David & Goliath - a pastiche of different stories

[Robyn Banks]

I'm going to take you through the biblical text of "David & Goliath", and point out a number of errors. More importantly, I'll also explain to you WHY these errors are in fact errors.

And in the end I'm going to ask you to read the passage - because the Biblical text itself provides the best evidence of what I will try to explain.

Here's a summary of what I'll go into more below, so you can get an overview at this stage:

· Before the bible reached its present form, there were 2 or more different versions of the story "David & Goliath";

· The different versions of "David & Goliath" were combined into one story - the story we have in our bible today;

· The original stories were shorter than the version in our bible today;

· One of the original (shorter) "David & Goliath" stories has survived in a Greek translation;

· So, by comparing the biblical story of "David & Goliath" with the original shorter version, we can see how the biblical story was formed!



Evolution of the Bible

Many literary compositions from ancient Mesopotamia and post-Exilic Israel are known in several versions, from different periods. Such texts as the Gilgamesh Epic and the Samaritan version of the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) can be shown to have reached their final forms in ways startlingly similar to the ways biblical scholars believe the books of the Bible developed.

There are even cases where earlier versions of parts of the Bible are available, and by comparing them with the final versions we can be sure that the Bible developed in ways similar to those postulated by biblical critics. In many cases, it can be seen that inconsistencies and the like really are the results of the editing process, as the analysts supposed. These cases do not in themselves prove the theories correct, but they do confirm that they are plausible.


Example: David & Goliath

Occasionally we get a passage that provides us with real proof. One such episode is the episode of David & Goliath in 1 Samuel 16-18, in which a youthful David slays the Philistine strongman. In this instance, in fact, two versions of the story have survived:

· The version in our Old Testament Bibles comes from a Medieval form of the "Mesoretic Text". It goes back to a much earlier period, as a few verses in the Dead Sea Scrolls prove (dated 200BC - 70AD).

· The other version of the David and Goliath story is preserved in the older manuscripts of a biblical translation called the "LXX". The LXX was named after the 70-odd translators (LXX being the Roman numeral for "70"), who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek by about 200BC.

Important Point: The David and Goliath episode in the Biblical/Mesoretic Version is (surprisingly) almost twice as long as the same "David & Goliath" episode in the LXX!! When you examine the Biblical/Mesoretic version, you can see that the Biblical/Mesoretic Version combines both the LXX version, and (at least) one other version.


David & Goliath is two accounts in one!

The Biblical/Mesoretic Version of "David & Goliath" was created by combining at least 2 previously independent stories. One of the stories incorporated was the LXX story of "David & Goliath". This process is what biblical scholars call "conflation".

If there was a conflation, or combination, we would expect to find the signs of this: inconsistencies, redundancies, contradictions, and thematic and stylistic variants in the Biblical Version. Is this what we find in the Bible? Yes!

The LXX has a number of inconsistencies with the other version(s) of David & Goliath it was combined with. So - as the LXX and the other versions are mixed into the Biblical/Mesoretic version, your Bible is inconsistent at many points! For example:


Inconsistency Number 1:

LXX In the scene preceding the battle between David and Goliath, Saul and David have a lengthy conversation about David confronting Goliath (1 Samuel 17:32-40), as David was one of Saul's favourite arms-bearers (1 Samuel 16:21-22).

Other version(s) In 1 Samuel 17:55-58, when the young David approaches Goliath, King Saul asks his general, Abner, to identify the boy - asking who his father is. Abner says he doesn't know him. After David slays Goliath, David is brought to Saul and introduced to him. Saul asks who David is. Why do Saul and Abner fail to recognise David? and why is it necessary to introduce David a second time to Saul? Different stories!


Inconsistency Number 2:

LXX In both accounts, Saul offers one of his daughters to David. In 18:20-27, he offers his daughter Michal.

Other version(s) In 18:17-19, which is missing from the LXX, he offers Merab. An explanation for the offering of two daughters has been added to the Biblical account, to reconcile the different names in each original version (v19 & 21b). This results in an odd and repetitious final combination.


Inconsistency Number 3:


Other version(s) One instance, in which all scholars agree there is a mistake in the Biblical Version, concerns Saul's attempt to kill David. As it appears in 1 Samuel 18:10-11, the account has been misplaced by the biblical editor.

LXX The passage is repeated verbatim in 1 Samuel 19:9-10. Saul's attempt in 1 Samuel 8:10-11 undercuts the gradual intensification of his envy. In the LXX, the sequence is more logical than the combined Biblical Version: Saul is at first envious (18:8-98), then suspicious (18:12), then frightened (18:13-15), then tries to kill him (19:9-10).


Inconsistency Number 4:

LXX In 16:18, David and Jesse are introduced to the reader.

Other version(s) In 17:12, David and his father Jesse are again introduced to the reader.


Inconsistency Number 5:

LXX David is presented as Saul's armour-bearer in 16:21, and fights Goliath in that capacity.

Other version(s) In 17:12-31 and 55-58, he is an unknown shepherd-boy who happens to be visiting his bothers when Goliath challenges the Israelites to a duel. Again, the two conflicting descriptions are from two different original stories.


Inconsistency Number 6:

Other version(s) According to 17:25-27, David hears that whoever defeats Goliath will be given King Saul's daughter in marriage as a reward. When David kills Goliath, Saul gives his daughter to him (18:17-19).

LXX But in 18:20ff, Saul looks for pretexts to convince David to marry his daughter, and David insists he is unworthy. The decision to give David Saul's daughter to marry is made well after David slew Goliath. Michal is given to David, because she loved David, and in order to snare David (18:20-21).


