Monday, December 10, 2012

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2D: Apologetics


You have found through apologetic sources that the Bible is 100% accurate 

There are many apologetic works out there that offer a defense for the Christian faith, explaining all the seemingly inconsistent areas. The Bible is 100% correct, we just need to understand context and have an open mind to see the truth.

This is a popular option among rational Christians. There is a ton of apologetic work out there to counter every single doubt about the Bible. Some of it is plausible, perhaps even arguably likely, but much of it is solely based on making the Bible one coherent text. For instance, there are two Goliath killings in the Bible.11 I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that one. Someone who holds this view could probably argue with me until the end of time, but little convincing will ensue. You will likely see me as not wanting to see the truth when you have “explained” all of my questions, and I will see you as fighting to argue your belief is possible as opposed to it being likely. There is really not much I can say on this, other than with that kind of work most religions can be defended, including the LDS Church and Islam. While I tend to get along with people in this group as we both generally do not seem to mind debating for hours on end, I admit it is not as much as a debate as a “sharpening of swords.” You will learn new theories and explanations to refute the points and counterarguments I raise, and I will learn new understanding of the scholarly studies of the Bible to counter your points and counterarguments. It’s all good fun, but it isn’t always productive, as at times we will end up “beating a dead horse.”

11. The two Goliath killings
Everybody knows the traditional story of how David killed Goliath with his sling. What is interesting is that the Philistine champion is only called Goliath twice in the chapter; the rest of his references he is merely titled “Philistine.” These references are clearly referring to the Goliath mentioned in 1 Samuel 17.4 and 17.23. 1 Samuel 17:4-7:

“And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him.”
Goliath taunts and challenges an Israelite to battle him alone, as we all know. David, against overwhelming odds, confronts Goliath and kills him. This is possibly the most well known Old Testament story. Later in Samuel (originally 1 and 2 Samuel was one book, but was eventually split up for practicality sake as it made for one large scroll), another is given credit for killing Goliath, after David is king and is at war with the Philistines. 2 Samuel 21.19:
“Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”
The first thing that should be noted is that a “Gittite” is a term for someone from Gath. Given his title and the following description of the shaft of his spear, this can be safely assumed to be the same man. But could Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim be an alternative name for David, after all he was a Bethlehemite? No, if there is a nickname for David which has been conveniently lost by the Jewish people who consider King David an iconic legend, it would unlikely be paired with a nickname for David’s father, which is Jesse in earlier chapters. And if by some very unlikely chance Elhanan is David, this would still not make sense since it occurs after David is king. Either way this is a significant discrepancy. It is also worth noting is that early authors of later books noticed this. If you read 1 Chronicles 20.5, you see an alternative account of Elhanan’s victory:
“Again there was war with the Philistines; and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”
This recollection says that it was Goliath’s brother who Elhanan killed, not Goliath himself. Now this should be enough for any Biblical literalist to at least start asking questions. While this could, perhaps, explain the discrepancy, it still shows a historical error within the biblical texts. What is more likely is that multiple sources were compiled to create the book of Samuel, and two accounts had differing records. The author(s) of Chronicles summarized the events in Samuel while honoring both accounts to make one coherent account. If you have a King James Bible, things will be told differently. While with any other translation you find you will see similar variations to 2 Samuel 21.19, the King James Version reads:
“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” 
While the King James Bible does not mention Goliath’s brother by name like the Chronicler’s account, it certainly changed the passage’s meaning. Why is it that only the King James Version of 2 Samuel 21.19 has Elhanan killing Goliath’s brother as opposed to Goliath himself? Part of the appeal of the King James translation is its poetic writing style and presentation. Staying accurate to the text was not as important as making it easy to read, and if the general assumption was that Elhanan did kill Goliath’s brother despite what is written on the early manuscripts, it would be helpful for the translators to make the change for the readers. I will point out that all Bible translations include some interpretive editing of this nature. For instance, some translation read “brothers and sisters” in some of Paul’s epistles rather than reading the literal “brothers.” It is assumed that Paul was talking to both men and women. Most translations, however, do not take their editing this far, as it would be criticized by the modern world. The King James Bible was published in 1611 CE. The older texts on which the translations are based do not include “the brother of” in 2 Samuel 21.19. This is distinctly of the King James Version, so unless one has the belief that the King James Bible is the only inspired Word of God, this means very little against this biblical inconsistency.

No comments:

Post a Comment