The famous story of David and Goliath is full of redundancies and contradictions for Catholic, Protestant, and Jew alike... but not for the Orthodox Christian. The parts here separated as "Story B" are absent from the first Greek translations of the Scriptures. Like an eighth of Jeremiah, B is an artifact of the Masoretic Text "MT", the canonical Hebrew Bible.
It seems a bit much to go back to the Greek text; rather like those warriors on Star Trek VI: "you have not read Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon". But in this case, the Klingons may have it right.
The term "Septuagint" or LXX has a very narrow definition: the Greek translation of the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) made in Ptolemy II's reign in Alexandria, around 250 BCE. Of the rest of Scripture, early Christianity and diaspora Judaism gradually accepted as normative a number of Greek translations made between 200 BCE and 100 CE; it is these translations which are often mistakenly called "Septuagint translations". The normative Greek text was notoriously difficult to preserve against the influence of other translations and of copyists' theological biases. For example, the Gospels appear to have used a normative Greek text with influence from a Palestinian precursor of the MT.
By the third century, the Hebrew canon was closed and its textual evolution ended. The problems for the Greek canon were just beginning. Origen tried to iron out the divergent textual traditions with his synoptic Hexapla, but only succeeded in corrupting the transmission further. Saint Jerome decided that the Greek translations had become an embarrassment to the Christian faith. For the Latin Vulgate, he skipped over the Greek entirely and translated from the "original" Hebrew. Thus has the MT become the de facto Catholic and Protestant canon. But he failed to note one thing - that the MT had closed its doors too late.
The argument that the Hebrew text has thrown in extra material is not new. It certainly sounds more likely than that the Greek text, elsewhere quite faithful to the original text of Basilewn A' / 1 Samuel (as shown by comparison with the MT), had arbitrarily decided to delete it. This point has been stated much more eloquently by Emmanuel Tov in 1985 (Auld: Volkmar & Davies p. 166).
This view has had its critics, of which the most cogent recent challenge has been Robert Polzin's in 1989 (Samuel and the Deuteronomist-A literary study of the deuteronomic History, Indianapolis, Indiana University Press). Polzin did not offer a contrary opinion so much as dismiss the whole debate as unnecessary. In his view, historical and textual concerns "tend to become addictive and can divert one's efforts [away from] ... what a 'book' ... is driving at". As a sideswipe to the redactor's crowd, he pointed out a couple of flaws in their thesis. Graeme Auld and Craig Ho summarized Polzin's counter-argument:
Auld and Ho tried their hand at refuting the second statement, with two points of their own. Their first assertion, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that what I call Story D "has its own integrity - it had lost no limbs". Unfortunately, they did not take this argument into Story B, choosing to sing the praises of the D+B redaction instead. That comprised their second (and quite debatable) point: that the add-ons in the later Hebrew serve to "add to the ... contrasts between David and Saul". That argument served to sidestep rather than counter Polzin's claim to the final text's internal integrity.
Auld and Ho won the battles against Polzin's individual arguments, but lost the war against his overarching thesis. Polzin's first statement, in question form "why this unique case of such large-scale modification?", of course applies to any theory of this text's transmission. Polzin did not even try to answer it, and Auld (without Ho) had to rely upon analogy. A confused one at that: Story D and its MT redaction "resemble two frames from close to the end of a moving film... or two snapshots from a once larger collection". But which? Were they stages of redactional development (freeze-frames)? If so, why did the redactor introduce so many redundancies, even contradictions between the B and D sections? Maybe they were two separate stories from the same milieu (snapshots). Then why does the D+B story of the MT agree so well with the D story of the Greek when viewed synoptically? With no consensus on how the story came to be created, we may as well cede the field to Polzin's agnostics.
It should be clear from the preceding pages that D+B only earned its integrity through redaction, and clumsy redaction at that (see my footnotes to the text). It is B and D independently which tell coherent stories, once the conflationary lard is trimmed off. In order to properly support Tov's thesis, we will need to answer some basic questions of who wrote what, when, and where. Above all, it cannot be overstated that the whole text deserves our attention, not just that of 17:12-31.
