Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible - Who Killed Goliath? - Part 2

In the previous post, I discussed the theory that instead of there being a scribal error in 2 Samuel 21:19, there were simply two Goliaths. Unfortunately, I didn't discuss 2 Chronicles 20:5 enough. In doing so, I failed to deal with the strongest argument for the '2 Samuel 21:19 textual error theory.' A lot of this will be based on thoughts from talking with u/37o4 on r/ConservativeBible.

The Relationship Between 2 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19

It's fairly obvious that 2 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19 are cross-references dealing with the same events, place and time, unlike 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel 21. That being the case, they are in all likelihood dependent - following most theories, the author of Chronicles used 1 and 2 Samuel: the genealogies and information in Chronicles goes long after David (for example 1 Chronicles 3:19-24), and so it was in all likelihood composed after.

When the author of Chronicles wrote 1 Chronicles 20, he would have seen 2 Samuel 21.


For a refresher, here are the passages in question again:

"in a third, also at Gob, Elehanan the son of Jaare, an embroiderer from Bethlehem, slew Goliath of Geth, that had a shaft to his spear as big as a weaver’s beam.." 2 Samuel 21:19 (Knox Bible)

"and another in which Elehanan the son of Jair slew the brother of Goliath the Gethite, that had a shaft to his spear big as a weaver’s beam." 1 Chronicles 20:5 (Knox Bible)

Below, I will try to argue why it is unlikely that there is a textual error in 2 Samuel.

Composition of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Chronicles

1-2 Samuel are dated to various periods by different scholars. For example, Walton and Hill give a date roughly contemporaneous to the events in question:

"The events of the book took place in the last half of the eleventh century and the early part of the tenth century B.C., but it is difficult to determine when the events were recorded. There are no particularly persuasive reasons to date the sources used by the compiler later than the events themselves, and good reason to believe that contemporary records were kept (2 Sam. 20:24-25). If the books are part of a larger "Deuteronomistic" work, the compiler would have worked late in the period of the divided monarchy." (Walton and Hill, p.209)

On the other hand, the Oxford Guide to the Bible puts it much later: "its final shaping must belong at the earliest in the sixth century BCE." (Oxford Guide to the Bible, p.675)

As such, there is a very flexible date for the finished text: from the 10th century BC to the 6th century BC (900s to 500s BC). That is about 400 years difference, but in either case, our earliest copies are much later.

On the other hand, 1-2 Chronicles is dated quite a bit later:

"The Chronicles are, with Ezra-Nehemiah, probably the latest books of the Old Testament in respect to the date of composition. The date of their writing has been placed anywhere from the reforms of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (ca. 515 B.C.) too well into the Greek Period (with dates ranging from 300 to 160 B.C.). The last dated event in Chronicles is the record of Cyrus' decree permitting the Hebrews to return to Palestine from exile in Babylonia (ca. 538 B.C.; cf 2 Chronicles 36:22-23). However, if Zerubabel's genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:17-21 is ordered in chronological sepuence, this internal evidence moves the date of Chronicles nearer 400 B.C. than 500 B.C. The widely acknowledged associations between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (whether or not Ezra is identified as the Chronicler) also suggest a date near 400 B.C. (see chap.14)." (Walton and Hill, p. 251) 

In short, for Walton and Hill, the possible dates are between 515 B.C. and 160 B.C. Because scholars tend to date texts early or late together depending on whether they are "conservative" or "liberal", we ought to put these datings together in that same way, ie not giving much thought to a 900 BC composition for Samuel and a 130 BC composition for Chronicles. Of course, this is possible, but I will not put much focus on that possibility. In any case, the likely distance in composition for both is 400 years - assuming either a 10th century date for Samuel and a 6th century date for Chronicles, or a 6th century date for Samuel and a 2nd century date for Chronicles.

Transmission of the Text

There are four textual traditions worth looking at here: the Masoretic text (MT - the basis for Vulgate, KJV, and modern Bibles), the Vulgate (Vg), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The MT, Vg, LXX, and the DSS all agree here with the traditional rendering ("slew Goliath") instead of the KJV's "slew Lami the brother of Goliath."

