Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>]

> ==========================
> From: Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Goliath
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:03:29 -0500
> ==========================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kirk [mailto:Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 09:58
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: RE: Goliath
> >
> > PK: We still have to explain the existence of the 2 Samuel
> > text of this verse as we have it now. This is clearly corrupt.
> > Do you have any other hypothesis for how this occurred except
> > for copyists' errors? I accept that the Chronicles text may
> > be a separate tidying up of a corrupt text rather than a
> > witness to the pre-corruption original. But I very much doubt
> > that the 2 Samuel text can be what the author originally
> > intended.

It's very difficult to talk about the "author's original" intention, but this 
is more in line with my thinking of both traditions (Sam/Kgs & Chr) working 
from a common source -- and I think that common source was also used by 
Josephus.
 
> This is probably the essence of why Ian's argument does not stand. 

Uh-huh.

> Samuel is well-known for pre-LXX (and post) problems with its
> transmission and experienced significant lacuna, etc (the worst
> book of MT). I'm astounded that discussion would continue, but
> perhaps some have not carefully examined the problems in Samuel's
> text.

This last sentence is typical of the writer. Dan drops this sort of *rubbish* 
in about half his posts. Obviously he includes himself in those who have 
carefully examined the problems of Samuel's text (and anyone who *disagrees 
with him* is not included). 

It's therefore not strange to find him taking the apologetic approach to the 
original problem: it simply cannot be (a priori) that there are two different 
traditions about the death of Goliath. There are not two traditions about the 
way Saul died. There are not three traditions of the patriarch palming his 
wife off as his sister. There are not (at least) two traditions regarding the 
creation of the world. Anyone who thinks so hasn't carefully examined the 
problems of those texts. One should not disagree with Dan because they, in 
doing so, must be wrong, ie not examining the texts carefully enough.

> I don't have time to go through all the details of Ian's post 
> now. Maybe later (but i doubt it!).

So do I.


I would ask Dan to stop the gratuitous statements of the kind: 

> I'm astounded that discussion would continue, but
> perhaps some have not carefully examined the problems in Samuel's
> text.


Ian