The earliest manuscript evidence, as is so often the case, appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls. B has been postulated part of 4QSamb (a third-century BCE Dead Sea Scroll "DSS"), based on projections of that manuscript's size (according to VanderKam p. 130). I have not seen those studies first-hand, so I cannot comment on their accuracy. I have seen a study of 4QSama, the better-preserved Cave 4 manuscript. Edward D Herbert has, in 1997 (!), revolutionized the statistical analysis of this scroll and, incidentally, Qumran studies as a whole. By so doing, he was even able to add a number of fragments to the text. These he classified as certain, probable "(?)", likely "?", possible "??", and unlikely.
Two fragments "possibly" contain B/17:19-20 and D/17:40-B/17:41. The former would prove the existence of D and B on the same scroll; the latter would prove the existence of the D+B redaction at this time. His study was, however, not an overview of the scroll per se and more a demonstration of these new statistical tools; as such he concentrated on the less controversial 2 Samuel and left the bulk of 1 Samuel to later scholarship. The question of the B text must be considered still unsettled. An answer will doubtless be forthcoming in the next few years.
Leaving aside the fragmentary DSS manuscripts, we have Joseph and Aseneth, which in chs. 27 and 29 has Benjamin performing Davidic actions. Notable for our purposes, he leaps from a carriage (B/17:22) to hurl stones (D/17:49). Also, Josephus's Jewish Antiquities follows a Greek translation of the Palestinian text, not the Septuagint. Accordingly, he follows the MT's order. IX.2 goes over D+B/17 in detail, and X.1 mentions B/18:8b in passing. Both works date towards the end of the first century, after the destruction of the Temple.
An earlier attestation of the canonical MT's version is Biblical Antiquities 59:1-62:1, writ between 135 BCE and 100 CE. The author is unknown; he was once (erroneously) associated with the first-century Diaspora Jewish historian Philo. As a result, we call the author "Pseudo-Philo". Biblical Antiquities is a rewritten Bible, along the lines of Philo's and Josephus's own Jewish history books. Like Josephus (and unlike Philo), Pseudo-Philo followed the MT's order:
Charlesworth 2:298, translated by DJ Harrington
This scrambles the B and D traditions in a way too close to that of the MT to be coincidental. When a verse appears out of order, it often exists in order to explain away a contradiction between two pericopes. 61:1 explains why David was singing to Saul in D but was tending sheep in a later (B) section. Pseudo-Philo also tried to explain away 55-58 by claiming that "the angel of YHWH had changed David's appearance". Finally, he used 16 and 31, redactional to the MT. Pseudo-Philo was trying to smooth over difficulties in the later, merged version; he was not writing an independent harmony of B and D.
This work survives to-day in various translations from Greek, which was further translated from Hebrew. This suggests that Pseudo-Philo used a Hebrew text of Samuel. Harrington proved that the Bible he used was also a Palestinian one. Pseudo-Philo's use of Samuel shows that here, at least, the Palestinian and Babylonian recensions agreed against the Greek.
So we have, as the earliest witness to the D+B redaction as canon, between 135 BCE to 100 CE in Palestine, possibly to be pushed back to 300 BCE depending on further study of the Dead Sea scrolls. When is the latest witness to story D without B?
Some parts of Scripture are not that dissimilar between the Greek and the MT. One could say that the Hebrew source of those books has survived intact in the MT. Also, the Jeremiah of the MT and the Jeremiah which underlies the Greek have both been found, in Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Given the last centuries BCE for the MT's version, one might inquire after the first attestation of Story D.
Story D, as my name for it implies, is strictly Deuteronomistic. An exposition of the Deuteronomist is outside the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that it was probably written in three editions: a first edition under Hezekiah (700), a second under Josiah (650), and further redactions afterwards. They all share the belief that Yahweh is the God of History who releases His people from suffering. As Jael slew Sisera and Ehud Eglon, so did David topple the giant Goliath.
Story D probably belongs to the later editions, as its language is late in both Greek and MT (Auld, citing Rofé: Volkmar & Davies p. 167). The Chronicler does not use any version of it, although he was probably aware of the Davidic legend; he has a parallel to 2 Samuel 21:19 (1 Chronicles 20:5) which replaces Elhanan with David. Likewise, Judas Maccabeus prays, "You are blessed, Saviour of Israel, who smashed the attack of the mighty warrior by the hand of Your servant David" (1 Maccabees 4:30).
