Steven Avery

This is getting repetitive. You like to call the similarities as "laughable". Considering their huge amount of inter-dependence I see that response as simply being a function of your hostility to the text itself. To avoid the simple case of many similarities and many differences, you have to create a whole nother scenario with virtually zilch evidence.

Sort of a strange request from somebody who declares ""we have no real handle on the Philistine onomasticon.". If we have no handle, then ANY presumption is tenuous at best. What is clearly false is your earlier insistence that Goliath is only a proper name, and not a family or descriptive name. You falsely made a conjectural leap in that insistance, and your own words refuted your own claims.

Thanks for the reference. I have sent Professor Schiffman an inquiry as to his views.

The DSS Genesis 4:8 does not have the extra phrase you want to interpolate into the text.

(snip more Goliath repetitiion.. discussed above.. you were the one who made the restricted assertion of the Philistine usage of Goliath being a "proper name" and could not be a family or descriptive name, and we have since seen, by your own words, that this was a restriction of ignorance)

Your adducing is sheer cloth, which is why I don't spend much time on it .. a charade of textual and logical complications, a maximal mishegas, and all because you can't handle a very simple concept that the Samuel 21 reference was to the brother of Goliath.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

Since the subject matter of this discussion -- David and Goliath etc. -- has little to do with the title of this thread, I have started a new thread with a more appropriate title and begun by consolidating much of the evidence for my position. Click here for the new thread.

Indeed, there are even more interdependences in the Rudolf example I proffered.

It would perhaps be false if you could adduce a smidgen of evidence. By the way... How would you translate the Hebrew galyat shemo?

While you are at it, you might also ask him what he thinks about the Christian practice of reading Jesus into the Tanakh.

The LXX does. But so what? The phrase evidently fell out of the text very early on.

It is naive in the extreme to presuppose that two stories about the same character could not propagate simultaneously. Indeed, it is willfully obtuse.

We might as well continue this discussion in the new thread.