Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

The latest diatribe by Skeptic X fan J. E. Hill offers another mountain made out of a molehill, suggesting that Hill himself is having problems finding something high enough to stand on to get noticed. It is objected that in the OT, David "seems to have a bit of a problem with his sons---he can't seem to keep them straight" and after several sentences repeating this same complaint in different words are tossed in the air, we are presented with the actual argument on these passages:

1 Chronicles 3:4-9 (NIV) David reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years, 5 and these were the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. 6 There were also Ibhar, Elishua, Eliphelet, 7 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 8 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet-nine in all. 9 All these were the sons of David, besides his sons by his concubines.

Hill whines that Eliphelet is listed both third and ninth, then compares:

1 Chronicles 14 (NIV) 3 In Jerusalem David took more wives and became the father of more sons and daughters. 4 These are the names of the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 5 Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, 6 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 7 Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet.

Hill whinges, "Here we see that the first Eliphelet is spelled differently or correctly. So this would make the first reference to Eliphelet simply a misspelling." Variant spelling, actually: Both ways the meaning is "God of deliverance" and this is little different than spelling "Kevin" as "Keven" (as with one of my own friends) or "Geoffrey" or "Jeffrey" -- in either case, this is a believable later scribal error, but more on that shortly when Hill tries to knit his conspiracy theory; the most likely answer is far different. He goes on, though, to compare:

2 Sam 5:13 (NIV) 13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him. 14 These are the names of the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet.

And Hill warbles:

And here we find that the first Eliphelet/Elpelet is missing altogether as is Nogah (Note: Beeliada is a form of Eliada)

Hmm, interesting. He knows Beeliada is a form of Eliada, but not that Elpelet is a form of Eliphelet? Either way, two names are missing, and what of it? Hill warbles again:

I am sure some enterprising inerrantist can come up with some explanation on the duplications, different spellings, and omissions shown here...they always seem to. But the accounts contradict each other. It will be interesting to see just how far they go to reconcile these accounts to avoid admitting that the editors and redactors of the holy script were just as confused as Bob Newhart was.

Confused? Hill is playing an obnoxious game here, one that deserves a trip to the psychologist's couch for treatments for paranoia. His comment implies that copyist errors are somehow some sort of excuse and not really an adequate answer to such issues. That this would not be so would be startling news to professional textual critics like the Metzgers and the Tovs and the Alands out there, who would presumably be told by Hill that they are conducting exercises in avoidance. The loss of names may have been attributable to a specific type of copyist mistake called an "accretion error." Oddly enough, S. Talmon, in "The Town Lists of Simeon", Israeli Exploration Journal, 1965, pp. 235-41, uses precisely this "excuse" to explain discrepancies in town lists in Joshua, though seemingly having no axe to grind for inerrancy. A more likely answer proposed by Anchor Bible commentator Kyle McCarter is that the second Eliphelet is an instance of haplography. (He also notes that Nogah is a variant spelling of Nepheg; hence another copying error.) Hill's propagandic appeal to what "enterprising inerrantists" would do here is little but mud-slinging in context. One obviously need not be an inerrantist (McCarter certainly isn't) to propose or support such an answer, which is grounded not in any presumption of inerrancy but simple, common-sense rules, textual-critical principles, and courtesy to the original writer. Here, Chronicles clearly draws on Samuel and Kings for material; what reason do we have to suggest that the Chronicler's was the hand that made the error, rather than one of the dozens afterwards? There is none, and it is far more likely that 1 Samuel has suffered in transmission. It takes no enterprise to suggest such answers. It takes knowledge of the processes of textual criticism, but do not expect an angry Skeptic looking for grievances to be receptive to such an endeavor.