These texts count as witnesses from a variety of places in time: the MT is from the 7-10th centuries AD, the Vulgate is from the 300s AD, the LXX is from the 2nd century BC, and the DSS are from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not form a whole Bible. Instead, they are fragments from a bunch of different copies, and so plenty of sections of Scripture are missing. By God's providence, there is a copy of 2 Samuel 21 from before 68 AD, and it reads "slew Goliath." While the Bible has many textual variants, to my knowledge, there are none here. We then have a variety of witnesses from the 1st to the 9th centuries AD all confirming one reading.

Now, in the Old Testament there are big textual differences. The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text have differences in Genesis 5 and 11 that lead to a difference of about 1,500 years of history, for example. As such, we cannot be satisfied in just arguing "the Bible has been perfectly transmitted, and so we know the answer is the traditional one." There are potential corruptions and that sort of thing. However, uniform transmission across many lines is strong evidence.

The space between the composition of 2 Samuel and our earliest manuscripts is theoretically big enough for such variants to grow. However, there is a difference between variants coming about, and variants becoming the sole edition in a text. If a scribe made the multiple necessary mistakes that Archer proposes (As seen in Part 1), why would that manuscript be the only one to leave a paper trail? Surely that is possible, but we know that in OT transmission history, many textual variants have gone on side by side as far back as we can trace (say the LXX v MT). Why would that not happen here? Instead, as I have just shown, there is uniformity that is missing in many places.

Textual Theories

In New Testament textual criticism (textual criticism is the study of manuscripts to find original readings) you will see two main approaches, Thoroughgoing Eclecticism and Reasoned Eclecticism. These two camps correspond to the two types of evidence used in textual criticism, namely internal and external arguments. (Black, p. 34) Internal arguments here would be things like common word choice of an author, along with style or ideas in a text. On the other hand, external arguments would be based off of manuscript support. Thoroughgoing eclectics put great stock in this internal evidence, while reasoned eclectics would put more trust in external evidence. For example, if we have ten manuscripts with one weird and unlikely reading and one with a more likely reading, the thoroughgoing eclectics would trust the one manuscript. On the other hand, the reasoned eclectics would trust the ten.

Aside from those two approaches, you do have a certain camp of people who defend what is called the "Majority Text," which as its name suggests, is the text you get from the majority of extant manuscripts. This would be even more extreme than Reasoned Eclecticism in trusting external evidence.

Now, if we apply these methods to this specific text, reasoned eclectics and supporters of the Majority Text would agree with what I said in part 1 (in all likelihood), since the manuscript support is virtually universal. There is no extant manuscript that reads differently. As such, you need to be a Thoroughgoing Eclectic to be able to consistently oppose the traditional reading.

Problems for Thoroughgoing Eclecticism 

Now, just because only thoroughgoing eclectics can consistently side with the KJV/NKJV/Gleason Archer reading doesn't necessarily mean that it is false. Thoroughgoing eclecticism is a respectable academic view, and I'll admit that from their point of view, there is reason to support Archer's argument. 2 Samuel 21:19 does read a bit weird in the traditional text.

However, Thoroughgoing Eclecticism has its problems. Namely, it separates textual criticism from the main source of how we know what an ancient text says: its copies. If I want to know what Plato wrote in The Republic, I'll get a copy. It would be pretty foolish to take The Republic, and then to dissect it into many sources, fragments, and lines without any backing from the manuscript itself. If I want to understand the book, I can only operate from the copy I have, otherwise it's more based on my imagination than on anything from Plato.

If I give myself the freedom to go about correcting the text or implying corruptions without manuscript evidence, any text I accept will fundamentally be circular. If I'm doing textual criticism on Paul's letter to the Philippians, I'll happen upon the Carmen Christi:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:5-11 NKJV)

According to many scholarly critics of the Bible, belief in the deity of Christ was an evolutionary development, not something from the start. On their models, Paul (writing in the 50s AD) should not have been calling Jesus God. However, here he clearly does. While some might suppose that he's just calling Jesus an angel, others could argue that these verses just don't fit with Paul. If we don't bind ourselves to manuscript evidence, couldn't this just be a later interpolation? 

Likewise, many scholarly critics think that the theology in Genesis 1 is far too advanced for an early date, and so date it to the time of the Exile or Ezra (500s-400s), while saying Genesis 2 is far earlier. Of course, no manuscript evidence separates the two chapters to support this, but if we allow reason without reference to manuscripts to decide our text, we will have no real end in sight. Maybe this is alarmism, but it seems to me like Thoroughgoing Eclecticism is just Higher Criticism with extra steps.  

