Both citations point to the same passage, 2 Samuel 23:8-39, which concludes by claiming "thirty and seven in all." When the names in the preceding list are tallied, the count comes out to thirty-six, not thirty-seven. The contradiction is between the summary number the text gives itself and the actual list of names the text supplies.
Proposed answers
People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.
36
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had ... thirty and seven in all.
2 Samuel 23:8-39
8These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; he was called Adino the Eznite, who killed eight hundred at one time.9After him was Eleazar the son of Dodai the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines who were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel had gone away.10He arose and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand froze to the sword; and Yahweh worked a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to take plunder.11After him was Shammah the son of Agee a Hararite. The Philistines had gathered together into a troop, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines.12But he stood in the middle of the plot and defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh worked a great victory.13Three of the thirty chief men went down, and came to David in the harvest time to the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim.14David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem.15David longed, and said, “Oh that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!”16The three mighty men broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David; but he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh.17He said, “Be it far from me, Yahweh, that I should do this! Isn’t this the blood of the men who risked their lives to go?” Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things.18Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three. He lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three.19Wasn’t he most honorable of the three? Therefore he was made their captain. However he wasn’t included as one of the three.
8These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; he was called Adino the Eznite, who killed eight hundred at one time.9After him was Eleazar the son of Dodai the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines who were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel had gone away.10He arose and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand froze to the sword; and Yahweh worked a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to take plunder.11After him was Shammah the son of Agee a Hararite. The Philistines had gathered together into a troop, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines.12But he stood in the middle of the plot and defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh worked a great victory.13Three of the thirty chief men went down, and came to David in the harvest time to the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim.14David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem.15David longed, and said, “Oh that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!”16The three mighty men broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David; but he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh.17He said, “Be it far from me, Yahweh, that I should do this! Isn’t this the blood of the men who risked their lives to go?” Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things.18Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three. He lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three.19Wasn’t he most honorable of the three? Therefore he was made their captain. However he wasn’t included as one of the three.
Notes on manuscript readings that bear on this passage — where the surviving witnesses differ over what the text says. Presented for transparency as the textual critic’s description, not as GEBible’s conclusion about the tension.
Manuscript variants
The named list in MT 2 Sam 23:8-39 tallies to 36 against the stated total of 37, attributed to loss of a name in transmission (the MT list shows multiple corrupted names).
McCarter, II Samuel, Anchor Bible 9, 488-498 (2 Sam 23:8-39)
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement— a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Leans toward reconciliation
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
This is a contradiction internal to a single passage: 2 Samuel 23:8-39 catalogs David's elite warriors in graded tiers — "the three" (Josheb-basshebeth/Adino, Eleazar, Shammah), a second triad associated with Abishai and Benaiah, and then the larger company conventionally called "the thirty" — and signs off with the summary "thirty-seven in all" (sheloshim ve-shiv'ah). When a reader tallies the names actually supplied in the Masoretic Text, the count comes to thirty-six. The text's own header disagrees with the text's own list by one.
The near-universal explanation, shared by critical and conservative commentators alike, is scribal loss: one name fell out during transmission, so the original list of thirty-seven was reduced to thirty-six while the summary total was preserved intact. The internal evidence for textual damage in this chapter is unusually strong. Several names appear in corrupted or doublet forms — the leader of the three is "Josheb-basshebeth the Tahchemonite" in the MT (23:8), an almost certainly garbled reading that the parallel in 1 Chronicles 11:11 gives as "Jashobeam," and the MT's "Adino the Eznite" looks like a misvocalized fragment of a verb phrase ("he wielded his spear"). Place-name gentilics are likewise unstable. McCarter's Anchor Bible treatment reconstructs the likely point of loss and emends accordingly, and the consonantal text shows precisely the kind of haplography and homoioteleuton that drops a short name between two similar endings.
