Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Someone wrote "I read a very disturbing book by a very respected Prof Baruch Halpern called David Secret Demons. From the book's Amazon site "....argues that the historical David was a far different person than the one pictured in 1 and 2 Second Samuel. The controversial nature of this study can be seen in the title of one of the chapters: "King David, Serial Killer." Halpern presents a close textual analysis of the stories about David in 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 1, along with a special study of 2 Samuel 8. He builds his case around the idea that there were two sources, identified here as A and B, which were used for the final versions of 1 and 2 Samuel. While Source A shows some of his faults, Source B is a kind of whitewashing apology for David in order to justify the kingship of Solomon and his successors.
We see that there are many instances where it seems that there are two versions of the same story and that leads us to ask:
The word TaNaCH is actually an acronym for the parts of the Hebrew Bible: "T" is for Torah, "N" is for Nevi'im, and "CH" is for Ketuvim. The Torah is the first part of the TaNaCH. The Christian version of the Jewish bible moves the books around – which changes not only the flow but the logic of many of them. . . The T’nach is comprised of תּוֹרָה (Torah), translates to "instruction." The Torah is often called the “Five Books of Moses” or the Pentateuch. G-d dictated the Torah to Moses and it is the holiest part of the bible. The second part of the bible is נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets). נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets) records the communication to the Jewish people by the prophets aka a navi. A navi is really a spokesperson for G-d one who speaks to his or her generation on behalf of G-d. These prophets had dreams and visions (not direct communication as did Moses). The works in נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets) were saved by the Men of the Great Assembly as their messages were both for their own generation and future generations. The prophets often warned the Jews to follow Torah. There is nothing in Nevi'im that adds to or contradicts the Torah – the books re-enforce the need to be Torah observant. Then we come to כְּתוּבִים / translated as "Writings" is the third section of the T'nach. Ketuvim consists of history, stories, essays, songs and poems. Again, the Men of the Great Assembly compiled Ketuvim. Just as Nevi'im is holy, but not as holy as the Torah, so too is Ketuvim holy, but not as holy as Nevi'im. The Writings were written under the influence of the spirit of G-d, which is a communication with G-d that is a level less than that of prophecy. In prophecy G-d speaks through the prophet. With ruach haKodesh (spirit of holiness) the person is moved by the spirit of G-d. We Jews are not at all bothered if there are a few minor mistakes in the Ketuvim (if there are any -- most have explanations). If there are errors they present no issue for us since Ketuvim was written by men... However, errors do present major problems for missionaries who are convinced that the entire Scriptures are G-d’s perfect “Word” and are completely without error. Which brings us to your point -- is there an error between different stories of "who killed Goliath?" If there are -- is Halpern (by some miracle) the first and only person to ever notice a difference? Baruch Halpern is an archeologist, he is entitled to his opinion -- and that is all it is, an opinion. It is an opinion at odds with the T'nach and our mesorah. As you mentioned (quoting the professor) Shmū'é lBeit / 2 Samuel 21:19 seems to say that Goliath was killed by Ĕlḥanan. There is also Dĭvrei Hayamĭm Alĕf / 1 Chronicles 20:5 which is similar to 2 Samuel 21:19, but it actually refutes this supposed variance: “And there was another war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair smote Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the staff of his spear was as [thick as] a weavers' beam.” This verse states that the giant killed by Ĕlḥanan was Goliath of Gittite’s brother Laḥmi. Not Goliath. Do you think he is the first person in history to ever discuss the topic of “who killed Goliath”? It has been discussed by many. David Kimhi aka the Radak (1160–1235CE) discussed it. 21:19כ״א:י״ט אלחנן בן יערי אורגים בית הלחמי את גלית הגתי. ובדברי הימים כתוב אלחנן בן יעור אורגים את לחמי אחי גלית הגתי וקרי יעור ויעיר ויערי אחד ופירו' את גלית אשר אמר הנה את מי שהיה עם גלית והוא אחיו הרגו אלחנן בגוב וגלית הרגו דוד באפס דמים ואלחנן זה מבית לחם היה לפיכך קראו בית הלחמי וכן מ"ש בדברי הימים את לחמי כמו מלחמי כלומר מבני לחמי ר"ל מהגבורים המתיחסים לבית לחם וכן יאמ' שם ומן הגדי נבדלו אל דוד למצד ר"ל מן המתיחסים לגד או פירוש עם בית הלחמי והוא דוד ר"ל כי דוד עזרו וז"ש שם את לחמי עם דוד שהוא לחמי שעזרו והרגו ולדעת יונתן אלחנן זהו דוד וכן תרגם הפסוק וקטל דוד בר In a nutshell, the Radak opines that the Hebrew word את is usually dropped in translation. This omission takes out the concept of "with." Using his reasoning , so that 2 Samuel 21:19 is actually saying that Elhanan killed someone with Goliath –and as per Chronicles that someone was Goliath's brother. He pointed out that Targum Yonatan (supposedly written by Yonatan ben Uziel a student of Hillel about 2000 years ago) says that Elhanan was David (which echoes Rashi’s opinion). David Altschuler of Prague (1687-1769 CE), known as Baal haMetzudot agrees with the Radak. Joseph ben Simeon Kara (1065 - 1135 CE) known as Mahari Kara also wrote about this issue. He said Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. Rashi seems to think there were two men named Goliath – one a Philistine and another a Gittite. Rashi makes this point in his comment to 1 Chronicles 20:5: "Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the staff of his spear was as [thick as] a weavers’ beam: like the round stick about which they wrap the cloth while weaving. Jonathan translated that verse in Samuel: And David the son of Jesse, the weaver of the dividing curtain of the Temple, slew. He interprets Jair (יָעִיר) as being similar to the Lebanon forest (יַעַר). He was paid in kind: Let David, whose mother wove the dividing curtain for the Temple with a weavers’ beam, slay Goliath, whose spear staff was as thick as a weavers’ beam. Now why does Scripture call him Elhanan? Because God favored him (ה׳ חֲנָנוֹ). I believe that Goliath the Gittite is not identical with Goliath the Philistine. One reason is that there [I Sam. 17:23] he called him Goliath the Philistine. Another reason is that above it is written: “… then Sibbecai the Hushathite smote Sippai of the sons of Rapha,” and also below it is written: “and he too was born to Raphah.” Since he does not mention that Goliath the Gittite was a son of Rapha, it proves that he [Goliath the Gittite] was not her son." Pointing out a suspected discrepancy or difference does not anoint this professor as somehow knowing more than all of chazal based on nothing more than his opinion. Rashi even opined that Elhanan is simply another name for David… Seems unlikely, but it just goes to show that our sages have discussed these differences for thousands of years… Our tradition tells us that Samuel wrote Sefer Shmuel /Samuel. It covers events from 2830 –2921 (931 – 840 BCE), and it was finished by Nathan and Gad. Divrei HaYamim – Chronicles 1 and 2 were written by Ezra the Scribe around 3448 (313 BCE) – some 500 years later. It was finished by Nehemiah. So “no” this is not some new great revelation discovered by this professor. It has been discussed by many and it does nothing to alter what we know about David. His opinion does not teach us anything new about David’s personality or abilities. It is nothing more than his opinion. Is it possible that there might be errors in the T'nach? There are no errors in the Torah and Nevi'im (Prophets). There are possibly one or two very minor errors in Ketuvim (Writings). For a modern "expert" (Jewish or otherwise) to suddenly think they've discovered something new is an error of its own. We are aware of the few differences and we also know the reasons why they are there.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|