Talk:Obed-Edom

How many Obed-Edoms? A Long-Winded Prologue.

How many Obed-Edom's were there? This is the fundamental question which must determine the organization of this article. As the article stands, it seems to claim that there were four. Unfortunately, scholarship is divided as to exactly how many Obed-Edoms are referred to. First a quick run through the relevant passages, then through scholarly opinions on them. We can't, after all, restructure this article around my readings.

We can begin by splitting all the references to Obed-Edom into two parts: 2 Chronicles 25:24 and every other reference. 2 Chronicles 25:24 mentions an "Obed-Edom" during the reign of Jehoash of Israel, that is, a little after 800. All the other mentions point to an Obed-Edom or Obed-Edoms in the reign of David, about two centuries earlier. So let's set aside the 2 Chronicles 25 Obed-Edom.

Of the remaining "Obed-Edom" passages, we have 2 Kings 6, 1 Chronicles 13, 1 Chronicles 15, 1 Chronicles 16, 1 Chronicles 26. 2 Kings 6 and 1 Chronicles 13 present clear repetitions of a single story, in which the Ark is captured by Philistines, causes mayhem, and then is stored, with better results, in the house of Obed-Edom, "the Gittite" as he is called in both chapters.

1 Chronicles 15:25 mentions the ark being brought "from the house of Obed-Edom" but in this case does not mention the word "Gittite". The rest of chapter 15 uses the name "Obed-Edom" (verses 18, 21, 24) to describe a musician and gatekeeper and Levite. This is where things get sticky. Put a pin in this and I'll get back to it.

1 Chronicles 16 continues the narrative from 15, with the Ark now being brought toward Jerusalem. Here the name Obed-Edom appears (without "Gittite") for a Levite ministering and worshipping before the Ark (verse 5). David leaves the ark in the care of Obed-Edom and relatives (verse 38), with Obed-Edom son of Jeduthun (this is the first mention of Jeduthun in connection with the name Obed-Edom) and another fellow to serve as gatekeepers of the Ark (also verse 38).

1 Chronicles 26 discusses the various assignments of gatekeeping jobs in the time of David, and Obed-Edom and sons appear (verses 4 and 8). Then lots are cast for job assignments, gatekeeping in various places, and Obed-Edom is assigned "the south" and his sons are assigned "the storehouse" (verse 15).

That's it. The tour is complete.

Here's the issue. Scholars generally, but not always (see [1]) take the term "Gittite" and implying that "Obed-Edom the Gittite" was a Philistine, as Gath was a Philistine city as in e.g. the story of Goliath, and it is the city of the Philistine king Achish with whom David stays and allies himself with. If we follow most scholars in taking "Gittite" as referring to a Philistine (rather than, say, an Israelite living in Gath) then Obed-Edom is a foreigner. This, in turn, would make it hard to square this Obed-Edom as the same person described as a Levite, and therefore an Israelite.

The opinion expressed here [2] is that the Book of Chronicles "transformed" the figure of Obed-Edom the Gittite into a Levite. Another opinion, mentioned in the footnotes, is that two or three Obed-Edoms appear here. Yet another, mentioned in the footnotes, is that "the Gittite" only implies that Obed-Edom had resided in Gath, without implying that he was a Philistine. I intend to tabulate a variety of opinions to see if I can get an idea about whether any one opinion is clearly dominant in scholarship. Alephb (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Part 2: Ugly Citation Dump

The following are some quotes I've dug up, which help form a picture of where scholarly thought ranges on the Obed-Edom issue. I'll follow this with a few remarks.

Carl S. Ehrlich

p. 36, says the term "Gittite has generally been taken to imply that he was a Philistine who entered into David's service while David was a servant of Achish of Gath."

Ehrlich expresses in a footnote the opinion that the other references to "Obed-Edom" represent the Chronicles "transformation" of the Philistine figure into a Levite figure. Ehrlich quotes, without approval and in a footnote, Corney's (1962) assertion that there were two or three Obed-Edoms, not including the late Obed-Edom in 2 Chron. He disapprovingly notes Ahituv (1971) suggesting that "Gittite" does not imply Philistine. He approves of R. H. Pfeiffer's claim that Obed-Edom has undergone "metamorphosis into a Levite."

Menahem Haran

Menachem Haran takes Obed-Edom the Gittite as "not a Levite" but says "the Chronicler made him a Levite . . . but this is merely a retrospective combination, which cannot be taken uncritically." He also asserts that the Chronicler has retconned Samuel into a Levite.

