The David and Goliath Saga

034

035

The University of Pennsylvania’s Jeffrey H. Tigay sets the stage for the article that follows:

Since the rise of biblical criticism in the 17th century, scholars have concluded that the books of the Hebrew Bible, like many other ancient literary classics, have not reached us in their original form but are, in their present forms, the products of lengthy evolution. Many parts of the Bible are thought to include new material composed by revisers, or variant accounts of the same events which were interpolated into the original text by editors who wished to present information not found in any one account.

These conclusions were reached by critics reading between the lines of the traditional text of the Bible. Phenomena such as inconsistency, redundancy and thematic and stylistic variants were read as clues that a book combined the work of more than one author or age or that it had been revised. Following these clues, scholars sought to analyze the text into its original components. Though the arguments they marshaled were powerful the “analysts” were in effect arguing for the existence of lost documents which none of than had ever seen and no known source mentioned. Since actual copies of the presumed earlier stages of these books ware almost never available for consultation, the analysis was perforce confined to the traditional text, with little reference to external controls. The “analysts” never demonstrated that inconsistencies and the like necessarily pointed to revision and interpolation, and, with few exceptions, they did not show that any ancient compositions had demonstrably undergone the kind of evolution they hypothesized. Consequently, the results of biblical criticism, though impressive, have remained largely hypothetical.

Today we are in a position to introduce empirical perspectives into this theoretical structure. 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 can be shown to have reached their final forms in ways remarkably similar to the ways biblical critics believe that the books of the Bible developed.^a There are even cases where earlier forms of parts of the Bible are available, and by comparing them with their final forms we can see that the Bible also developed in ways similar to those postulated by biblical critics. In many of these cases it can be seen that inconsistencies and the like ready are the results of the editing process, as the analysts supposed. These cases do not in themselves prove that the analysts’ theories are correct, but they do confirm that they are realistic and plausible.

In the following article Professor Emanuel Tov argues on the basis of the Septuagint that the story of David and Goliath, as it appears in the Hebrew text of the Bible, is such a case.

The biblical critic tries to get behind the biblical text as it has come down to us to determine its history and prehistory, to find out whether it was perhaps formed by combining two or more different texts or strands, to see what was left out or added along the way, and perhaps even to understand why.

Occasionally, we have more than one text of a passage or even of a book that provides us with real evidence—something in addition to theoretical clues—that allows us more or less to trace the development of the final text, step by step. In this way, we can test whether the theoretical procedures of transmission that scholars surmised have, in particular instances, actually occurred. Such a case involves not just textual transmission, but presumably also the different texts that were created at a very early stage, when the biblical book was still in the process of being created.

One such instance concerns the well-known episode of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 16–18. The youthful David slays the Philistine strongman laden down in his mighty armor. In this instance we in fact have two different versions of the story. The one preserved in our Hebrew Bibles is the version known as the Masoretic text, or MT as scholars call it Although this version has come down to us in its medieval text, this version actually goes back to a much earlier period and is already attested in a few verses of the pericope found in the manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scroll caves dating from the third-second century B.C. The other version of the David and Goliath story is preserved in the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint, or LXX as scholars refer to it. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made for the Jews of Alexandria in about the third-second century B.C. According to a legend, 72 scholars working independently produced identical translations and the number was later rounded 036off to 70, hence, the abbreviation LXX.^b

The David and Goliath episode in the MT is a surprising 80 percent longer than the same episode in the LXX!

In the sidebar to this article, the MT of 1 Samuel 16:17–18:30 is reprinted. The parts that appear in the MT but not in the LXX (“minuses,” as they are called, of the LXX) are printed in italics.^c

In addition to these minuses of the LXX, there are other differences between the two versions. Sometimes one word is used in the LXX and another in the MT. In addition, in 17 instances there are “pluses” in the LXX, that is, in these instances something appears in the LXX that does not appear in the MT. These pluses range from single words to complete sentences.

How can we account for the differences?

We cannot tell a priori which version of the episode is earlier, because both the MT and the LXX may be based on traditions much earlier than their actual date.

In the past, scholars have suggested two theories to explain the differences between the two versions of the David and Goliath episode. The first is that the LXX translators abridged the Hebrew text to eliminate some contradictions and discrepancies. The second is that the LXX translators used a shorter Hebrew text.

Both suggestions, however, focus only on the large minuses in the LXX, neglecting the shorter minuses, the variant readings and the pluses in the LXX compared to the MT.