Elsewhere in the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls have a "Psalm 151B", of which enough is preserved to show that it goes over the legend in verse:
Then I saw a Philistine
who was uttering taunts from the ran[ks of the enemy ...]
11QPsa 151
Related to the above fragment, the Syriac and Greek Psalters share this conclusion to Psalm 151:
I went out to meet the Philistine,
and he cursed me by his idols.
But I unsheathed his own sword, and I cut off his head;
and I removed the reproach from the sons of Israel.
The Septuagint with Apocrypha
The cursing by idols and the use of Saul's own sword stems from D/17:51. "The reproach from the sons of Israel" is a phrase from either the Greek-only D/17:36b, or the Hebrew-only B/17:26.
Evans noted a number of Davidic parallels in the Dead Sea scrolls, especially in the War Scroll. In col 11.2, Goliath is "delivered into the hand of" (D/17:46) David, who does not trust in "sword or spear" (D/17:47) but "in the name of" (D/17:45) YHWH. (Evans, David in the Dead Sea Scrolls p. 188). The War Scroll also repeats "the battle is yours!" as a refrain (11.1, 2, 4); compare D/17:47. This is one of the oldest of the sectarian materials from Qumran; Historical setting of the War Scroll., by Ian Hutchesson, shows that local history according to the War Scroll ended at 165 BCE. The War Scroll also arrays the Jewish forces in the manner of the second-century BCE Roman army. Note col 5.3-16, 8.1. The War Scroll shield was to be oblong, 3:5 width:height. Each soldier was to have a pilum, with the socket and blade 1/14 of the total length, banded thrice about the shaft. The sword was to be "a cubit and a half" in length, the width of the shield.
Also, 4Q398-399 contains "deliver (nzl) me from many troubles". Compare "delivered (hzlny) me out of the paw of the lion" in D/17:37. (Evans p. 189) 4Q458 concerns someone who is anointed with oil, fights the "uncircumcised", and is someone's "first born". This is probably God's first born mentioned in Psalm 89:28 (Evans p. 28) - understood to be David. Compare "uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them. ...For who is this uncircumsized one" from D/17:36. (Evans p. 190) Finally, 11QPsa = 11Q5, 27.2-11, reveals that some of David's psalms may be used to heal the demon-possessed. Note D/16:23 and D/19:9. (Evans p. 191)
Moving away from Evans's work, 4Q373 + 2Q22 have a narrator say, "I had prepared deadly slings (or catapults) with bows", against an opponent related to Og of Bashan, a legendary giant from Joshua. (4Q373). 4Q372, which Wise, Abegg, and Cook think is related, is a sermon on how Bashan was conquered and ends with an account of one who smote "his head with a wound[ing] stone".
As for Story B elements, we must look for references to Jesse the servant of Saul, David bringing cheese to his brothers, to heavy fighting between Israel and Philistia at this time, to the great reward Saul put on Goliath's head, to the sheep-keeper and the carriage, to the anger of Eliab, to David running up to Goliath before he killed him, and of course to Saul recognizing David for the first time (treated as is, not apologetically). As for Samuel 18, we would like to see Saul's javelin, Saul's stated jealousy, and a comparison between David's wisdom and that of Saul's servants. Thus far no attestation outside the MT redaction has been found. In addition, these elements are absent from any text prior to Pseudo-Philo, Aseneth, and Josephus, particularly those concerning David.
Goliath's Achaean trappings suggest that D may have been influenced by Homer. If so, I propose a date after the Persian invasion of Greece 480-479 BCE, perhaps even during the rule of the early Ptolemies. Stories B and D are both relatively new arrivals to the Bible, but still, Story D got there first.
Once the glosses have been removed, what emerges is a lost apocryphon of the Bible.