Yigal Levin, p. 232

<<"Obed-edom the Gittite" was the person in whose house the Ark was kept for three months . . . In the Chronicler's addition to that narrative, Obed-edom then appears both as one of the Levitical gatekeeper appointed by David for the Ark (1 Chron. 15:18) and as one of the musicians (15:21; 16:5, 38). >>

Jozef Tino

Jozef Tino, citing Sara Japhet, says that the late Obed-Edom (2 Chron 26) is a "theological rather than historical allusion"

https://books.google.com/books?id=YIGtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&dq=Obed-Edom+Chronicler&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy97Gd1PzUAhUD7IMKHQhpC-QQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Obed-Edom%20Chronicler&f=false

Brian Kelly Brian E. Kelly,Retribution and Eschatology p. 77

"The identity and status of this latter figure [Obed-Edom] is a matter of some uncertaincy. According to the most common line of interpretation,"

p. 78

"reflected as far back as Josephus (Ant. 7.4), the Chonicler thought of Obed-Edom as a Levite and was therefore observing cultic propriety in placing the ark in his custody. The assumption arises from references to that name in Levitical connection in 1 Chron. 15.18, 21, 24; cf. also 1 Chron. 16.5, 38; 26.4-6; 2 Chron. 25.24. It cannot, however, be assumed that the Chronicler thought of Obed-Edom as originally a Levite. This is evidently not the sense of 2 Sam. 6.10, where he is a Philistine, a native of Gath on whom David apparently foisted the ark 'without regard to either his feelings or his credentials' (Gordon 1986: 233). . . . Most commentators suggest traditiona-critical reconstructions; cf. De Vries 1989: 150."

Isaac Kalimi, The reshaping of Ancient Israelite, p. 56

"Obed-edom seems to have been a man of Philistine origin . . . At any rate, in Samuel there is no evidence whatever that his origin was Levite. However, the Chronicler found the idea of leaving the Ark with a man who was not a Levite (and very likely not even an Israelite) ideologically faulty — all the more so because the Torah makes no reference to this topic at all. It merely requires the bearing of the Ark to be undertaken by Levites . . . The Chronicler transformed Obed-edom into a [p. 57] Levite, a keeper of the gates of the Ark of the Lord . . . and also a Levite who played on harps and stringed instruments before the Ark in Jerusalem . . .

"According to the Chronicler, Obed-edom thus served in two distinct levitical functions: a gatekeeper and an instrument-player at one and the same time! This presentation of Obed-edom stresses even further the lack of reliability of the Chronicler's artificial descriptions."

Matthias Henze

<<"Obed-edom" also becomes a Levite in the Chronicler's hands (1 Chr 26:4ff.) in order to put an end to readers' doubts over sending the ark of the Lord to the house of "Obed-edom the Gittite" (2 Sam 6:10 = 1 Chr 13:13), as well as to any doubts over how or why God had blessed that house (2 Sam 6:11 = 1 Chr 13:14). The Chronicler refers also to another Levite named "Obed-edom" in the days of Amaziah king of Judah (2 Chr 25:24).>>

Sara Japhet

"The fact that Obed-edom is assigned a levitical pedigree (1 Chron. 26ff.) is usually regarded as the Chronicler's own interpretation, but it could very well have been an earlier tradition."

Summary and Recommendations

Summary A few important statements stick out, because they reflect not just opinions of an individual writer but statements about the majority opinion.

(1) Ehrlich indicates that usually scholars take the term "Gittite" as implying that "Obed-Edom the Gittite" was a Philistine. Because this is a statement about a scholarly majority opinion, the final form of this article should include that detail.

(2) Usually scholars see the Chronicler's insistence on Levite status as "the Chronicler's own interpretation" of the Samuel story, but Sara Japhet notes her own uncertainty. The final form of the article should include some sort of reference to this.

(3) Ehrlich, Haran, Levin, Kalimi, and Henze each propose, with various wording, that the Chronicler's treatment of the Obed-Edom tradition changes the story. This opinion should be noted in the final form of the article.

(4) Ehrlich, Kelly, Kalimi, and Japhet each acknowledge some degree of doubt or uncertainty about the interpretation of the passages. This uncertainty should be noted.

Recommendations. (a) I propose that we open with a very brief statement, like "Obed-Edom" is a name which appears in passages in Samuel and Chronicles.

