Comments on: How many Philistine foreskins did David pay Saul, 100 or 200?

By: hobopotato

hobopotato — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:34:43 +0000

I’m certainly not opposed to it being a copyist error – and numbers are very prone to that sort of thing (think Ezra 2 vs. Nehemiah 7 for example), but my gut instinct is actually more in line with it being a case of David going above and beyond what was required. Especially in light of how uneasy he was with accepting the position of son-in-law to the king in the first place. [see here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1sa%2018:20-30&version=HCSB ]

As for David’s statement that he payed 100, it’s not (as far as I can think) an error at all, if 100 was the price. In other words, I think the “he payed 100 as asked, and the other 100 was a tip/bonus” thing is very plausable. And it’s not difficult to see the motive in recording it, either – the writer is interested in showing that David more than met Sauls requested price.

By: Amtiskaw

Amtiskaw — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:00:51 +0000

“in your desire to find errors in the Bible”

Meh. This website presents many putative claims of error, some of which are very weak. The appearance here of a putative error does not mean the webmaster (that’s “errancy”) claims it as an actual error.

By: Errancy

Errancy — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:18:07 +0000

“It is rather obvious that in your desire to find errors in the Bible you miss the understanding of the text.” [inerrancy, #4]

I’d prefer it if we could confine the discussion to specific points of biblical exegesis and the broader question of inerrancy. Attacking me (or any other contributors) personally isn’t helpful.

“When David brought 200 foreskins instead of 100 it indicated the extent of David’s victory and bravery, and did not obviate the terms of the original contract.” [inerrancy, #4]

And what do you make of the point that 1 Samuel 18:27, in saying that 200 foreskins were given in full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law, says that the price David paid was 200 foreskins?

If you accept the point, then how do you reconcile it with the claim in 2 Samuel 3:14 that the price paid was 100 foreskins?

If you reject it, why? (Hint: There’s a suggestion in one of the “inerrantist responses” listed above.)

“The scribes had it right at 100 and you got it wrong again.” [inerrancy, #4]

You may find it useful to read the About page to get a better handle on my position. My opening comment on this post makes it clear that I think that 100 is the correct number, and that there’s no problem for inerrancy here.

By the way, if, as you suggest, only someone blinded by errantist prejudice would see a problem here, why do you think the NRSV changes “200″ to “100″ in 1 Samuel 18:27? Are the NRSV translators simultaneously driven by a desire to find errors in the Bible and by a desire to conceal them?

By: inerrancy

inerrancy — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:12:42 +0000

It is rather obvious that in your desire to find errors in the Bible you miss the understanding of the text. Saul wanted David out of the way and set him up by promising his older daughter in marriage only to renig at the last minute giving her to someone else. Saul then offered Michal, who David really wanted, and required the 100 foreskins dowery. Saul’s plan was to eliminate David by putting him in harms way by this daunting task. When David brought 200 foreskins instead of 100 it indicated the extent of David’s victory and bravery, and did not obviate the terms of the original contract. The scribes had it right at 100 and you got it wrong again.

By: Errancy

Errancy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:23:29 +0000

If we just had 1 Samuel 18, then I think we’d be able to say that Saul asked for 100, but David paid 200, and that there’s no contradiction in his overpaying.

However, 2 Samuel 3:14 complicates things by saying that the price paid was 100.

Because of that, to reconcile all of the verses we would need to say that David gave 200 to Saul, 100 as payment and 100 as a ‘tip’ (excuse the pun). I’ll add this as an inerrantist response.

The problem with that is that 1 Samuel 18:27 says that all of the foreskins that David gave to Saul were given “that he might become the king’s son-in-law”. That sounds to me like they were all part of the payment.

By: Amtiskaw

Amtiskaw — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:05:11 +0000

Arguably not a contradiction in any case – perhaps more Philistines met him in battle than he hoped for…

By: Errancy

Errancy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:51:29 +0000

This does look like a simple copyist error. It’s a shame that the NRSV obscures the issue, but it does seem clear enough that 100 is intended throughout.