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.
Ah, cool. Thanks for that.
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.
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]
How can you possibly assing a liklihood of there not being two sources based on Chronicles?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
But, again, you have the reverse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 :
'καὶ ἐπάταξεν Ελλαναν υἱὸς Ιαϊρ τὸν Λεεμι ἀδελφὸν Γολιαθ τοῦ Γεθθαίου'
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.
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.