Talk:Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim

Citations, but I don't know how.
Re; the discussion on liberal vs. Conservative approaches to the 2 Samuel 21 problem, you could cite Anderson, A. A. (2002). Vol. 11: Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary (xxvi). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

I don't know how to do that/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.106.131 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a terrible article. It seriously distorts the issue involved. I'll be happy to write something up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cot10 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article badly needs re-writing. It is not at all clear that 2 Sam 21:19 is talking about the same person as 1 Sam 17:12 (both father and son have different names).  And the idea that 2 Sam uses 'Elhanan' as an alternate name for 'David' is surely impacted by the fact that 2 Sam refers to David as 'David', including just a couple of verses after the cited verse.
 * My understanding - and I'm not an expert - is that most Biblical scholars agree that this contradiction arises from there being two separate traditions about the death of Goliath, and/or heroic deeds being assigned retrospecively to David. That is not currently mentioned anywhere here.  Giford (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul
This article needs a serious overhaul. There are multiple respected schools of thought on the subject, yet this article only gives credence to one approach/interpretation. Kleinias (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added an alternative explanation by Provan et al, namely that it is Samuel rather than Chronicles that is corrupt. Peter Damian (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Added explanations by Gleason archer and provan. citations added. links to related articles added. Tgeorgescu keeps on reverting edits and does not contribute to the talk. He is doing the same thing in the goliath article, going as far as to place more or less the entirety of this article under the topic of elhanan in the the goliath article. I suggest it should be addressed. There have been multiple edits by several users to balance the article but this user is reverting these edits without explanation often. Please contribute to the talk. ---2402:4000:2381:F7C6:F9E4:A788:2067:5701 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Giving too much space to WP:FRINGE authors (i.e. biblical inerantists) fails the website policy WP:UNDUE. We shortly tell what Provan thinks, that's more than enough.
 * So, Provan's view is rendered, just that it is not rendered upon half a page. Nor is any other view rendered upon half a page. And when I say half a page, that's a conservative estimate.
 * Sometimes fundamentalist scholars posit something about the text of the Bible, but no serious Bible translation follows their suit. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes fundamentalist scholars posit something about the text of the Bible, but no serious Bible translation follows their suit. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious sources
Mainstream Bible scholarship sources are not hit pieces. If anything, the dubious source is Provan, who is an all-out fundamentalist. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A fundamentalist source in a Biblical article is like allowing a Nazi to write articles on World War II. Remove the pseudo-scholar. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the Sri Lankan IP does not speak like a meek Christian, but as a bully working for the Inquisition. They have been blocked for their statements. There are words in the Bible about putting Christ to open shame, that's exactly what the IP does. What happened to evangelizing through good deeds? Their deeds are saying avoid my religion.
 * Again, I find Provan's statement acceptable. But Wikipedia is not about what convinces me but about what convinces the mainstream scholars. I have no deep objection to Provan's thesis: he states that the Bible is wrong, and Halpern's option was that the Bible is wrong. So, either way, same result: the Bible is wrong. I'm not offended by that.
 * Okay, Provan teaches at a private evangelical divinity school from Canada. But according to John J. Collins:
 * "For Kitchen, the biblical story (at least from the time of Abraham) is true until proven otherwise. Needless to say, he is not troubled by postmodernism or deconstruction, which he dubs "the crown of all follies." His critiques of Lemche, Thompson and others are not without substance, but his own views are too blatantly apologetic to warrant serious consideration as historiography. More sophisticated, but ultimately equally apologetic, is another volume published in 2003, Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, entitled provocatively, A Biblical History of Israel."

- John J. Collins


 * "The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view. In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given."

- Lester L. Grabbe


 * By 'maximalist' history he means the aforementioned book by Provan. Grabbe stated about it "But the basic ploy is to ignore difficulties."
 * Apologetics is something not done for mainstream Bible scholars. They may still defend their own faith, but apologetics nowadays means lying for Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Tells a lot that you removed my criticisms of you, tgeorgetscu. There is no lie involved in provans explanation in the argument for this passage. There is only the valid suggestion that one of the scriptures was copied wrongly. Why would elhanan be the son of a guy named jaare-oregim when elsewhere he is the son of dodo in several accounts? Ridiculous. This doesnt change the fact that youve been manipulating this article to fit your worldview several times.there is no ploy to ignore difficulties here, tgeorgetscu. Provan and gleason archer both ENGAGE the difficulty as they are scholars. Not engaging the difficulty is what creationists do when they say dinosaur fossils were laid by God to test people.


 * Besides, the only liar here is you. Censoring people. Wording the article to fit your worldview. Saying that the majority of scholars think elhanan was goliath's slayer when its far from the case. I am alright with your minimalist position, but minimalist positions these days usually mean lying for anti-theism. People have been analyzing the bible objectively for centuries. There is no christian (or agnostic in my case) conspiracy to hide things, thats what people like you do. Also, lets address the fact that by your definition of fundamentalism, you would be a fundamentalist for antitheism as well, and thus your contributions to the wiki would be discounted as well. In that case only secular agnostics would ever be qualified in scholarship, which would make me a better scholar than you. Also i fail to see how opinions on postmodernism and desconstructionism matter in this regards.also, i find it hilarious when you call me a bully. People like you never like it when people use the same condescending tone that themselves use towards others.solipsistic narcissists like you are the reason why a lot of teachers no longer recommend wikipedia to their students:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:13C2:8860:1:0:EAFB:344F (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So? I consider Provan's explanation plausible. Not proven, just plausible. But this is no longer about me: two other editors either suggested removing Provan or have removed him themselves.
 * And the judgment that Provan c.s. do apologetics and dodge difficulties is not mine, but quoted from two well-established Bible scholars.
 * I was seeking a compromise solution, but your attacks forced me and others to remove Provan's claim from the article.
 * You are acting like Biden, who seeks to make Xi Jinping choose between him and Putin, while Xi does not want to choose a camp.
 * So this boils down to: you are rather seeking something from me, personally, rather than engage in collaborative editing of Wikipedia. I assume that the other two editors know more about Bible scholarship than me, it is just that I'm more of a dogfighter for correct articles.
 * I am quite diligent, but I am neither your only opponent, nor the most acerbic. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it is a given that the bigoted and the uneducated cannot comprehend that there is a difference between historical criticism and mockery of religion. I endorse historical criticism, not mockery of religion. The paramount purpose of historical criticism is to understand the biblical text in its bare naked reality, unadorned by the artificial garment of theological dogma. It isn't per se to mock religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Noone said that youre mocking religion. What i said was that youre censoring views that dont fit your canon, giving bs reasons. There is no mockery here, just extreme bias. Perhaps there is a mockery of the concept of a wikipedia editor, which is what youre doing, but i digress.

