resulting MSS are explained best by typographical errors. Again, there are clear scribal errors in 2 Samuel 21:19, and neither the MT nor LXX are absent the battle between David and Goliath in 2 Sam 17. So no matter which MSS you care to call for 2 Samuel, they contain both David killing Goliath, and Elhanan killing Goliath, with some obvious scribal problems in an otherwise brief reading in the latter case
Sure. Again, I am happy to think there are probably two traditions surrounding this passage. It's also striking to me that Saul only explicitly prevents David from returning to his father's house in Chapter 18, despite the intervening battle with Goliath that appears in all sources. Was David just part time? Or are there potentially other textual issues with chapter 17 or the beginning of chapter 18? It's not clear.
I think my point was that the LXX and MT MSS are unanimous that DAvid kills Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. The MT and the LXX MSS are unanimous that the Chronicler wrote Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. The fact that the MT and LXX represent individual traditions in several places does not diminish the fact that they both work from a similar source for much of their material, quite likely Chron working from Sam (similar to the synoptic problem of Mark, Mathew, Luke). However, obviously there are not readings shared by both, so the question then is to work out how those readings arose. But my point is that the LXX and MT do not uniformly represent two entirely different traditions, and even those differences do not actually always represent a real living narrative tradition, and could equally be typographical in nature.
Well, you've already agreed Jarreoregim is originally a scribal error, yes? That would seem to me to alter the balance, unless you have a specific response to by question in the very first par of this post. In any case, I'm not really suggesting you must conclude it originally read brother. But I think the internal evidences and the uniformity of the tradition in Chronicles and the tradition of DAvid in Goliath in ch.17 of 1 Sam raised are sufficiently strong to question the conclusion that 2 Sam originally read that Elhanan killed Goliath.
Well, an awful lot of people in the thread seem to be in the 'not though about it' camp. But, to be fair, for the most part it doesn't matter all that much for most part, and doesn't affect all that much if you do make yourself aware of text critical approach. But yeah, we'll see what Starcrash thinks.
MSS of 2 Samuel), not Jair in what MSS he had, and he (correctly) as it turns out, recognised the error and changed it back. You therefore think this is what he did with brother, although it is not clear to you that brother is the original reading, unlike Jair. Is that correct?
What is your basis for preferring that, instead of thinking the more straightforward solution, which is that a scribe had an MS reading Jair? I notice you make a reference to a rading of "Elhanan... killed Goliath". Can you cite an MS and also explain a little bit more about why this supports your take? The textual witness on this point in 1 Chronicles is unanimous, and obviously we're discussing MSS closer to their autographs than 2 Samuel.
And I reckon youre last statement is presuppositional - the point of this discussion is whether the Chronicler had a separate witness to the current MSS of 2 Samuel (either in earlier 2 Sam MSS, or a proto-2Samuel, or some other line of text), or whether he just made wholesale editorial changes in light of the difficult readings in 2 Samuel.
I am happy to think there is a reasonable probability there are two separate traditions of David met Saul. It seems, however, less likely in the case of who killed Goliath, and the resulting MSS are explained best by typographical errors. Again, there are clear scribal errors in 2 Samuel 21:19, and neither the MT nor LXX are absent the battle between David and Goliath in 2 Sam 17. So no matter which MSS you care to call for 2 Samuel, they contain both David killing Goliath, and Elhanan killing Goliath, with some obvious scribal problems in an otherwise brief reading in the latter case
Sure. Again, I am happy to think there are probably two traditions surrounding this passage. It's also striking to me that Saul only explicitly prevents David from returning to his father's house in Chapter 18, despite the intervening battle with Goliath that appears in all sources. Was David just part time? Or are there potentially other textual issues with chapter 17 or the beginning of chapter 18? It's not clear.
I think my point was that the LXX and MT MSS are unanimous that DAvid kills Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. The MT and the LXX MSS are unanimous that the Chronicler wrote Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. The fact that the MT and LXX represent individual traditions in several places does not diminish the fact that they both work from a similar source for much of their material, quite likely Chron working from Sam (similar to the synoptic problem of Mark, Mathew, Luke). However, obviously there are not readings shared by both, so the question then is to work out how those readings arose. But my point is that the LXX and MT do not uniformly represent two entirely different traditions, and even those differences do not actually always represent a real living narrative tradition, and could equally be typographical in nature.
Well, you've already agreed Jarreoregim is originally a scribal error, yes? That would seem to me to alter the balance, unless you have a specific response to by question in the very first par of this post. In any case, I'm not really suggesting you must conclude it originally read brother. But I think the internal evidences and the uniformity of the tradition in Chronicles and the tradition of DAvid in Goliath in ch.17 of 1 Sam raised are sufficiently strong to question the conclusion that 2 Sam originally read that Elhanan killed Goliath.
Well, an awful lot of people in the thread seem to be in the 'not though about it' camp. But, to be fair, for the most part it doesn't matter all that much for most part, and doesn't affect all that much if you do make yourself aware of text critical approach. But yeah, we'll see what Starcrash thinks.