tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-598976914865836297.post1835981656522523619..comments2015-02-18T09:30:36.493+00:00Comments on Atheist Biblical Criticism: veryrarelystablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02076257757125173954noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-598976914865836297.post-89096224548738585662013-04-05T21:50:34.079+01:002013-04-05T21:50:34.079+01:00It was certainly an eye-opener for me when I came ...It was certainly an eye-opener for me when I came across biblical criticism, with its very thorough examination of the texts.veryrarelystablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02076257757125173954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-598976914865836297.post-15676338822553386302013-04-05T15:41:28.626+01:002013-04-05T15:41:28.626+01:00This is a very in depth and diligent post. When a...This is a very in depth and diligent post. When a small passage like this is so complex, and takes so much homework to understand, it causes one to question their understanding of other parts of the bible.Dadosaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644306609125762378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-598976914865836297.post-65572734147398115362013-03-12T21:53:30.508+00:002013-03-12T21:53:30.508+00:00Don, many thanks for your comments.
I agree that,...Don, many thanks for your comments.<br /><br />I agree that, according to the story, the risk Saul takes is enormous. That might well have been in the mind of a redactor/author here, because it enhances the heroic nature of David. It also makes Saul a little more crazy, but the story is already making Saul out to be losing his grasp, so this also might serve the author/redactor well. It seems an unlikely military scenario though, and if the writers were concerned about realism, they don’t really show it here.<br /><br />You make a very interesting point about the sling; I’m no expert in ancient warfare and weaponry (perhaps I need to learn about this area) so I was very interested in what you said. The Hebrew text (vs 50 – absent in Greek) might be trying to make a point about the way in which David killed him the first time (I’ll come back to the point about the double death below) – that it was extraordinary because it was done without a sword. But this comment could be a sign of something else, an explanation of which I’m storing up for a future post. I might refer back to your suggestion, because it would help support this second reason.<br /><br />As for the multiple deaths, I wonder if there is a problem in reading in translation here – I’m always a bit nervous that people reading English translations may unwittingly be victims of certain harmonisations that some translators do – even the KJV engages in a harmonisation about who killed Goliath, and modern day evangelical ones sometimes do as well. The Hebrew is quite clear that Goliath is killed twice, although the first time is subject to a clarification in the Hebrew text; verse 50 clarifies that David “smote and killed” him (actually having done so in verse 49) without a sword in his hand. And then in verse 51 David drew his (presumably Goliath’s) sword “and killed him” (again) and then cut off is head. So he David kills him “swordlessly” and then again with a sword.<br /><br />I’ve translated (painfully) literally in my post to try to make it clear. If you don’t like my translation (and I concede literal translations are not always the best!) I suggest you try a couple of different publically available translations, making sure at least one is outside the evangelical camp, and you may see the difficulty.<br /><br />There is an interesting point about the verb that is used in Hebrew for “kill” – it’s the same verb in both verses, but in different forms (i.e. “binyanim” for those who know Hebrew). There might be a clue hidden in these different forms about how the text evolved, but I’m now getting very technical, so I think I’ll hold off. The important point is these forms still mean the same thing – David killed him, and did so twice.<br /><br />Your point about Goliath’s head being a trophy is certainly correct. In fact here the writer(s) get so excited about this they have the head being displayed in Jerusalem, having forgotten that the Israelites haven’t captured Jerusalem yet – David doesn’t capture it until he has been king for 7½ years (2Sam 5:5-9). That little anachronism merits at least an “oops”! Or is something else going on here? To be continued…<br />veryrarelystablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02076257757125173954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-598976914865836297.post-33864285821672307672013-03-12T20:20:48.301+00:002013-03-12T20:20:48.301+00:00I can't read either the Hebrew or the Greek (a...I can't read either the Hebrew or the Greek (and I haven't read Part III yet) but in the English translation I Googled, I don't see the problem you've pointed out here.<br /><br />Yes, the sequence is a little different, but in Hebrew version (as in the English version I read) there's nothing saying that Goliath is killed twice. He is smote with the stone and either dies or doesn't. A stone going "deep into his forehead" was probably a lethal wound, but that doesn't mean death was instant. Moreover, cutting his head off doesn't have to mean killing him; during the exchange of boasts, curses, and prayers, David has boasted that he will cut off Goliath's head after he's dead. The head was to come off whether that was necessary to kill Goliath or not; I read it more as the taking of a trophy. He's collecting the head of his vanquished foe, not delivering the <i>coup de grace</i>.<br />However, it certainly wouldn't hurt to make certain. Many big-game hunters who hunt dangerous, tough game in Africa--game like Cape Buffalo, Elephant, and Lion--swear by "insurance shots." That means that if they drop an animal and are quite sure it's dead, they approach it cautiously and fire a final shot at close range anyway, both to watch for a reaction and to make quite sure the animal is quite dead. Probably a good idea to make sure with giants, too.<br /><br />Here's my question, though: what the hell was Saul thinking? David must have been awfully persuasive. The deal was that if Goliath defeated the Israelite champion, the Israelites would be enslaved by the Philistines, yes? So the Israelite soldiers who were certain that they couldn't defeat Goliath were not merely cowards; they were also unwilling to be the one who failed and committed their people to slavery. <br />When this kid convinces Saul to let him go out and fight, he's not just being personally brave, but risking everyone.<br /><br />Actually, I have one more bone to pick. David would have been very clever to use his sling, but ancient armies knew what slings were and some employed slingers--there were apparently local slingers along with Xenophon on the march of the 10,000. This is really more like the scene where Indiana Jones is confronted by a whirling dervish of a swordsman and casually shoots him with a pistol from outside his range. The story is written as if it's awe-inspiring that David was able to defeat a man armed only with a sword and spear, despite the fact that he had "only" a sling and five rocks. But does that make any sense at all? What if he'd "only" had a bow and five arrows? Still a miracle?<br /><br />Thanks for the thought-provoking writing.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824445546892392815noreply@blogger.com