Sure, many devout lovers of Scripture (like Gleason Archer and the translators of the KJV) have used this reasoning without becoming Wellhausens and RE Freedmans. Higher Criticism also requires a fundamental rejection of God's authority that Thoroughgoing Eclecticism doesn't. However, if  personal judgement supersedes the manuscripts we have, there is no reason not to theorize about diverse sources beyond the text. The problem here isn't theological per se (though it does destroy certainty in exegesis), but methodological. It simply means the extant text has no inherent relationship to the autograph. 

As such, on methodological grounds, I think we must support the traditional text. 

Works used:

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism - Edited by David Alan Black

A Survey of the Old Testament - Walton and Hill (old edition)

Oxford Guide to the Bible

Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible - Who Killed Goliath? - Part 1

Shabir Ally's Answering Christianity puts it very simply on the page "101 Contradictions in the Bible:"

94. Who killed Goliath?

•  David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)

•  Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

The relevant passages are 1 Samuel 17, 2 Samuel 21:15-22, and 1 Chronicles 20:. To understand the problem and the answer, one must read through the whole of each - otherwise important context is lost, and the issue is obscured. Simply put, the events in 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel 21 describe different battles, while that of 1 Chronicles 20 is the same as 2 Samuel 21.

1 Samuel 17 - David Kills Goliath 

The passage in 1 Samuel is much more detailed than in 2 Samuel, and so only the relevant portions will be copied here: 

First, we are given the location of the battle:

“1 And now the Philistines mustered their army for battle, and raised their standard at Socho, in Juda, encamping between Socho and Azeca, in the region of Dommim. 2 Saul, too, mustered the Israelites, and they marched to the Valley of the Terebinth, where they drew up their array to meet the enemy;  3 the Philistines held the mountain-slope on one side, and Israel on the other, with the valley between them.”

1 Samuel 17:1-3 (Knox Version)

We are then given an account of the killing of Goliath later on:

“48 By now, the Philistine had bestirred himself, and was coming on to attack David at close quarters; so, without more ado, David ran towards the enemy’s lines, to meet him.  49 He felt in his wallet, took out one of the stones, and shot it from his sling, with a whirl so dexterous that it struck Goliath on his forehead; deep in his forehead the stone buried itself, and he fell, face downwards, to the earth.  50Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone, smote and slew him. No sword he bore of his own,  51 but he ran up and took the Philistine’s own sword from its sheath, where he lay, and with this slew him, cutting off his head.And now, seeing their champion dead, the Philistines betook themselves to flight;  52 while the men of Israel and of Juda rose up with a cry, and gave chase till they reached the low ground, and the very gates of Accaron; all the way to Geth and Accaron, along the road to Saraim, Philistines lay dying of their wounds.”

1 Samuel 17:48-52 (Knox Version)

Finally, we are given an account of the aftermath:

"54 As for David, he brought Goliath’s head back with him to Jerusalem, and laid up the armour in his tent.  55 Saul, as he watched him going out to meet the Philistine, had asked the commander of his men, Abner, from what stock this boy came. On thy life, my lord, said Abner, I cannot tell. 56 So the king bade him find out who the boy’s father was;  57 and David fresh from his victory, was taken by Abner into Saul’s presence, still carrying the Philistine’s head with him.  58 And when Saul asked of his lineage, David told him, I am the son of thy servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite."

1 Samuel 17:54-58 (Knox Version)

The key points to remember are the location(described in verses 1-3), the time period (before David took the throne), and who did it (David in verse 49).

Location: 

The battle took place at the Valley of Elah (called the Valley of the Terebinth in verse 2, but called the Valley of Elah in 1 Samuel 21:9), which is in Judah. From the Bible Atlas, one can see the approximate location of the battle: 

Valley of Elah/Valley of the Terebinth

Time Period: 

This battle occurs before David is King because it is when Saul first encounters him (verses 54-58), and it is before they enter into conflict with each other. 