Inconsistency Number 7:

Other version(s) How did David kill Goliath? This is often posed as a trick question. According to 17:50, David knocked over Goliath with a stone, killing him without a sword in his hand (17:50).

LXX But, in 17:51, David killed him with his sword. He killed him again! The biblical editor also added a phrase in v51 to reconcile the two accounts - that David "pulled the sword from Goliath's sheath". Therefore, the LXX account (v51) is almost reconciled with the other account (v50), which says that David killed Goliath without a sword in his hand. Almost reconciled - because Goliath is still killed in each of v50 and v51. David didn't kill Goliath twice, but the bible contains two different story-climaxes of how Goliath died.


Is the conflation of the two texts the best explanation of the inconsistency?

The strange discrepancies in the text we have today, however, make perfect sense when we highlight the parts in 1 Samuel 16-18 which are found in the LXX.

I urge you to go through the Biblical text itself, by yourself

I have pointed out a number of errors and inconsistencies in the text. However, if you have believed in the "inerrancy" doctrine espoused by so-called 'fundamentalist' churches, you will probably be trying to put forward possible "harmonizations" of these inconsistencies in your head by now.

That is why I strongly recommend that you read the words of Scripture themselves to realise the proof for yourself.

I have reprinted the David & Goliath story below, with the words found in the LXX in normal font, and the words of the other version(s) in capitals (CAPS).

You will see that the LXX version (hidden within the Biblical text) actually tells a complete story in itself. You could read it through on its own to get an idea of the differences in this source from what was added in the other source(s).

And you will see that the other sources add to the story told in the LXX, often inconsistently.

What I want you to do is this. In respect of each inconsistency that I have outlined, ask yourself this one question:
Is the conflation of the two texts the best explanation of the inconsistency?

Robyn

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

This might be a long shot, but:

Robyn, there is no such book as

'A Comparison Of The Short-Distance Migratory Patterns of the Blue, Long-Tailed & Bearded Tits'

If you are who I think you are, then you'll know what I'm on about. Everyone else can go "huh?" at this point.

:rofl:

from Guy

[jpholding]

ghbearman:
This might be a long shot, but:

Robyn, there is no such book as

'A Comparison Of The Short-Distance Migratory Patterns of the Blue, Long-Tailed & Bearded Tits'

If you are who I think you are, then you'll know what I'm on about. Everyone else can go "huh?" at this point.

:rofl:

from Guy

You make your mentor proud. :) I just figured this out myself. It's a little obvious when Robyn also, on other threads:

1) Quotes Holloway and Boone
2) Uses a Lego picture
3) Uses cheap psycho-manipulation tactics.

I think someone now has their pants officially down. :rofl:

[J. J. Ramsey]

ghbearman:
Robyn, there is no such book as

'A Comparison Of The Short-Distance Migratory Patterns of the Blue, Long-Tailed & Bearded Tits'


I threw the name of that title at Google and found it led to a site called :blush: www.nice-tits.org. Officially, that site is about the species of bird called tit, but I got the distinct impression that the site was meant to be a double entendre.

Is that site some kind of hoax or joke?

Something else is suspicious. I wonder how this Robyn Banks comes by spending money. ;)

Link removed as the site description is no longer accurate.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi

Yeah, Robyn's avatar is a highwayman. Notice the list of pseudnym persons who are members of that site. And note when you enter "tektonics.com" at whois.net...lo and behold...hmm. Same guy turns up. This person is a violent character in Arthur Conan Doyle's works.

Yes, I think that site is meant to be a double entendre, given Robyn's 'thing' about doofus church, with its sexual satire, and this bird site, and the pro homosexual Richard Holloway...hello, Robyn? Care to explain?

from Guy

[yxboom]

Robyn please take a moment and give this considerable thought before posting: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=924#post924

I ask that you would consider posting a link if you are able to and if you have no other alternative note that you will be spanning your posts otherwise it will be treated as an infraction to rule #2. Thanks.

[Gavin]

I threw the name of that title at Google and found it led to a site called www.nice-tits.org. Officially, that site is about the species of bird called tit, but I got the distinct impression that the site was meant to be a double entendre.

:rofl:

[jpholding]

yxboom:
I ask that you would consider posting a link if you are able to and if you have no other alternative note that you will be spanning your posts otherwise it will be treated as an infraction to rule #2. Thanks.

The reason Robyn didn't post a link, Boom, is that it would have given the store away that he/she was the alleged mind behind

http://www.tektonics.com

Oh Robyn, if/when you get back I designed this for you a while back:

http://www.tektonics.org/combomb.html

And I answered the claims on this thread at

http://www.tektonics.org/davegol.html

Something tells me you were also the nuisance who first wrote me about this.

And if you change your front page's colors to match mine one more time, I'll see about a civil suit. Kapish? ;)

[GrayPilgrim]

:rofl:

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
http://www.tektonics.org/combomb.html
Love it!


jpholding:
And I answered the claims on this thread at

http://www.tektonics.org/davegol.html
I saw! And it was inerrancy at its methodologically most tendentious!! Love it, too!!!


jpholding:
And if you change your front page's colors to match mine one more time, I'll see about a civil suit. Kapish? ;)
Cool!

Robyn

[yxboom]

Although very good points jp I do want to say thank you to Robyn for condensing his post the way he did. I do appreciate it and it made for much easier reading.

[Blake Reas]

Robyn,

More of the same I see:


I saw! And it was inerrancy at its methodologically most tendentious!! Love it, too!!!

