Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Robert Vining <rvining AT log.on.ca>]

On 7/27/99, Solomon Landers wrote, "It is noted that the Hebrew
expression in the MT does not follow the usual rendering
of numbers in that "70 men" and "50,000 men" are not united by W: but
stand separate.
The larger number may be an interpolation, but one can only guess at its
purpose."*

***

How about another possibility. That it is the smaller number that is the
interpolation, for which  we can hazard a guess as to its' purpose.
Namely, to historicize, the original mythological.
70 could be possible;  50,070, "incredible" (Whiston),    "impossible"
(Hooke).  This  apparently tampered-with-text  may be evidence that
later handlers (copyists, translators) were not happy with the author's
original production.  Which may also be true of much of the book of
Samuel, thus  helping to account for Kevin Woodruff"s observation of
7/27/99, "Almost all scholar (sic) agree that the book of Samuel is one
of the most textually faulty books in the Hebrew Scriptures."

Consider the purpose of the author who sketched   the battle scene found
in  I Samuel 13:5-23.  He depicts  a Philistine juggernaut of 30,000 war
chariots;  6,000 horsemen, and , "as many soldiers as there are grains
of sand on the seashore".**   Ostensibly,   included in this formidable
fighting force would be the awesome, heavily-armored,
massive-sword#-wielding, eponymic, gigantic warrior, Goliath, not yet
killed by either Elhanan,+  or David.  The 600 hapless, unarmed
Israelites arrayed against this mighty force, the author will deprive of
all weapons save two which he will place in the hands of Saul and
Jonathan.  Do not the numbers, again, and the scene as a whole, signal
the intent of the audacious   author?

++++

*William Whiston,  translator/commentator of Josephus,  was also puzzled
by such an emandation. "How our other copies come to add such an
*incredible* number as 50,000 in this one town or small city, I know
not."

**Most modern cross-referencing translations are  unwilling to do the
obvious.  Except, the New World Translators who had the integrity to
cross-reference I Samuel 13:5's, chowl-yam-sophah with Genesis 22:17.
The unpalability of this usage is also demonstrated by Josephus who
omits the famous words, 6.6.1   So, we wonder if   the  author
deliberately chose these words, using them refer to  the arch enemy,
Philistines.  Precious words  that God had used in making that  sacred
promise to Abraham and his descendants.  Victor and vanquished are
switched.

#This sword will reappear wrapped in a cloth behind the sacred ephod in
the charge of the priest, Ahimelech, who gave it to David, I Samuel
21:9  and, again in 22:10. David said, "There is not a better sword
anywhere".

+Unfortunately for Elhanan, lesser heroes must yield their glory to
greater heroes, of which there is none greater than David.. The
trouble-some author complicates things (perhaps knowing full well of
David's heroics)  by having Elhanan slay Goliath, II Samuel 21:19.  The
resourceful Chronicler, a later revisionist, clears up the apparent
confusion, by having Elhanan slay Goliath's brother.  I Chronicles 20:5

Robert Vining, Owen Sound, Ontario     rvining AT log.on.ca