(b) Then, I propose a section entitled, "biblical texts", to be divided into three subsections, "Obed-Edom in Samuel," "Obed-Edom in 1 Chronicles," and "Obed-Edom in 2 Chronicles." Each section should walk the reader through the references, taking care not to decide any of the issues for the reader, and extensively quoting the biblical text verbatim.

(c) Then, I propose a section entitled, "scholarly views." This section should open with a note about point (4) above, then move on to (1), (2), and (3) in that order. Finally, the section should have a brief reference to the 2 Chronicles passage, citing scholarship again.

Edits Made

I've made edits in line with what I wrote above, presenting the biblical details first and only later dealing with with the scholarship. I'm slightly disappointed with how long the biblical section turned out, but I'm not sure I could rewrite it without pre-judging the issues, and given the cloudiness in scholarship I didn't want to do that until after presenting the biblical data. If anyone wants to improve further, it might be worthwhile to hunt down one of the scholars who represent a minority position, that there were two or more Obed-edoms. Alephb (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

On Ellicott's Commentary

Here, and often on Wikipedia, I keep seeing people cite Ellicott's commentary. This is unfortunate, because Ellicott is not a reliable source in terms of WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:AGEMATTERS. Consider the following quotes.

From Ellicott on Genesis 5:32 -- "Japheth, the widener, but according to others the fair, though the youngest son, was the ancestor of most of the races of Europe, as well as of some of the chief nations of Asia."

On Genesis 6:4 -- "Nothing is more probable than that, at a time when men lived for centuries, human vigour should also show itself in producing not merely individuals, but a race of more than ordinary height. They were apparently of the Cainite stock, and the text carefully distinguishes them from the offspring of the mixed marriages."

Genesis 5:16 -- "It is not necessary to suppose that Noah and his three sons built this vast vessel with their own hands. He was probably a powerful chieftain, and many of the Sethites may have given him aid. Implements of iron had been invented by the Cainites, and on the intermarriage of the two lines would be brought into general use. It is difficult, however, to understand now four men could feed, clean, and give water to a very large collection of animals for so many months. Without scrupulous attention to such matters, a murrain would have broken out, and as only two of many species were taken into the ark, the loss of any one of these animals would have been equivalent to the destruction of the race. The narrative, however, implies that the health of man and beast throughout the twelve months was perfect; and probably the number of the animals received into the ark was less than is commonly supposed."

These citations should be enough to show that Ellicott's commentary is completely at odds with how modern scholarship treats the Bible. Likewise, there's the fringe defense of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, a defense of the accuracy of the Numbers censuses, and so on. Now, of course Ellicott will sometimes say true things, just as any WP:FRINGE source will. It would be remarkably to find a book that didn't say some true things. But everything Ellicott says will either (1) be repeated in reliable sources, or (2) not. In case of (1), we should cite the reliable sources. In case (2), we shouldn't cite Ellicott at all.

Either way, there's no reason to cite Ellicott and Wikipedia. Of course, anyone is free to believe anything they like about giants, or people living centuries, or Noah's ark. But on Wikipedia that sort of stuff is WP:FRINGE. Alephb (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Ellicott is a collection of commentaries by different writers and the way Payne Smith dealt with early Genesis topics is not a basis for questioning how Gardiner dealt with 2 Samuel. In the Obed-Edom article, Gardiner represents well the view that David was not jealous of Obed-Edom's blessings, secured through his custody of the Ark, but those blessings taught him that it was right to bring the Ark to Jerusalem. This observation can help readers understand something about Obed-Edom, which is the purpose of the article. If there are reputable biblical commentators who argue differently it would be right to set out their contrasting views. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated my original objection more precisely. I'm thinking in terms of WP:IRS here:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• "The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• "The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• "The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

"Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

The fringe material in Ellicott's commentary does speak to the reliability of it as a particular work -- we can know in terms of WP:FRINGE that inclusion in Ellicott's commentary is not itself enough to make anything reliable. I think neither of us would argue that the publisher "Cassell & Company" makes this reliable. So the remaining conceivable defense of Gardiner as a reliable source would be to argue that, unlike the commentary series as a whole, there, Gardiner "is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." Because "these qualifications should be demonstrable to other people," I think at this point we'd need an argument that Gardiner is regarded as an authoritative author in biblical studies, above and beyond his inclusion in a fringe source.

Do you have some reason to believe that Gardiner is regarded as authoritative in this field, above and beyond the fact that he's published in Ellicott? Do mainstream scholars today, for example, find him useful at all as a source? If there isn't an argument for his relevance specifically, I think he would then be on the same plane Alephb (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)