ELHANAN [ELCHANAN, ELEHANAN], (0,3, LXX. ; Vulg. Adeodatzts) [cf. man, pm+, 'Iteatnnris, phoen. Hannibal] ; one of David's heroes, further described in 2 Sam. xxi. 19, as ro; vnix p, 'the son of Yaare Ore a Bethlehemite ' [LXX. pi Zs' Acutely-Au ; Vulg.
Filius Salttis Polymitarius ; son of Malaph, a weaver ; Arab. Ver. L.:01„ , son of Makzp/z], and as having slain Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was cTix (Kimenor Oregim) like a weaver's . • beam ;' a feat which in I Sam. xvii. is ascribed to David himself. In the parallel passage (1 Chron. xx. 5), however, Elhanan is designated as the son of (Keri, Vp!) and as having slain Lachmi [Lehemite], the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.' These discrepancies have at all times engaged the attention of Biblical investigators, and many and widely divergent have been their attempts to reconcile them. The Midrash, followed by Jerome, Targum Jonathan, Jizchaki (Bashi), etc., identifies Elhanan with David, explaining the diffi cult Jaare Oregim' in various fanciful ways. David's mother, so one version runs, was habit ually weaving veils (Oregim) for the tabernacle in the sanctuary (flagadistic 7aar, 7aar Lebanon) at Beth Lehem, and on the principle 'measure for measure' in: Min), the Divine retribution brought the merits of her weaver's beam to bear against the impious Philistine, whose spear re sembled a weaver's beam. Another of these quaint interpretations, which, by the way, influ enced the early patristic writings to a hitherto undreamed of extent, is, that David was called Jaare Oregim, because he was the loftiest tree in the towering forest (yaar) of the weavers (Oregim) of the Halacha, i.e., the Sanhedrin, who brought the most difficult legal questions before him, that he might weave their decisions ( Jalk. ad. loc., N711 Inth rinn m9vn iromv).
A sober exegesis, however, could not but at once reject an identity between Elhanan and David established on grounds like these, and no other way of explaining the divergences remained than to assume a corruption in one or more of the texts. The exact place and amount of the corruptions, however, no less than the restoration of the pro per reading itself, are moot points still. Abra handl, instead of'] rit.; 5n the Bethlehem ite [slew] Goliath' (Ace.), proposed to read rIN '3 'TN [Elhanan slew] La.chmi [Ace.], the brother of Goliath ;' thus emendating Samuel from Chron., and leaving, by the alteration of three letters, David the uncontested victor of Goliath, whose brother was killed by Elhanan. The A.V. likewise adopts the reading from Chron., but, leav ing Elhanan's epithet Bethlehemite ' unchanged, inserts, the brother of between Bethlehemite ' and ' Goliath,' so that the one difficulty of David's contested feat is solved. Piscator, however, fol lowed by Kennicott—who proved the former's suggestion almost to evidence (State of Hebrew Texts, p. 79, segy.)—Gesenius, Movers, Ewald, Bertheau, Thenius, and, in fact, nearly the whole body of modern critics, go much further. They alter the strange reading (Jaare) of Sam., into the more common (Jair) of Chron.—an emendation advocated already by Kimehi*—and strike out the inexplicable Oregim after it ; account ing for its presence by assuming that the copyist, after he had written the 1 of [or ( Jair) of the original reading, mistook this letter for the other of the word ni:n (Menor) at the end of the verse, which, in the codex from which he copied, stood exactly underneath it, and unconsciously went on with the word (Oregim), following in the line below ;—without, however, striking out this super fluous word when he became aware of his error.
But while on these two emendations modern critics are almost unanimous, they disagree considerably with respect to the ensuing words of the two texts. The majority (Movers, Thenius, Winer, etc., among them) read (with Abrabanel and the A.V., who, however, retain the Oregim ') +11,1, the brother of,' instead of TIN, the ' (Acc.), after Lachmi," Halachmi,' or Bethlehemite.' But they carry (like Kennicott) their emendations so far as to make the whole passage in Sam. agree with Chron., from which, they say, the former has been taken and subsequently corrupted : first un consciously, then consciously, in order that some sense might be brought into a passage which had become utterly unintelligible through the blunders of successive copyists. These critics thus likewise arrive at the conclusion that the Elhanan of both passages slew Lachmi, and David slew Goliath ; and it can certainly not be denied that the narra tive of David's exploit in I Sam. xvii. carries a great deal of historical truth on its face, and that altogether this solution seems the easiest and most satisfactory. Others, however, — and Gesenius, Ewald, Bertheau, among them, — hold that in reality it was Elhanan who slew Goliath, and that his contest formed the ground-work of the much-later written and either entirely fictitious or highly - coloured tale of David's encounter with some 'nameless ' Philistine. Gesenius, it is true, confesses not to know rebi latet mendatm,' while Ewald (Bertheau) makes eclectic emendations in all the three passages. But even setting aside the difference of the localities in which the two fights are reported to have taken place (Valley of Elah and Gob), and the wide periods and momentous events which lie between them, and which seem to preclude all possibility of one story being mixed up with the other ; one of the principal arguments for assuming Goliath to be the name later be stowed on David's foe, viz., that in 2 Sam. xxi. 19, he is called Goliath the Gittite, while in i Sam. xvii. 5, he is named the Philistine' only, does not seem at all tenable, considering that he is in troduced in the former place, where David's deed is narrated, both as Goliath, from Gath ' (xvii. 4) —one of the principal five cities of the Philistines ; as Goliath, the Philistine, from Gath ' (xvii. 23) (= the Gittite); and as the Philistine ' (of that name and place). Nor can we at all see what in duced Jizchaki, who takes Elhanan and David to be one person (see above), to make that same dis tinction between Goliath, the Philistine,' and Goliath, the Gittite ;' a distinction which would certainly rather form an argument against his theory.