By examining these neglected details, I believe we can demonstrate that both these explanations are wrong, or at least oversimplified. We can now show that the LXX translators did work from a shorter Hebrew version of the David and Goliath story, which represented an earlier stage in the literary development of the story. I believe we can also reconstruct the way the different versions were combined in the longer Hebrew text preserved in the MT as part of the literary growth of the book. We may consider ourselves “lucky” to have these insights into the history of the development of the book through the preservation of these ancient traditions.

The key to the conclusion that the LXX translator worked from a shorter Hebrew text is the fact that the LXX translation is a very literal translation. Its technique of translation, we might say, was literal rather than free. The next assumption, which is probably a reasonable one, is that a translator committed to a literal translation of a text would not feel free to omit 44 percent of it, as the LXX translator would have had to have done if he started from the same basic Hebrew text as is preserved in the MT. Therefore, he must have been working from a shorter Hebrew text that he translated quite literally.

How do we know that the LXX translators produced a literal translation if we don’t have before us the Hebrew text from which they worked? There are four different kinds of clues: (1) The translators used the identical Greek equivalent for a single Hebrew word-element (particles, for example, like a waw which means “and” or “but,” depending on the context), despite a difference in context; the result is often to produce what can be recognized as a “Hebraism” in the Greek language. Another example of a Hebraism in the Greek translation of the story of David and Goliath is the following: In Hebrew “between” is expressed by repeating the word bên before the two items which lie on either side, as if to say “between Scylla and between Charybdis.” The second “between,” used in Hebrew, is incorrect in Greek (as it is incorrect in English). Yet in the LXX translation of the David and Goliath story the Greek equivalent of “between” is repeated, as in the Hebrew. (2) The LXX translators followed the Hebrew word order even when this is awkward in Greek. (3) Quantitatively, the LXX translators tried to use one Greek word for each Hebrew word. (4) Frequently, though not always, the Greek translator uses the same Greek word for a single Hebrew word.

In addition, as pointed out by previous investigators, the Greek translation of the David and Goliath account contains other Hebraisms which show the Hebrew origin of the translation.

For all these reasons, we conclude that the Greek translation of the David and Goliath episode in the LXX is a relatively literal one. If this is correct, then it is highly unlikely that the translators would have omitted 44 percent of the text were translating. The Greek translators have shown us that they were unwilling to take much liberty with their text. We therefore assume the LXX translators were working from a Hebrew text that was much shorter than the MT that has come down to us.

As previously noted, some scholars have suggested that the LXX version is an abridgement of the MT version because the shorter version eliminated some inconsistencies and contradictions that appear in the MT version. For example, in 1 Samuel 17:55–58,039 when young David approaches Goliath, King Saul asks his general, Abner, to identify the young boy. Abner says he doesn’t know him. After David kills Goliath, David is brought to Saul and introduced to him. Yet in the scene preceding the battle between David and Goliath, Saul and David had a lengthy discussion about David’s confronting Goliath (1 Samuel 16:17–23). How then can Saul and Abner later fail to recognize him, and why is it necessary to introduce David (a second time) to King Saul? It has been suggested that the passage in which Saul and Abner claim not to know David was omitted by the LXX translators in order to eliminate this inconsistency.

Standing alone, this is a reasonable suggestion, although even then it presupposes that the translator allowed himself very considerable liberty with the text.

But this explanation is belied by the fact that literally scores of contradictory passages have been left in the LXX translation, including many in the Book of Samuel. Moreover, the elimination of inconsistencies in the Hebrew text would explain only a small percentage of the alleged omissions from the LXX translation. Lengthy passages are omitted where only a short section would be sufficient to remove the inconsistency. Moreover, not all the inconsistencies have been eliminated in the LXX. In 1 Samuel 16:18, David is called “a man of valor and a man of war” (gibbor hayil we-is milhama); later he is called a mere “lad” (na‘ar). Both references, although seemingly inconsistent, appear in the LXX translation.

In short, there is no convincing explanation to support the contention that the LXX translators abridged the text they were working from. Moreover, in other chapters in Samuel containing contradictions and inconsistencies, we find nothing like the alleged abridgement said to have occurred in the David and Goliath story.

We must conclude that the episode as related 040in the LXX was an independent, cohesive version of the David-Goliath incident.

It thus seems clear that the MT story was created by combining two previously independent accounts, a process scholars call conflation. One of these accounts we have preserved in the LXX. The other account we know only as embedded in the conflate account in the MT.

One of the indications that the MT version is a conflate account is the inclusion of some parallels or duplicates from what were originally two separate versions of the same episode. In both of the accounts, David was introduced to Saul. In the conflate account in the MT, he is introduced twice, once in 16:17–23 and a second time in 17:55–58 (the latter is missing from the LXX). In both accounts Saul offers one of his daughters to David. In 18:20–27 (MT) Saul offers his daughter Michal; in 18:17–19 (MT), which is missing from LXX, Saul offers his eldest daughter Merab.