Just a little more assertions with no argument! Why dont you show us why it is wrong. I would love to see Holding rip you to shreads.

The funny thing about liberalism is that it has almost killed the Church in Germany(origin of Hyper Skeptic Higher Criticism) so obviously people find it irrational, when are you?

In Christ,
Blake Reas
:thinking:

[jpholding]

I am sure Robyn will answer the arguments after he/she/it has collected all of the pigs that have escaped from the sty and run into the living room. The problem is, there seems to be no way to tell when they have actually crossed from one to the other. :rofl:

And there is more than one way to skin a copy(cat). It occurs to me I may just be suing for the right to pay his/her/its bills.

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
Why dont you show us why it is wrong.
Robert Holding never even engaged the point that the contradictions are each explained by the existence of the surviving earlier version of 1 Samuel 15-18. All he did was to make an ignorant comment about 'oral tradition', which overlooked the fact that the correspondence is a product of the written tradition. As Emmanuel Tov's article came to the same conclusion, and he is well aware of 'oral tradition' Robert Holding's comment was well off-beam.

As for Robert Holding's 'explanations' - I am well aware that any and every contradiction in the Bible can be harmonized. However, the question is: should they be harmonized? The answer to this question is: only if it is the best interpretation of the Scriptures involved. Fortunately, with the David & Goliath account, we have an earlier version which has survived in the LXX, which allows us to see exactly how the Biblical version was conflated. The amazing thing about this is that this conflation alone solves and explains all the contradictions in the Biblical/Masoretic account.

What Robert Holding has done is simply to assert a number of 'possible', tendentious explanations. However, we already have a simple, obvious, and clear explanation: the conflation of two texts.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
... all of the pigs that have escaped from the sty and run into the living room...
You are a boorish and uneducated chap, Robert.

BTW: Like my we site: http://www.tektonics.com ?

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

I challenge anyone to have a close read of 1 Samuel 16:17 - 18:30, and to ask yourself whether the contradictions are best explained by the conflation of the two earlier texts into our Biblical version.

The biblical story below has been separated into CAPS and normal font.
The words which from the LXX version are NOT in caps.
THE WORDS OF THE OTHER VERSION(S) ARE IN CAPS.


