Steven Avery

As to the first part, there are a number of Goliaths actually, as I recall, and I will check later as to whether you are really indicating a textual difficulty or just using glasses. I agree that the 2 Samuel 21:19 verses is one of the most fascinating textual/translation issues, maybe we can discuss it more later.

Thanks for catching that.

Apples and oranges. The texts of the MT rarely conflict in significant ways, while in the DSS you can have radically different texts in two caves.

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

Apikorus

Ah, yes, the old "multiple Goliaths" canard, in which we are to believe that there were several characters who were (a) named Goliath, that (b) were Philistines, and (c) from Gath, and (d) living at the time of David, and (e) who did battle with David and/or David's men, and (f) who were described by the exact same particular language, "the shaft of his spear was as thick as a weaver's beam."

Exceedingly plausible. Nay, divinely so.

Does this mean you concede that, in rare instances, the MT does "conflict in significant ways"?

We Jooz say Shabbat shalom. Is saying it backwards some messianic thang? At any rate, Shabbat shalom gam lekha.

Apikorus

praxeus, have you wisely abandoned pursuing this "multiple goliaths" line?

Notsri

There's IMO a fairly plausible explanation for the contradictions in the Hebrew text.

The problem most probably lies with the transmission of 2Sam 21:19, where Elhanan ben Yaare-Oregim is said to have killed Goliath. 1Sam 17 presumably preserves with accuracy the tradition of Goliath's death at the hands of David, while 1Chron 20:5 likely also preserves with accuracy the tradition of Lahmi's death at the hands of Elhanan ben Yair. We should imagine that 2Sam 21:19 once read (aproximately) the same as 1Chron 20:5.

The Hebrew from 1Chron 20:5 has [with (=aleph; )=ayin; x=chet; th=tav]:

wyk (lxnn bn-y)wr
(th lxmy (xy glyth

...while the Hebrew from 2Sam 21:19 says:

wyk (lxnn bn-y)ry (rgym
byth hlxmy (th glyth

A copyist of 2Sam 21:19 has, first of all, probably confused Elhanan ben Yair (1Chron 20:5) with an officer of David's, Elhanan the Bethlehemite (2Sam. 23:24). That would account for the fact that 2Sam 21:19 inserts "the Bethlehemite" (beit hallahmi) where 1Chron 20:5 has "Lahmi" (et lahmi).

2Sam 21:19 has also changed 1Chron 20:5's 'hy glyth, "brother of Goliath," to 'th glyth, "Goliath," with the chet from "brother" changed to a tav, and with the yod dropped altogether.

The "Oregim" of 2Sam 21:19's "Elhanan ben Yaare-Oregim" (1Chron 20:5: "Elhanan ben Yair") can probably be explained by dittography, where oregim, "weaver's rod," appears also in the succeeding portion of the same verse.

In any event, the above basically derives from J.B. Payne's commentary on 1 & 2 Chron. I have no idea how to reach him, so I guess the cookie you offered will have to go unclaimed .

Regards,
Notsri

Apikorus

This is a nice clear post, and it gets us somewhat closer to the truth of the matter. For starters, it admits multiple corruptions in the MT of 2 Sam.

I have seen this analysis before (Gleason Archer?) and overall there is much to commend in it. In response I would say the following. First of all, the default assumption should be that Chronicles is harmonizing a conflict in the Deuteronomistic History. This is fairly common in Chronicles, which is a relatively late post-exilic priestly gloss on the DH. We can argue this point in a separate thread, if anyone should so desire. Of course it is possible that 2 Sam 21 was corrupted after the writing of Chronicles, as Payne might argue.

Now, regarding the possible corruption of 2 Sam 21:19, one place to start is with Elhanan's patronym. As Notsri points out, 2 Sam 21:19 refers to elhanan ben yaare-oregim while 2 Sam 23:24 refers to elhanan ben dodo. Now first of all it is possible that these are different characters -- after all, they have different patronyms. However, they are both from Bethlehem, so our suspicion should be aroused. Except Elhanan's origin in 23:34 is itself suspicious, since the MT there reads BYT LXm and not BYT HLXMY. This is notable because the others of David's guard are listed as elika hacharodi, ira ben-iqesh hat'ko'i, mah'rai han'tofati, etc.. We should expect, then elchanan ben-dodo beit halachmi. Indeed, throughout 1 and 2 Samuel, the term used to indicate Bethlehem as town of origin is either BYT HLXMY = "Bethlehemite" (1 Sam 16:1,18 ; 17:58) or else MBYT LXm = "from Bethlehem". But never a bare "BYT LXm". So I am a tad suspicious of Bethlehem as the origin of elhanan ben dodo in 2 Sam 23:24.