The two accounts combined in the MT are not completely parallel and often contain different elements and different details. As a result, the conflate version preserved in the MT not only contains inconsistencies but also some seemingly misplaced events.

One instance, as to which all scholars agree, concerns Saul’s attempt to kill David; as it appears in 1 Samuel 18:10–11 (MT) it is surely misplaced. It is repeated verbatim in 1 Samuel 19:9–10 (MT). In its earlier appearance (1 Samuel 18:10–11) (MT), Saul’s attempt to kill David undercuts the gradual and progressive intensification of Saul’s envy and suspicion of David. Indeed, in the LXX account the sequence of events is more logical than in the combined version in the MT. In the LXX, Saul is at first envious of David (18:8–9), then suspicious (18:12), then frightened because of David’s success (18:13–15). Next, he wants David killed by the Philistines; and when that fails, Saul himself tries to kill David (19:9–10). In the combined MT version, Saul’s progressive response to David is interrupted and undercut by Saul’s premature attempt to kill David.

Moreover, the conflate account in the MT contains a number of inconsistencies.

We have already referred to the most conspicuous one: After David is introduced to Saul and becomes his armor-bearer (16:17–23) (MT), David disappears from the battlefield and reappears as a shepherd who had been tending his father’s sheep; neither Saul nor Saul’s general Abner know him and David is reintroduced to Saul (17:55–58)(MT).

Other instances of inconsistencies in the MT:

• In 17:12 David and his father Jesse are introduced to the reader, although they were previously identified in chapter 16 of the MT.

• David is depicted in more than one way in the MT’s composite narrative. In 16:21 he is Saul’s armor-bearer, and in that capacity he fights Goliath. In 17:12–31 and 55–58 he is an unknown shepherd boy who happens to be on the spot visiting his brothers when Goliath challenges the Israelites to a duel.

• In 18:13 David is made an officer in Saul’s army, though he was already made an officer in 18:5.

• According to 17:25, whoever defeats Goliath is to be given King Saul’s daughter in marriage. This seems to be ignored in 18:20ff, where Saul looks for pretexts to convince David to marry his daughter, while David says that he is unworthy.

• According to 18:20–27, Saul offers Michal to 041David, but in verses 17–19 Saul offers David his eldest daughter, Merab, in accordance with his earlier promise to marry his daughter to whoever defeats Goliath.

Why the editor or redactor created this conflate version, despite its inconsistencies, is a matter of conjecture. It stands to reason that he wanted to preserve certain traditions and details from another version of the David and Goliath account that were not included in the short Hebrew text on which the LXX translation was based. It is especially hard to understand why he included 17:12–31, in which David comes back for a second time as an unknown shepherd, and 17:55–58, in which after David slays Goliath, he is again introduced to Saul. Possibly he simply liked the story; possibly he wanted to convey a certain idea it expresses, namely, that God can bring victory to his people even through initially unimportant figures (in this version David was unknown before the battle).

But the redactor did not entirely ignore the inconsistencies created by his juxtaposition of the two versions. There are a few details in the MT which have the effect of smoothing out certain of the inconsistencies.

For example, in 17:12 David’s father Jesse is identified. Jesse was previously introduced in chapter 16. Therefore the redactor added the word ha-zeh (this one) after the identification in chapter 17, which has the effect of saying “the aforementioned Jesse,” as if to say “I know he has already been introduced.”

In 17:15, we are told that David went back and forth from King Saul’s court to attend his father Jesse’s sheep in Bethlehem, presumably to smooth over David’s second arrival at the battle scene with Goliath.

Similarly, in 18:21b the Masoretic redactor adds, “You can become my son-in-law now through the second [daughter],” a kind of cross-reference to the absence of Merab, the eldest daughter, who was referred to earlier.

The implications of this analysis of the David and Goliath story go far beyond this particular episode. The fact that the redactor who combined the versions created a text displaying such inconsistencies is precisely what is supposed to have happened in other cases throughout the Bible where texts underwent conflation, expansion and interpolation. The only difference is that in this case we are able to document the existence of two layers of one story, because it has been preserved in the LXX, while in other cases the assumption of different layers is merely an abstract possibility.

The University of Pennsylvania’s Jeffrey H. Tigay sets the stage for the article that follows: Since the rise of biblical criticism in the 17th century, scholars have concluded that the books of the Hebrew Bible, like many other ancient literary classics, have not reached us in their original form but are, in their present forms, the products of lengthy evolution. Many parts of the Bible are thought to include new material composed by revisers, or variant accounts of the same events which were interpolated into the original text by editors who wished to present information not found in […]