16:17 So Saul said to his servants, "Provide for me someone who can play well, and bring him to me."
18 One of the young men answered, "I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is skilful in playing, a man of valour, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the Lord is with him."
19 So Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me your son David who is with the sheep."
20 Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and a kid, and sent them by his son David to Saul.
21 And David came to Saul, and entered his service. Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer.
22 Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favour in my sight."
23 And whenever the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand, and Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the evil spirit would depart from him.
17:1 Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; they were gathered at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim.
2 Saul and the Israelites gathered and encamped in the valley of Elah, and formed ranks against the Philistines.
3 The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them.
4 And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, ...
10 And the Philistine said, "Today I defy the ranks of Israel! Give me a man, that we may fight together."
11 When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.
12 NOW DAVID WAS THE SON OF AN EPHRATHITE OF BETHLEHEM IN JUDAH, NAMED JESSE, WHO HAD EIGHT SONS. IN THE DAYS OF SAUL THE MAN WAS ALREADY OLD AND ADVANCED IN YEARS.
13 THE THREE ELDEST SONS OF JESSE HAD FOLLOWED SAUL TO THE BATTLE; THE NAMES OF HIS THREE SONS WHO WENT TO THE BATTLE WERE ELIAB THE FIRSTBORN, AND NEXT TO HIM ABINADAB, AND THE THIRD SHAMMAH.
14 DAVID WAS THE YOUNGEST; THE THREE ELDEST FOLLOWED SAUL,
15 BUT DAVID WENT BACK AND FORTH FROM SAUL TO FEED HIS FATHER'S SHEEP AT BETHLEHEM.
16 FOR FORTY DAYS THE PHILISTINE CAME FORWARD AND TOOK HIS STAND, MORNING AND EVENING.
17 JESSE SAID TO HIS SON DAVID, "TAKE FOR YOUR BROTHERS AN EPHAH OF THIS PARCHED GRAIN AND THESE TEN LOAVES, AND CARRY THEM QUICKLY TO THE CAMP TO YOUR BROTHERS;
18 ALSO TAKE THESE TEN CHEESES TO THE COMMANDER OF THEIR THOUSAND. SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS FARE, AND BRING SOME TOKEN FROM THEM."
19 NOW SAUL, AND THEY, AND ALL THE MEN OF ISRAEL, WERE IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, FIGHTING WITH THE PHILISTINES.
20 DAVID ROSE EARLY IN THE MORNING, LEFT THE SHEEP WITH A KEEPER, TOOK THE PROVISIONS, AND WENT AS JESSE HAD COMMANDED HIM. HE CAME TO THE ENCAMPMENT AS THE ARMY WAS GOING FORTH TO THE BATTLE LINE, SHOUTING THE WAR CRY.
21 ISRAEL AND THE PHILISTINES DREW UP FOR BATTLE, ARMY AGAINST ARMY.
22 DAVID LEFT THE THINGS IN CHARGE OF THE KEEPER OF THE BAGGAGE, RAN TO THE RANKS, AND WENT AND GREETED HIS BROTHERS.
23 AS HE TALKED WITH THEM, THE CHAMPION, THE PHILISTINE OF GATH, GOLIATH BY NAME, CAME UP OUT OF THE RANKS OF THE PHILISTINES, AND SPOKE THE SAME WORDS AS BEFORE. AND DAVID HEARD HIM.
24 ALL THE ISRAELITES, WHEN THEY SAW THE MAN, FLED FROM HIM AND WERE VERY MUCH AFRAID.
25 THE ISRAELITES SAID, "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN WHO HAS COME UP? SURELY HE HAS COME UP TO DEFY ISRAEL. THE KING WILL GREATLY ENRICH THE MAN WHO KILLS HIM, AND WILL GIVE HIM HIS DAUGHTER AND MAKE HIS FAMILY FREE IN ISRAEL."
26 DAVID SAID TO THE MEN WHO STOOD BY HIM, "WHAT SHALL BE DONE FOR THE MAN WHO KILLS THIS PHILISTINE, AND TAKES AWAY THE REPROACH FROM ISRAEL? FOR WHO IS THIS UNCIRCUMCISED PHILISTINE THAT HE SHOULD DEFY THE ARMIES OF THE LIVING GOD?"
27 THE PEOPLE ANSWERED HIM IN THE SAME WAY, "SO SHALL IT BE DONE FOR THE MAN WHO KILLS HIM."
28 HIS ELDEST BROTHER ELIAB HEARD HIM TALKING TO THE MEN; AND ELIAB'S ANGER WAS KINDLED AGAINST DAVID. HE SAID, "WHY HAVE YOU COME DOWN? WITH WHOM HAVE YOU LEFT THOSE FEW SHEEP IN THE WILDERNESS? I KNOW YOUR PRESUMPTION AND THE EVIL OF YOUR HEART; FOR YOU HAVE COME DOWN JUST TO SEE THE BATTLE."
29 DAVID SAID, "WHAT HAVE I DONE NOW? IT WAS ONLY A QUESTION."
30 HE TURNED AWAY FROM HIM TOWARD ANOTHER AND SPOKE IN THE SAME WAY; AND THE PEOPLE ANSWERED HIM AGAIN AS BEFORE.
31 WHEN THE WORDS THAT DAVID SPOKE WERE HEARD, THEY REPEATED THEM BEFORE SAUL; AND HE SENT FOR HIM.
32 David said to Saul, "Let no one's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with THIS Philistine."
33 Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are just a boy, and he has been a warrior from his youth."
34 But David said to Saul, "Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock,
35 I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and kill it.
36 Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and THIS uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God."
37 DAVID SAID, "The Lord, who saved me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of this Philistine." So Saul said to David, "Go, and may the LORD be with you!"
38 Saul clothed David with his armour; he put a bronze helmet on his HEAD AND CLOTHED HIM WITH A COAT OF MAIL.
39 David strapped Saul's sword over the armour, and he tried in vain to walk, for he was not used to them. Then David said to Saul, "I cannot walk with these; for I am not used to them." So he DAVID removed them.
40 Then he took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones from the wadi, and put them in his shepherd's bag, in the pouch; his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Philistine.
41 THE PHILISTINE CAME ON AND DREW NEAR TO DAVID, WITH HIS SHIELD-BEARER IN FRONT OF HIM...
48 When the Philistine began to come and draw nearer to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.
49 David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground.
50 SO DAVID PREVAILED OVER THE PHILISTINE WITH A SLING AND A STONE, STRIKING DOWN THE PHILISTINE AND KILLING HIM; THERE WAS NO SWORD IN DAVID'S HAND.
51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, DREW IT OUT OF ITS SHEATH, and WITH IT killed him; then he cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.
52 The troops of Israel and Judah rose up with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron.
53 The Israelites came back from chasing the Philistines, and they plundered their camp.
54 David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent.
55 WHEN SAUL SAW DAVID GO OUT AGAINST THE PHILISTINE, HE SAID TO ABNER, THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY, "ABNER, WHOSE SON IS THIS YOUNG MAN?" ABNER SAID, "AS YOUR SOUL LIVES, O KING, I DO NOT KNOW."
56 THE KING SAID, "INQUIRE WHOSE SON THE STRIPLING IS."
57 ON DAVID'S RETURN FROM KILLING THE PHILISTINE, ABNER TOOK HIM AND BROUGHT HIM BEFORE SAUL, WITH THE HEAD OF THE PHILISTINE IN HIS HAND.
58 SAUL SAID TO HIM, "WHOSE SON ARE YOU, YOUNG MAN?" AND DAVID ANSWERED, "I AM THE SON OF YOUR SERVANT JESSE THE BETHLEHEMITE."
18:1 ...
2 Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.
5 David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him; as a result, Saul set him over the army. And all the people, even the servants of Saul, approved.
6 As they were coming home, when David returned from killing the Philistine, the women came out of all the towns of Israel, SINGING AND DANCING, TO MEET KING SAUL, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments.
7 ...
8 SAUL WAS VERY ANGRY, for this saying displeased him. He said, "They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; WHAT MORE CAN HE HAVE BUT THE KINGDOM?"
9 So Saul eyed David from that day on.
10 THE NEXT DAY AN EVIL SPIRIT FROM GOD RUSHED UPON SAUL, AND HE RAVED WITHIN HIS HOUSE, WHILE DAVID WAS PLAYING THE LYRE, AS HE DID DAY BY DAY. SAUL HAD HIS SPEAR IN HIS HAND;
11 AND SAUL THREW THE SPEAR, FOR HE THOUGHT, "I WILL PIN DAVID TO THE WALL." BUT DAVID ELUDED HIM TWICE.
12 Saul was afraid of David, BECAUSE THE LORD WAS WITH HIM BUT HAD DEPARTED FROM SAUL.
13 So Saul removed him from his presence, and made him a commander of a thousand; and David marched out and came in, leading the army.
14 David had success in all his undertakings; for the LORD was with him.
15 When Saul saw that he had great success, he stood in awe of him.
16 But all Israel and Judah loved David; for it was he who marched out and came in leading them.
17 THEN SAUL SAID TO DAVID, "HERE IS MY ELDER DAUGHTER MERAB; I WILL GIVE HER TO YOU AS A WIFE; ONLY BE VALIANT FOR ME AND FIGHT THE LORD'S BATTLES." FOR SAUL THOUGHT, "I WILL NOT RAISE A HAND AGAINST HIM; LET THE PHILISTINES DEAL WITH HIM."
18 DAVID SAID TO SAUL, "WHO AM I AND WHO ARE MY KINSFOLK, MY FATHER'S FAMILY IN ISRAEL, THAT I SHOULD BE SON-IN-LAW TO THE KING?"
19 BUT AT THE TIME WHEN SAUL'S DAUGHTER MERAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO DAVID, SHE WAS GIVEN TO ADRIEL THE MEHOLATHITE AS A WIFE.
20 Now Saul's daughter Michal loved David. Saul was told, and the thing pleased him.
21 Saul thought, "Let me give her to him that she may be a snare for him and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." THEREFORE SAUL SAID TO DAVID A SECOND TIME, "YOU SHALL NOW BE MY SON-IN-LAW."
22 Saul commanded his servants, "Speak to David in private and say, 'See, the king is delighted with you, and all his servants love you; now then, become the king's son-in-law.'"
23 So Saul's servants reported these words to David in private. And David said, "Does it seem to you a little thing to become the king's son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man and of no repute?"
24 The servants of Saul told him, SAYING, "This is what David said."
25 Then Saul said, "Thus shall you say to David, 'The king desires no marriage present except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged on the king's enemies.'" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
26 When his servants told David these words, David was well pleased to be the king's son-in-law. BEFORE THE TIME HAD EXPIRED,
27 David rose and went, along with his men, and killed one hundred of the Philistines; and DAVID brought their foreskins, WHICH WERE GIVEN IN FULL NUMBER to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. Saul gave him his daughter Michal as a wife.
28 But when Saul saw AND REALISED that the LORD was with David, and that Saul's daughter Michal loved him,
29 He SAUL was still more afraid of David. SO SAUL WAS DAVID'S ENEMY FROM THAT TIME FORWARD.