Youre not a dogfighter for correct articles. Ive checked other references and articles to the same subject regarding elhanan, and ive found your edits in all of them. Youre just here to force your view onto the article, not letting any other explanations being provided. You used your power to lock the article as well, your edits are considered alright but anyone trying to give an explanation that you dont like is "vandalism". Literally, noone is asking anything of you but to be fair. Stop trying to backpedal and say you considered provan's explanation plausible. If you did, you would have left it up. Instead you play games with definitions and excluded his view even when others brought up provan. I wasnt even the first one to add provan as a source. Others did. My edits were the amalgamation of edits other people added before. The information you cant bear to see.

Such projection it is, trying to accuse me of not wanting to have collaborative editing on wikipedia. Youre the one censoring any opposing idea! If youre really dilligent scholar as you say, you would be open to discussion and editing of this article.

And besides, you cherry picked the view that provan isnt a suitable scholar from two bible scholars who have their own agendas. Heck, this is the world's most argued over book. Of course there will be accusations. And of course you will be able to cherrypick them. Doesnt change the fact that many people supported provans explanation, as well as gleason archer who came before him. Besides, dont claim that you discounting provan isnt your decision. Youre discounting him because of his view primarily, not his reality.

If you really wanted to "compromise", you would have told me so. You just now bring it up so that you could look like a saint in front of everyone who reads the talk. Besides, what would a compromise be? A compromise on the overall tone of the article, or a compromise on information allowed? The former is not what i want. The latter is what many people wanted, including me. If provan's view is plausible, which it is, otherwise noone would be touting king david as the slayer of goliath,then it should be inserted and explained. Your edits of the article was disingenous and made it seem the thoughts of whoever wrote "davids dark secrets" or whatever, were the only accepted explanation. I dont care if youre a bible minimalist or a maximalist, you just have to face the fact that you manipulated information in this certain article.

Xi's situation is clearly not applicable here. You chose a side already, and that was the side of censoring everything that went against your idea. If you were unbiased, you wouldnt have altered literally EVERY single idea that went against your canon.

You want to be diligent? Either open the article for editing or talk to me about the whole matter on my discord @yasithlovesahan6464, and then lets see if youre an actual person capable of accepting other people's opinions, or an fundamentalist who can only toot his own horn.

Besides, looking at the bible without considering jewish or christian thought at the time it was written at all is shoddy scholarship and you know it. Its like saying you should examine black history from the black man's perspective. But i digress, i know you dont like the book at all despite all the time you spend editing articles about it online, so either just talk to me about this like a morally functional human being or just listen to me rant. Dont hide behind things like "Oh im done with this conversation, youre clearly not going to listen", dont be disingenous, because you know very well that would be cowardly.Grow a pair and engage me, or be branded as the cowardly control freak you are:::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:13C3:97E3:1:0:90:7C78 (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hilarious! Your problem is explained here: WP:1AM. And further explained here: WP:FRINGE or at least at WP:UNDUE.


 * Archer, Provan, etc., are apologists, not mainstream Bible scholars. You might think this is my own judgment: it is not, it is a hard fact from the real world outside of Wikipedia, i.e. they are seen so by the mainstream academia.


 * That fundamentalists scholars get as a rule of thumb deleted from Wikipedia is not a rule of my own making. I mean: I endorse this rule, but I have not created this rule myself. Do you understand the difference?


 * What do you expect? Wikipedia has rules. Even the Friedrichshof Commune had rules.


 * I do not pretend to be holy and outsiders could see me as a ruthless dictator&mdash;in fact I only apply the WP:RULES of Wikipedia.


 * What you are effectively saying is that I should follow my own preference despite the rules of the community. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "I do not pretend to be holy" Well, the Bible is not remotely holy either. I still remember (almost 30 years later) its description by a bookshop owner who was speaking to my mother: "It's like porn, but a lot more violent". With all the scenes of rape and murder in the anthology, the description was very accurate. Anyway, apologists and their nonsense have no place in an article striving to convey a secular view about the Biblical texts. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * insulting Christians is not the response to someone trolling/pushing POV. No secular source can objectively rule on the metaphysics of holiness of the Bible. Neither is it up to us to judge whether Christian apologetics is "nonsense". One thing we can say is that talk pages are not a place for such insults/discussions since they violate WP:POLEMIC, but also, merely reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is anti-Christian/religion, which maybe it is depending on the brand of Christianity (it certainly is not a friend of Mormonism that affirms the historicity of the book of Mormon). Suffice it to say, this is not a helpful approach. In this case, I agree with 's approach. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources added
I've revised the article using good sources. Interested editors are invited to test the content against those sources. Achar Sva (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)