David of course. What Christian child doesn't know the story of David and Goliath? 1 Samuel 17 very clearly states that David killed Goliath with a shot to his head with a stone:
ESV 1 Samuel 17:48 When the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.But then why does 2 Samuel 21:19 say this:
ESV 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
A clue to what might have happened can be found in:
ESV 1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
Here's an article that attempts to explain the differences between 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5, blaming it on a scribal error.
I find it odd though that a scribe wouldn't know that Goliath was killed by David. Wouldn't he have caught such a glaring mistake as that?
(via)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I actually like what Adele Berlin has said about the MT in her Anchor Bible commentary volume on Zephaniah (page 24):
The MT is privileged not only because it is the only fully preserved Hebrew text, but because it is the textus receptus, the accepted text of the Jewish and Protestant communities. Even the Roman Catholic Church, in which the Latin Vulgate continues to be the official "authentic" edition of the Bible, has come to accept the MT as the basis of study for the protocanonical books of the Old Testament.
So even among Catholics, the MT has canonical status. (The LXX is the accepted text of the Eastern Orthodox Church.)
Textual critics have often assumed that the original Hebrew text of the Bible is retrievable or reconstructible, and they have set the reconstruction of the original text as their goal. But despite the considerable erudition brought to bear by textual critics, their reconstructions of the original Hebrew text remain hypothetical - educated guesses - and must remain so until actual written evidence of earlier stages of the Hebrew Bible is discovered.
For example, in a previous generation, there was a widespread tendency to emend hitqosesu, "gather together" in Zeph 2:1 - most commonly to hitbosesu, "be ashamed of yourselves," or to hitqaddesu, "sanctify yourselves" (as in BHK). More recent commentaries have been less eager to emend, and have sought to interpret the given form (notice that BHS does not propose an emendation). This, and numerous examples of the same type throughout the Bible, suggests that textual criticism is not built on quite so sure a foundation as one might have supposed. It also suggests that regardless of claims about the priority that textual criticism should take over exegesis, the two procedures are not so easily disengageable. Emendations reflect the exegesis of the emender; emendation is the process of rewriting the text to make it say what the exegete thinks it meant to say or should have said.
[F]ewer emendations are made nowadays, largely, I think, as a reaction to the excesses of previous times in which a scholar's reputation was often enhanced by the cleverness of his emendations. In a reversal of the past trend, today's scholars see greater merit in finding an explanation for the words that are present than in substituting others of similar spelling.
And I appreciate that the Jewish Study Bible footnotes whenever the Hebrew is uncertain.
Of course the New Testament is completely different! :-)
attempts to explain the differences between 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5
Rather, between 2 Samuel 17:48 and 2 Samuel 21:19. That is, 1 Chronicles 20:5 is an attempt at fixing the tradition. Don't neglect the testimony of Psalm 151, either! -
This Psalm is ascribed to David and is outside the number. When he slew Goliath in single combat.
I read something related to this last night in the comments to an old iMonk post:
"So I dug out the first-semester Old Testament example of David’s census — Yahweh convinced him to do it in 2 Samuel 24, and Satan in 1 Chronicles 21."
(And I ended up linking on Facebook to the Daniel Wallace interview.)
I'm sensitive to this because of the Bible study materials put out by Jeff Cavins which intentionally doesn't cover Chronicles With the fate of Manasseh on my mind (his prayer), I asked them why Chronicles was left off and was told that since Chronicles simply repeats material in Samuel and Kings, why bother about it?
Grrrrugh.
attempts to explain the differences between 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5
Rather, between 2 Samuel 17:48 and 2 Samuel 21:19. That is, 1 Chronicles 20:5 is an attempt at fixing the tradition. Don't neglect the testimony of Psalm 151, either! -
This Psalm is ascribed to David and is outside the number. When he slew Goliath in single combat.
I read something related to this last night in the comments to an old iMonk post:
"So I dug out the first-semester Old Testament example of David’s census — Yahweh convinced him to do it in 2 Samuel 24, and Satan in 1 Chronicles 21."
(And I ended up linking on Facebook to the Daniel Wallace interview.)
I'm sensitive to this because of the Bible study materials put out by Jeff Cavins which intentionally doesn't cover Chronicles With the fate of Manasseh on my mind (his prayer), I asked them why Chronicles was left off and was told that since Chronicles simply repeats material in Samuel and Kings, why bother about it?
Grrrrugh.
OK, I worked through Dr. Michael S. Heiser's hypothetical explanation and come away with the feeling of "what a stupid scribe." Unsatisfying.
Oh, look, I have the Jewish Study Bible right here ... let's see what it says about David & Goliath:
Note on 1 Sam. 17:4 - "The name Goliath is mentioned only here and in v. 23. Otherwise the man is always called The Philistine. Perhaps he was initially anonymous, and his name was added later from 2 Samuel 21:19."
Note on 2 Samuel 21:19 - "According to 1 Sam. ch 17 Goliath of Gath (i.e., the Gittite), whose spear had a shaft like a weaver's bar (1 Sam. 17.7), was killed by David, the Bethlehemite. To resolve the contradiction 1 Chron. 20.5 reads 'brother of Goliath.' Rashi assumes that David and Elhanan were one and the same person. Probably, however, the killing of the giant Goliath was initially attributed to Elhanan (perhaps the hero mentioned in 23.24), but later the more famous David was credited with it. This was facilitated by the fact that the Philistine killed by David was originally anonymous."
All said without highlighting Hebrew words in funky colors to communicate the argument. Oh, but the explanation ought to use Logos Software, eh?
Is this a huge commercial?
"why Chronicles was left off and was told that since Chronicles simply repeats material in Samuel and Kings, why bother about it?"
Wow! That demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theology of Chronicles and Samuel!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.