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