Another problem I have with Payne's analysis is the proposed haplography in which achi in 1 Chr 20:5 becomes et in 2 Sam 21:19. First of all, it requires two orthographical changes, as Notsri himself described. Second, the particle et is functional in 2 Sam 21:19, as it introduces a direct object (galyat). Indeed, the particle also appears in 1 Chr 20:5 (...et-lahmi...). So in my estimation, AXY --> ATY --> AT is untenable here. I think it more likely that the author of Chronicles conjured up the name lahmi from the term beit halachmi in 2 Sam 21:19 rather than the scheme Payne suggests.

Finally, I think the entire story of David and Goliath in 1 Sam is secondary, while the story of David's heroes in 2 Sam 21 is original. Note that 2 Sam 21:22 refers to the "four born to the rafa in Gath". Who are these four? They were: ishbi b'nov (21:16), saf (21:18), galyat (21:19), and ish madon (21:20) -- all present and accounted for.

Now one might ask: who or what was the rafa? We don't really know how to translate this term. Plausibly, we might render it as "giant." Now it would be strange for David to have already slain a giant from Gath, as he does Goliath in 1 Sam 17 -- remember David is an old man who is nearly killed in 2 Sam 21:16 -- and not to have this Goliath referred to in this pericope. Nor does it work to identify David's victim as the rafa, since then the Goliath of 21:19 would be the former Goliath's son and not his brother. Too many Goliaths!

Now in closing I will say that the one part of Payne's analysis which is compelling is his argument regarding the term or'gim. It is strange that Elhanan's patronym should involve this term, which also appears in the description of Goliath's spear. However, if we accept that this is the original reference to Goliath, then it might not be so strange after all, and indeed might be attributed to literary artistry or irony. That is, Elhanan's father was associated with weavers, and the description of the thickness of Goliath's spear simply evokes this association. It would be like writing, "Middleweight contender Bob Jones, the son of a trucker, knocked out champion Bubba Smith, whose right hook carries the momentum of a Mack Truck." I will admit that yaarei is strange here, and it makes sense that the resh and yod were transposed at some point, so that Elhanan's father was Yair. Finally, I don't see is how parablepsis could be responsible for the repetition of or'gim, since none of the surrounding words are remotely similar in the two instances.

Steven Avery

Not at all. I mentioned it once, and having gotten to my notes, been busy on other threads :-) Shalom Shabbat

Steven Avery

Nope

The issue of 2 Samuel 21:19 interlinks the issues of multiple Goliaths, parallel accounts, a Hebrew Tanach ellipsis and an expanded English translation for clarity.

Now Notsri has already shown you some information about the multiple Goliaths, however I want to discuss it straight from the texts, and not the view of theories that themselves tend to assume redaction and scribal errors.

2 Samuel 21:19
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,
where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite,
slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,
the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

(You can clearly see the italics/small print for the KJB 1611 at ...
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=431 )

Parallel Account

1 Chronicles 20:5 -
And there was war again with the Philistines;
and Elhanan the son of Jair slew *Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite*,
whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

Probably it is best to discuss first the multiple Goliaths, since I gather there are folks here that think there was only one Goliath, even though that does not at all fit the Tanach text. If the multiple and differing Goliaths ("giants", and/or a title or family name, take your choice) is not the reference point, if the simple factual truth of the accounts is not accepted, then of course the exegesis will falter, and then folks will start looking for 'scribal error' explanations.

Error begets error.
Conceptual error begets supposed scribal error.

Let's start with a couple folks who give simple expositions of the verses.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=954 - Bob Deffinbaugh
B. Defeat of Philistines--David & His Giant-Killers: David and his men had victory over the previously undefeated "giants" of Gath from the Philistines 21:15-22
1. David, The Giant Ishbi-benob, and Abishai: 21:15-17
2. Sibbechai and the Giant Saph: 21:18
3. Elhanan (David) and the Giant Goliath: 21:19
4. Jonathan and the Giant of Six Fingers and Six Toes: 21:20-21
5. Summary: These four were from the family of the giant Gath and were
defeated by David and his servants 21:22

Mostly agreeing with this would be the article at
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/goliath2.htm

Similarly on b-hebrew Karl Randolph pointed out some of the reasons why the 21:19 event would be different than David's best known Goliath slaying.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ry/022337.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ry/022339.html
"The stories of the killings are so different that it raises more questions to combine them than to allow that two different individuals shared the same name. The first was years before David ascended the throne, the second after David was aging and declining in strength, the first David stepped boldly out where the army feared to tread, the second after the army commanded David not to step out on the field of battle, and so forth. Is it possible that the second Golaith was a son of the first? It sounds as if enough years passed between the two killings to make it possible."