[jpholding]

Robyn Banks:

You are a boorish and uneducated chap, Robert.

BTW: Like my we site: http://www.tektonics.com ?

Robyn

The earlier version would have gained more credibility if you knew how to spell "turkey".

:rofl:

Other than that -- see you in court, perhaps. How much are you worth? Dear me, nothing. May not be worth the bother.

[jpholding]

Dear Pigsty Manager,

Holding never even engaged the point that the contradictions are each explained by the existence of the surviving earlier version of 1 Samuel 15-18. All he did was to make an ignorant comment about 'oral tradition',

Ignorant indeed. Your own knowledge or oral structures approaches that of a wild goose. The earlier version proved nothing, even possibly, unless said contradictions actually exist -- which they don't.

As Emmanuel Tov's article came to the same conclusion, and he is well aware of 'oral tradition' Holding's comment was well off-beam.

I didn't see a single place where Tov showed awareness of orality.

I am well aware that any and every contradiction in the Bible can be harmonized. However, the question is: should they be harmonized?

The question is, can you do more than heave psychological cow patties at the answer? The answer is, NO.

have a simple, obvious, and clear explanation: the conflation of two texts.

Simple answers from a simple mind with no answers. :rofl:

Hope that helps.

I did need the belly laugh.

[Dee Dee Warren]

ROARING!!! Not only did Robyn misspell "turkey" (gah!) but he called you JOHN PATRICK HOLDING.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Robyn Banks]

Holding:
Other than that -- see you in court, perhaps.
Or perhaps not - if your idle threats are as empty as your knowledge of the Bible. :rofl:


Holding:
How much are you worth? Dear me, nothing. May not be worth the bother.
In US terms $2.4m. But as I am a fully qualified solicitor, and you are as ignorant of law as you are of biblical scholarship, I know you're full of the proverbial.

Robyn

Administration note - Posted edited to remove references to jpholding's real name

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
ROARING!!! Not only did Robyn misspell "turkey" (gah!)
"edited" was not a mispelling of "turkey". :rofl: :yipee:


Dee Dee Warren:
but he called you JOHN PATRICK HOLDING.
Sorry, my mistake: [edited]

:rofl: :rofl: :yipee:

Robyn

Administration note - Posted edited to remove references to jpholding's real name

[Robyn Banks]

holding:
I didn't see a single place where Tov showed awareness of orality.
So are you saying that this accomplished and widely-respected biblical scholar and professor, writing in 1986, was ignorant of oral tradition????

Or could it be the case that you have put forward 'oral tradition' as some sort of tendentious fundie explanation, and THEN decided to accuse me of being 'ignorant' of it, forgetting that Emmanuel Tov wrote the article on which I largely based the David & Goliath explanation?