It is by no means unique. Apocrypha on biblical books literally littered the floors of the Qumran caves of the Dead Sea. There is a pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385,6), a pseudo-Daniel (4Q243,4,5), and a pseudo-Jeremiah (4Q385,7b). There is even a pseudo-Samuel (4Q160, 6Q9). Psalm 151 no doubt belongs in this category. At that time, there was more than one way to tell a story.
B's story appears to know the outlines of D's. At any rate, it preserves Jesse's three older children, plus Abner, Saul's daughter Merab, and David's sheep. It also knows that David defeated Goliath with a stone, and that David was of relatively humble origins. It is strikingly aware of Saul's jealousy of David. Closest to the thought of D, are the relationship between David and Saul's son Jonathan, and that Saul tried to marry off his daughter, so as to drive a wedge between David and the Philistines. Finally, B/18:10-11 is a copy of D/19:9-10a. B knew D very well.
But the differences are more striking. Although B inherited some of D's Deuteronomistic views (see B/18:10-11, and maybe 12b too), it softens the blow. It is a B section which emphasizes that Saul had a legitimate fear for his throne. Where D has Saul recognize David for his singing, with only a secondary (and unsupported) reference to David as a "man of war" before they met, B has Saul recognize David for his fighting. B emphasizes David's humility in origin and comportment further than D. It also (twice) contrasts his wisdom with that of Saul's servants. In B, David killed Goliath with a sling and a stone, explicitly not with a sword. That latter may even be B's answer to D's odd statement that David, who bore Saul's armour (and presumably did not do badly at it), cannot carry a sword.
I conclude that B was based on D, maybe even a response to D. I suggest the following scenario: The Deuteronomistic History was rewritten with Story D, and subsequently translated into Greek. But Story D was not the last word on the David legend. Story B had a good rags-to-riches theme which made it, or a version of it, popular among the peasants and the army.
The Alexandrian diaspora community translated the Deuteronomistic history into Greek, including Story D. Then, the Palestinian community realized that it had another, alternative version of the Davidic legend, Story B. The Palestinian Jews were at a loss to reconcile the two versions; after all, the Deuteronomistic History was sacred! At that time, however, sacred did not mean untouchable. So they spliced Story B into Story D, thus invoking a swarm of contradictions. The Diaspora community noted trends like this, and (rich) men educated in the Hellenistic tradition (like Philo and the author of Aristeas) attacked the Palestinian text. Those more loyal to the new text, like Pseudo-Philo, glossed over the contradictions as best they could.
To sum up, I have no problem with story B. It is a good story that has earned a place of pride within Jewish literature. But its author never intended it to be part of a story he was, in part, writing against. And he would have been shocked to find it in the state it is in to-day. I have found it:
Given all this, it becomes extremely difficult to defend the interpolation of Story B as the work of the Holy Spirit. But it will be equally difficult to ask of Jews, and perhaps Christians too, that they alter the holy Nevi'im to take into account this superior recension of the text. Nonetheless, it must be done.
Before Jerome, Christianity based itself upon the Septuagint. Before 70 CE, so did diaspora Judaism. Christians and Jews possess both the precedent for biblical criticism to determine the limits of the canon set by Origen, Jerome, and the Council of Yavneh, and the precedent for the Septuagint's reading in the early Church and the synagogues.
A Christian might argue that Jesus did not preach from the Septuagint. For that, I retort: where is your proof? All the earliest Christian documents are in Greek or Aramaic, and they use the Septuagint. Jesus himself grew up in an Aramaic suburb of the Greek city Sepphoris. Is there any evidence that Galilean Jewry demanded that Scripture be read in Hebrew? More likely, it was read from the Septuagint or from Aramaic targums. And even if Jesus did know the Palestinian tradition, he never quoted from Story B.
On all the grounds mentioned above, I move that Story B be transplanted into the Apocrypha. Who is with me?
e-mail me with any thoughts...
zimriel@earthlink.comThe original version was Feb 1998. Since then it has undergone little but cosmetic surgery until 28-29 July 1999. Then I moved 17.48b into Story D, and added Evans's formidable list of Davidic material at Qumran, which includes much from 1 Sam 16-19. In 8 August I dated the War Scroll and added 1 Maccabees, 4Q372, 4Q373, and 2Q22 to the list of witnesses.