And this post expands upon the many differences referenced by Karl.
http://crossandflame.com/forum/viewt...b6ae4e6ceaf6ef
StillSmall Voice
" I Samuel 17: This is very early in David's career, way before he becomes King or even becomes a fighter. He initially appears in far less a role than his older soldier brothers. King Saul has a very prominent role in the story. Goliath poses the key challenge of 17:8-9; there is the lengthy stand-off between rival Israelite and Philistine armies. The site of the confrontation is the Elah Valley ... David beheads Goliath with the latter's own sword, which David carries off as a trophy & eventually gets back from High Priest Ahimelekh ...

II Samuel 21:19: This is very late in David's career, long after he has become sole king of a united kingdom, and after his men beseeched an aging king not to take a personal part in actual combat in Israel's wars. His brothers are not mentioned. Saul is not mentioned. There is no hint of any personal challenge from Goliath. There is no hint of any stand-off between rival Israelite & Philistine armies. The site of the confrontation is Gob. The only weapon mentioned in connection with Goliath is a spear; there is no reference to any beheading.

Two different events."
====

So any scribal and textual integrity view would first see the 2 Samuel 21 event as different protaganists than the 1 Samuel 17 event. Hopefully we can get an amen to that before going more into more on the textual/errancy/translation question of 2 Samuel 21:19.
=======

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

PS.
Back to the multiple Goliaths, here are some of the scriptures.

2 Samuel 21:22
These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants. (1 Chronicles 20:8)

2 Samuel 21:16-17
And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succored him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him

2 Samuel 21:18
And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. (1 Chronicles 20:4)

2 Samuel 21::20-21
And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him. (1 Chronicles 20:6-7)

Apikorus

I'm still awaiting an indication of multiple Goliaths, i.e. multiple characters with the name galyat.

From what I can tell, Notsri does not hold for multiple Goliaths. Rather, he holds for a scribal error in 2 Sam 21:19. He reiterates the argument of Payne and Archer, which says that 2 Sam 21:19 originally had Elhanan killing Goliath's brother, Lahmi, and that the descriptive phrase "the shaft of his spear..." was describing Goliath. I have already explained why this is untenable.

Incidentally, which text of the Hebrew Bible is the perfect one? BH? BHS? Leningrad? Bomberg? Qoren?

Steven Avery

Api.. are you playing, or is it hard for you to understand that the sons of Goliath, such as a man of "great stature" with extra fingers and toes, or who have the 300 shekel brass spear, are "Goliaths"? And/or of the Goliath family ? This is spelled out in the verses I gave you in this post..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9&postcount=98

And meanwhile you don't even discuss the radical differences in the two major accounts that we are discussing, since it is so clear they are different protaganists, times, events.

Notsri agrees they are two separate incidents, and both use Goliath.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...5&postcount=85
"'1Sam 17 presumably preserves with accuracy the tradition of Goliath's death at the hands of David, while 1Chron 20:5 likely also preserves with accuracy the tradition of Lahmi's death at the hands of Elhanan ben Yair. We should imagine that 2Sam 21:19 once read (aproximately) the same as 1Chron 20:5."

Two different events, and he has the Elhanan event is a Goliath event...

"2Sam 21:19 has also changed 1Chron 20:5's 'hy glyth, "brother of Goliath," to 'th glyth, "Goliath,' "

It's not my theory, and you may well be right that the convoluted scribal error theories are untenable. Often they are.

Please understand that a person can understand multiple Goliaths and still muck around in arcane scribal textual convolution error theories, as Notsri and the commentaries did in his post.

My view is simply that the text is correct as is, and no verse has been redacted or scribal-errored. The Hebrew doesn't even have a minority reading.

In fact this is a good example of a supposed 'hard case' for true inerrancy, and two radically divergent undersandings of the text... true inerrancy versus weak pseudo-inerrancy (the supposed inerrantists who work with the multiple competing scribal error theories).

Hard case issues and challenges are often very substantive. Professor Robinson addressed two hard cases in an incredible article on Byzantine Priority issues, responding to a challenge by Gordon Fee. On textual matters it is often pretty clear what are the hard cases.

Did I ever say that I view one extant text of the Hebrew Bible as "the perfect one ?" The best text is likely the Ben Hayim Masoretic Text (from Bomberg), the Received Text, although it has some variations in editions.

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

Apikorus

I see no mention of the sons of Goliath in the text. Could you indicate where this occurs?

By the way, how many brothers did David have?