Articles
Dealing with Bible Problems - 2Sam. 21:19
Dealing with Bible Problems - 2Sam. 21:19
My problem with dealing with biblical problems is often simply how people deal with biblical problems. Often there are several (sometimes many) possible solutions to a textual problem. As long as there are possible solutions, I am not persuaded to simply call it a ‘contradiction’ and ‘error’ and thus deny the inspiration of the original text. We simply do not have enough evidence to sort out the ‘one and only’ meaning of that particular text.
Who killed ‘Goliath’ is such a problem in 2Sam. 21:19. We know that there was a Goliath that David killed, and that Goliath was a Philistine (1Sam. 17). Here in 2 Samuel it is Elhanan that kills Goliath the Gittite. So, was it David or Elhanan?
While some jump at this as a contradiction and then extrapolate that conclusion into the basis for dismissing the whole of the bible text as uninspired. Well, that is one way of dealing with it!
There are however other suggestions.
In comparing 1 Chronicles 20:5 we read: “ 5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” Notice that here it is “Lahmi the brother of Goliath” that is killed. It is possible that the text of 2Samuel has at this point become corrupted by a copyist. Such HAS happened in other texts as well. Yet it is possible to detect that such was a corruption because we yet have other texts to compare and make corrections with. Such difficulties are in our copies of the text and not in the original text itself.
Other solutions to THIS problem have also been offered. Some think that ‘Elhanan’ is an alternate name for David and this text is simply recounting the story of 1 Sam. Others think that ‘Goliath’ was actually used as a title – much in the same way as ‘Pharaoh’ was used. Similarly, some think that ‘Goliath’ was a common noun for ‘a giant’, and hence there were many such ‘Goliaths’. Still others point out that there are many men that all had the same name, and thus there were at least two men named Goliath.
What I am pointing out is simply that when there are possible explanations, we are not forced to conclude that the text was thus not originally inspired. I know that many think this is simply a ‘cop-out’ on the part of believers, but I also know that many such people themselves have their own prejudices as they approach the text. Thus, when there is a possible contradiction it becomes to them absolutely so. All possible explanations are then either simply denied or dismissed. I am convinced that such is NOT an honest dealing with the text.
Hugh DeLong