You have been uncovered again, Holding. You overdid the absurd rhetoric on this one. Hoist by your own petard. I bet you'll be backing off the 'ignorant of oral tradition' angle pretty soon. :rofl: :yipee:


robyn:
I am well aware that any and every contradiction in the Bible can be harmonized. However, the question is: should they be harmonized?

holding:
The question is, can you do more than heave psychological cow patties at the answer?
Holding - although you seem to have a misguided fetish concerning "psychologizing", you are miles from the mark (again). The question "should they be harmonized?" was asked as a methodological question. There is not an ounce of "psychologizing" or any such nonsense in it. To explain the elementary hermeneutical point, it is well known that there can be as many interpretations of a text as there are interpretors. However, and unless you are of the post-modernist persuasion, there is only one 'reading'. That is to say, there is only one interpretation which is in agreement with the original author(s). Now, if you really want to make a 'harmonization' of any two texts, then you will be able to - because of the extremely wide range of interpretations of any text which is possible. But an investigation into proper interpretation certainly does not look for 'any possible' interpretation, or for any possible harmonizing interpretation. Although we should certainly give a text the 'benefit of the doubt', we should not make our primary objective in interpretation anything else but the ascertainment of the author's intended meaning. If we replace that primary aim with the aim of harmonizing every alleged contradiction (per the fundie inerrantists), or the aim of finding contradictions in every alleged contradiction (per the fundie sceptics), we will go astray. And you have gone more astray in this particular error than most. But, we can all change for the better, Robert. Even the most heremeneutically blackened heart can be cleansed.

"The only publicly defensible aim of interpretation is the discovery of the "verbal meaning" of a work (ie the meaning which "someone has willed to convey by a particular sequence of linguistic signs and which can be conveyed (shared) by means of those linguistic signs")."
- ED Hirsch Validity in Interpretation, 1967

Hope that helps.

Robyn

Administration note - Post edited to remove references to jpholding's real name

[jpholding]

Robyn Banks:

In US terms $2.4m. But as I am a fully qualified solicitor, and you are as ignorant of law as you are of biblical scholarship, I know you're full of the proverbial.



M is for mildew, I take it. As for the rest read this closely, esp. b iii and iv

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

Perhaps your host in BC would be interested in knowing about this.

[jpholding]

Ho hum,

So are you saying that this accomplished and widely-respected biblical scholar and professor, writing in 1986, was ignorant of oral tradition????

He didn't mention it or consider it, which for practical purposes amounts to the same thing. In the meantime all you have as a respose is the frustrated bombast of an pompous imitator caught with his/her/its proverbial pants down.

Or could it be the case that you have put forward 'oral tradition' as some sort of tendentious fundie explanation

Oooh, he/she/it like the word "tendentious". Must be sewn on your security blanket. :rofl:

and THEN decided to accuse me of being 'ignorant' of it, forgetting that Emmanuel Tov wrote the article on which I largely based the David & Goliath explanation?

Who cares? If you haven't got an answer, so be it.

Hoist by your own petard. I bet you'll be backing off the 'ignorant of oral tradition' angle pretty soon.

I'm still waiting for an actual reason to do so other than the wafting of hot air from your cavernous mouth. :bonk:

although you seem to have a misguided fetish concerning "psychologizing", you are miles from the mark

Denial. Another sign of one with no pants. :rofl:

(again). The question "should they be harmonized?" was asked as a methodological question.

It was a load of baloney sandwiches based on a previous assumption shown to be without basis.

Now, if you really want to make a 'harmonization' of any two texts, then you will be able to - because of the extremely wide range of interpretations of any text which is possible.

Do cut past the carpola. The key question is whether such contradictions actually do exist, and as I showed and to which you have no answer, all such attempts fail. If you have no answer, just admit and go find something to do with your life that is productive. I suggest bottling your arrogance, matching it with your miseducation, and selling them in tandem to power dirigible flights.

Even the most heremeneutically blackened heart can be cleansed.

All of this blather is nothing more than psychological cover, and the Hirsch quote mere non-addressing of the pertinent issue. The simple fact is that someone here sees through your pitiful and petty games, and you can't do anything about it, and have no aswer other than posturing. But at least you are fair -- you psychoanalyzed Till as well. Not bad.

Hope that helps.

Your help perhaps remains in psych medication. :rofl:

[Reba]

· One of the original (shorter) "David & Goliath" stories has survived in a Greek translation;












Greek?

[Dee Dee Warren]

"edited" was not a mispelling of "turkey".

Robyn... get a grip. You spelled "turkey" as "turky". Doh! I was fully convinced then of God's inerrant sense of humor.

And I am proud of you that you figured out how to overcome the internal forum censoring program, though I was ROFL the first time you tried to dishonor the request and your post came out with $%#@!@ all in it. Perhaps you can explain to me how you find it appropriate to find ways to circumvent the requests of the Forum's leadership to refrain from using a person's real name? And again I repeat to you as I did to Farrell, if you refuse to honor that request, we will simply edit your posts to remove the name, as we do not pratice a heavy-handed style of moderating here and would not ban or further censor anyone on that basis. You are welcome here as any other Member.

[jpholding]

Reba:
· One of the original (shorter) "David & Goliath" stories has survived in a Greek translation;
Greek?

Reba,

He/she/it refers to the LXX or Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT done c. 300-200 BC.

http://www.bts.edu/lxx/WhatIsTheSeptuagint.htm for basic info.

The variations he/she/it refers to are more inidicative of the variable nature of the Septuagint's transmission process (as evidenced in other books, like Jeremiah) than of any idea of confating of stories. From http://www.christian-thinktank.com/alxx.html we can see examples of such variability as, "the translator of Esther took 107 verses of Hebrew into 270 verses of Greek--by interpolations."