2 Samuel 21 - Elhanan Kills Goliath

15 War broke out again between Israel and the Philistines, and David went to battle against them with his men. But David’s strength had left him; 16 and he came near to being struck down by Jesbi-Benob, a man of the Araphite breed, that had a spear-head of ten pounds weight, and a new sword at his side.  17 It was Abisai, Sarvia’s son, that came to the king’s rescue, and gave the Philistine his death-blow. But after that David’s men swore that he should never go into battle with them again; that light must not be lost to Israel.  18 In another battle against the Philistines, at Gob, Saph, of the giant breed of Arapha, was slain by Sobochai, from Husathi;  19 in a third, also at Gob, Elehanan the son of Jaare, an embroiderer from Bethlehem, slew Goliath of Geth, that had a shaft to his spear as big as a weaver’s beam.[2]  20 In a fourth, at Geth, there was a man of huge stature that had twelve fingers and twelve toes, another of the Araphite breed; 21 and he taunted Israel, till Jonathan, son of David’s brother Semma, struck him down.  22 All these four were Araphites from Geth, all slain by David and his men. 

2 Samuel 21:15-22 (Knox Version)

Turning to 2 Samuel 21:15-22, we see different chronological and geographical information. This battle does not take place in the Valley of Elah, but in Gob(verse 19), and it well after David became King (verses 1-4 of chapter 21 call David 'King David').

Gob is approximately 10 miles North of the Valley of Elah:

Gob/Gezer

Not only is this battle after David is King, but we can say that it is quite a long time after the battle in 1 Samuel 17. According to George L. Haydock, this is a total of 43 years difference.

So, who killed Goliath? 

Simply put, there were two Goliaths. The battles were in different places many years apart from each other, and there is no reason to suppose that they're the same person. There are many people with the same name at a given time, and so two people having the same name across time and space is no surprise. We do to have enough documentation to say how common the name was among Philistines, but that is not a reason for concern.

Other Solutions

In reply, one might ask why there is no disambiguation in 1 and 2 Samuel - ie, why does the author not say they are different Goliaths? For this reason, some people suggest a different solution, namely that the text here was corrupted.

In this article, the author uses the late Gleason Archer's explanation:

"First Samuel 17:50 states that David cut off Goliath's head with the giant's own sword, after he had first felled him with a sling and a stone. Because of this amazing victory over the Philistine, David became the foremost battle-champion among the Israelite troops, even though he was still a mere teenager. But 2 Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew Masoretic text states that "Elhanan the son of Yaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." As this verse stands in the Masoretic text, it certainly contradicts 1 Samuel 17. But fortunately we have a parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 20:5, which words the episode this way: "And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." It is quite apparent that this was the true reading, not only for the Chronicles passage but also for 2 Samuel 21:19.

The earlier manuscript from which the copyist was reading must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse, and hence he made two or three mistakes. What apparently happened was the following:

1. The sign of the direct object, which at Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite) out of it.

2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chron. passage does).

3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya'arey 'or'e-gim - "the son of the forest of the weavers" - a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'oregim ("weavers") comes right after ("a beam of") - thus making perfectly good sense.

In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5."

Now, there is a clear problem from a theological point of view: there is no manuscript as far as I am aware that reads the way Archer says the original went. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament translated in the 2nd century BC) does not agree with him, nor does the Latin Vulgate (translated in the 4th century AD by St. Jerome). If Archer is right, that would mean that God did not preserve even one manuscript with the proper reading. If God did not preserve His word, why would He have inspired it? While it may solve a small difficulty in the text, it makes God's work of inspiration to be of no effect.

However, what he is supposing happened is not very likely even from a secular point of view:

In point 1, Archer says that the coppyist mistook '-t' for 'b-t.' In Hebrew that would mean mistaking אתfor בית. This is certainly possible, but the two are not so similar that we should rest our case on it. The other  mistake in point 2 is more likely - mistakingאחforאת, seeing as they actually are quite similar. However, combining both mistakes is not very likely. Finally, point three requires one to simply misplace a word, which does happen fairly often. To be clear, the problem is not any single one of these errors (because they all do happen), but these three being combined. The copyist must have made three very specific mistakes, and somehow we would have no manuscript evidence that it happened. The Greek Old Testament was translated more than a century before the birth of our Lord, meaning that this mistake must have been made very early, leaving no trace of a correct reading.

Strangely enough, the author of the article finds this solution not only to be satisfying, but a testimony to the integrity of the Hebrew text: "the fact that scribes carefully transmitted the error found in 2 Samuel 21:19 is a testimony to their integrity in trying to accurately transmit the text."Preserving an scribal error without trace of a true reading is nothing reassuring. We would have no certainty, or even confidence that the original text is preserved at all. If scribal errors can go without a paper trail for thousands of years, there is no reason to suppose that any Scripture is original.

In any case, this solution is fairly ad hoc, and it is much simpler to say that there were two people named Goliath.