It's just the usual canard of data being pounded to fit into a theory by hook or by crook while ignoring more parsimonious explanations within the realities of context.

:bonk:

[Reba]

thanks i think:p








from a stupid one

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
So are you saying that this accomplished and widely-respected biblical scholar and professor, writing in 1986, was ignorant of oral tradition????

robholding:
He didn't mention it or consider it, which for practical purposes amounts to the same thing.
Ok - then your position is that Tov is ignorant of oral tradition. Fantastic. That is the lengths you must go to in order to defend what was a tendentious fundie explanation. It's certainly nice to see you backing even further into that wee corner of yours.

Now... why would I use 'tendentious' a lot concerning inerrantist harmonizations... :)

Oh yes! Because they constantly imagine that putting forward a 'possible' answer (eg 'oral tradition') deals with much more likely answers. :rofl:


Robyn:
although you seem to have a misguided fetish concerning "psychologizing", you are miles from the mark (again). The question "should they be harmonized?" was asked as a methodological question.

robholding:
It was a load of baloney sandwiches based on a previous assumption shown to be without basis.
And now you admit that it was a question of logic 'assumption', and don't simply admit that your 'psychologizing' call was off-mark and incorrect. Disingenuous stuff, Robert Holding!


Robyn:
Now, if you really want to make a 'harmonization' of any two texts, then you will be able to - because of the extremely wide range of interpretations of any text which is possible.

robholding:
... The key question is whether such contradictions actually do exist, and as I showed and to which you have no answer, all such attempts fail.
Incorrect. The mere provision of a 'harmonization' does not disprove that the text is not contradictory. You make an elementary hermeneutical error.


robholding:
If you have no answer, just admit and go find something to do with your life that is productive.
My 'answer' (which you have thus far failed to appreciate) is that your answer is less probable than my interpretation of the passage. Moreover, although you provided a stock inerrantist harmonization of 1 Sam 16-18, it failed to take into account my interpretation, which demonstrated why it was the best interpretation.

If you really want to make a 'harmonization' of any two texts, then you will be able to - because of the extremely wide range of interpretations of any text which is possible. The proper question is: should you harmonize the texts? In the example of David and Goliath the text is interpreted remarkably well, and all contradictions and inconsistencies in the text cleared up, because of the appreciation of the conflation of earlier texts. Either you don't have the ability to confront this explanation, or you are just avoiding it. In either case, it is insufficient to simply produce a number of disingenuous harmonizations for contradictions in a text which have already been perfectly explained by one coherent explanation.

The inerrantist's hermeneutic is typically methodologically flawed. You are no exception. Instead of making your primary aim the discovery of the meaning of the text, you make your primary aim the manufacture of a harmonization, and thus make a mockery of the Scriptures.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Captain Ochre]

Robyn Banks:


Ok - then your position is that Tov is ignorant of oral tradition. Fantastic.

Non sequitur. I am able to see, but if I go out for a walk and keep my eyes closed, then I might as well be blind.
The observation that knowledge of oral tradition did not appear to impact the work under discussion does not soundly lead to the conclusion that J.P. thinks that the author(s) is unaware of oral tradition. Seemingly ignorant of appropriate application, maybe.

You have a pattern of mistakes such as this, Robyn.

[GrayPilgrim]

Reba,

The books of Samuel are the most textually corrupt. It appears that there was a systematic attempt to destroy the book, generally ascribed to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Therefore, Robyn has picked the book that has the most problmes in its transmissional history as an attempt to make his/her/its point, which is bad scholarship, no matter how you slice the balogna!

GP

[jpholding]

Dear Psych Med Consumer,

Ok - then your position is that Tov is ignorant of oral tradition.

My position as clearly stated was that for all the mention he made of it (i.e., NONE) he may as well have been. Perhaps he knows more than the likes of i.e., Vansina and Lord; perhaps he thinks "oral tradition" means stories you tell about gum disease. Either way you misreported the argument, thus proving yourself a poor reader in need of serious Laubach training, or else proved yourself to be a large bucket of scum. Take your pick.

That is the lengths you must go to in order to defend what was a tendentious fundie explanation.

Watching you repeat the word "tendentious" 100 times and not prove it? Did someone beat you with that word as a child?

It's certainly nice to see you backing even further into that wee corner of yours.

It's certainly nice as well to see your frustrated psychological condition continue to manifest itself. OH BTW forget court. I had a better idea. :rofl:

Now... why would I use 'tendentious' a lot concerning inerrantist harmonizations...

Because your vocabulary is limited?

Because they constantly imagine that putting forward a 'possible' answer (eg 'oral tradition') deals with much more likely answers.

As yet we're still waiting for an actual reason to believe that your answer (pfft, hack) is more likely. Presently that the text was edited by UFOs seems more likely than yours. As yet we're waiting for you to show the irrelevance, i.e., of oral tradition or some such and I suspect we will be waiting until at least 2056 for anything of substance, other than that which perhaps you have smoked.

And now you admit that it was a question of logic 'assumption', and don't simply admit that your 'psychologizing' call was off-mark and incorrect.

Now it seems you need meds for hallucinations. :duh:

The mere provision of a 'harmonization' does not disprove that the text is not contradictory.

I.e., you are too lazy, ignorant, etc to provide an answer. Thank you.

My 'answer' (which you have thus far failed to appreciate) is that your answer is less probable than my interpretation of the passage.

But of course it is far less likely in an (ahem) ORAL society, how silly of me, esp. since you have (NOT) produced the actual original texts in their divided state. Sorry, but your solution is the product of graphocentric bigotry.

Moreover, although you provided a stock inerrantist harmonization

The Stock market has fallen on your pointed head. When will you get up?

range of interpretations of any text which is possible. The proper question is: should you harmonize the texts?

Ah. You have another mental disorder that causes you to repeat yourself. Is that you, Farrell? :argh:

Either you don't have the ability to confront this explanation, or you are just avoiding it.

How can one confront a product of imagination? Do you confront your hallucinations, is that it? Blase squase.

Still waiting for a ding-danged answer to my arguments other than :p and psycho-crap.

[jpholding]

GrayPilgrim:
The books of Samuel are the most textually corrupt. It appears that there was a systematic attempt to destroy the book, generally ascribed to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Therefore, Robyn has picked the book that has the most problmes in its transmissional history as an attempt to make his/her/its point, which is bad scholarship, no matter how you slice the balogna!


Not only that, but Robyn doesn't even know where I actually live. :rofl: Thank you, GP.

[Reba]

I read enough of robyn to know NOT to bother to read more.



Thank you Foggyone :)

[Mr Stick71]

All I can say is that I feel sorry for Skeptics who participate in this forum, because Robyn has not represented you well. Robyn, your actions concerning your plagiarism of Mr. Holding's website do not speak well for Skeptical behavior, nor does your refusal to refer to Mr. Holding by his pseudonym. People are not going to respect you (or your opinion) if you do not respect others.

Aaron

[djconklin]

>Robert Holding never even engaged the point that the contradictions are each explained by the existence of the surviving earlier version of 1 Samuel 15-18. All he did was to make an ignorant comment about 'oral tradition', which overlooked the fact that the correspondence is a product of the written tradition. As Emmanuel Tov's article came to the same conclusion, and he is well aware of 'oral tradition' Robert Holding's comment was well off-beam.

Even w/out knowing all the details ab't the above argument this kind of remark displays an awful amount of ignorance of how things actually work. :argh:

Different people see the same thing from different "angles" (we all have diffeernet perspectives on things. And the criticism above assumes that all who repeat what they saw were all looking at exactly the same time!) and they tell others what they saw (the beginning of oral tradition) and those who hear then passs it along (more oral tradition) and finally someone somewhere writes down the oral tradition that they have heard! Hence, if more than two people from different perspectives pass along what they saw and heard and much later these eyewitness accounts write them down then you'll have two different, and seemingly inconsistent to the uninitiated (and/or haven't watched enough legal trials--if the detectives hear stories from witnesses that are too consistent that is good evidence that they were coached!), stories.

[djconklin]

>The books of Samuel are the most textually corrupt.

Can you show me the evidence please? Seems out of character to me for how the Jews preserved their books.

[djconklin]

For those who wish to actually be informed about oral tradition I would suggest reading:

Bailey, Kenneth E. "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," Asia Journal of Theology (Singapore) 5/1 (1991): 34-54.

You should be able to fill out a ILL form at your local public library and get it in ab't two weeks.

[djconklin]

>People are not going to respect you (or your opinion) if you do not respect others.

People who are not nice or polite never get respect, period.

[Richard Romano]

Robyn has proven himself to be a fraud and a sham. His posts are glaringly hostile to logical argumentation; he consistently uses ad hominem arguments to prove, really, how little he knows. I can't believe that he would actually try to substantiate liberal historical revisionism and folly to appear as if he knows anything about biblical scholarship. What he does in fact do is demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of liberal scholarship, which is little more than "just so" stories conjured up in the muddled minds of men with nothing better to do.

It's pretty sad when people who are caught red handed with lies and deceit continue to persist in their nonsense.

J.P. Holding isn't someone you want to play games with, since he will completely demolish and expose your fallacies, and leave you among the smoldering embers.

God bless you Robyn, better luck next time.

best,

Richard Romano.

[ItalianGold]

Good GRIEF!!!!!!

[Richard Romano]

ItalianGold:
Good GRIEF!!!!!!

Dear Italian Gold,

Just exactly what do you intend to imply with this statement?

regards,

R. Romano

[jpholding]

Maybe I Gold has been listening to Till and thinks you are a hypnotized choir member...Richard: You are getting verrry sleeeepy...

Thanks my man. :smile:

[Richard Romano]

Dear J.P Holding,

My pleasure...thanks for doing the dirty work! :)

God bless,

R. Romano
p.s pass the coffee please! :)

[Nicky]

I am utterly convinced.

[shunyadragon]

I am utterly convinced.

This unfortunately did not reflect a good debate because of the tactics of JP and Dee Dee that reflected how fundies respond to a good argument. The field is littered with smelly red herring and starw men, not to mention various convulted personal attacks. It is more an unfortunate witness of sleazy debate tactics.

[jpholding]

This unfortunately did not reflect a good debate because of the tactics of JP and Dee Dee that reflected how fundies respond to a good argument. The field is littered with smelly red herring and starw men, not to mention various convulted personal attacks. It is more an unfortunate witness of sleazy debate tactics.

Low on the self-esteem these days, eh, Puff? :lol:

[shunyadragon]

Low on the self-esteem these days, eh, Puff? :lol:

No problem JP!:tongue:

[jpholding]

No problem JP!:tongue:

Yep. Like the guy who says:

I don't have a drinking problem!
I drink, I fall down...no problem! :lmbo:

[shunyadragon]

Yep. Like the guy who says:

I don't have a drinking problem!
I drink, I fall down...no problem! :lmbo:

No problem! I do not drink!:tongue:

[Nobby Snark]

Good point.