The Chronicler's parallel (1 Chronicles 11:10-47) complicates any simple count: that list is considerably longer, appending sixteen additional warriors with a markedly northern and Transjordanian flavor (verses 41b-47) that have no counterpart in Samuel. But the Chronicler's expansion is a separate compositional matter; it does not generate the Samuel arithmetic problem, which is wholly contained in 2 Samuel 23. Na'aman has argued that the list reflects historical layering — an original roster of David's officers (the shalishim) that grew by accretion — which makes a stray name's loss or gain entirely ordinary.
The critical point is what the harmonization concedes. To rescue the summary number, one must posit that the received Hebrew text is corrupt — that a name once stood in the list and has dropped out. That is almost certainly the correct diagnosis, and it is endorsed by McCarter, Tsumura, and Auld. But it is not a defense of the text's inerrancy as received; it is an admission that the canonical MT of 2 Samuel 23 contains a counting error visible to anyone who tallies the names. The harmonizer and the textual critic agree on the mechanism (a lost name) and differ only on the conclusion they draw from it. This is a useful corrective to the assumption that all contradiction claims hinge on theological mismatch; some, like this one, hinge on the plain failure of a list to match the total the same verse supplies, and the resolution itself confirms that the numbers in the transmitted text are not perfectly preserved.
Where the critical reading lands: harmonizable as to original intent via scribal loss of one name, but the received Masoretic text is internally inconsistent — a transmission error, not a reliable count.
Sources for this reading
P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; Doubleday, 1984) pp. 488-498on the list of mighty men in 2 Sam 23:8-39 and its textual problems2 Samuel 23:8-39
Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Fortress, 2006) pp. 296-320on the parallel in 1 Chr 11:10-471 Chronicles 11:10-47
Gary N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10-29 (Anchor Bible 12A; Doubleday, 2004) pp. 539-560
David Toshio Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel (NICOT; Eerdmans, 2019) pp. 346-372
A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel (OTL; Westminster John Knox, 2011) pp. 605-625
Nadav Na'aman, "The List of David's Officers (šālîšîm)," Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988) pp. 71-79on the historical layering of the list
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Leans toward reconciliation
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
This is a contradiction internal to a single passage: 2 Samuel 23:8-39 catalogs David's elite warriors in graded tiers — "the three" (Josheb-basshebeth/Adino, Eleazar, Shammah), a second triad associated with Abishai and Benaiah, and then the larger company conventionally called "the thirty" — and signs off with the summary "thirty-seven in all" (sheloshim ve-shiv'ah). When a reader tallies the names actually supplied in the Masoretic Text, the count comes to thirty-six. The text's own header disagrees with the text's own list by one.
The near-universal explanation, shared by critical and conservative commentators alike, is scribal loss: one name fell out during transmission, so the original list of thirty-seven was reduced to thirty-six while the summary total was preserved intact. The internal evidence for textual damage in this chapter is unusually strong. Several names appear in corrupted or doublet forms — the leader of the three is "Josheb-basshebeth the Tahchemonite" in the MT (23:8), an almost certainly garbled reading that the parallel in 1 Chronicles 11:11 gives as "Jashobeam," and the MT's "Adino the Eznite" looks like a misvocalized fragment of a verb phrase ("he wielded his spear"). Place-name gentilics are likewise unstable. McCarter's Anchor Bible treatment reconstructs the likely point of loss and emends accordingly, and the consonantal text shows precisely the kind of haplography and homoioteleuton that drops a short name between two similar endings.
The Chronicler's parallel (1 Chronicles 11:10-47) complicates any simple count: that list is considerably longer, appending sixteen additional warriors with a markedly northern and Transjordanian flavor (verses 41b-47) that have no counterpart in Samuel. But the Chronicler's expansion is a separate compositional matter; it does not generate the Samuel arithmetic problem, which is wholly contained in 2 Samuel 23. Na'aman has argued that the list reflects historical layering — an original roster of David's officers (the shalishim) that grew by accretion — which makes a stray name's loss or gain entirely ordinary.
The critical point is what the harmonization concedes. To rescue the summary number, one must posit that the received Hebrew text is corrupt — that a name once stood in the list and has dropped out. That is almost certainly the correct diagnosis, and it is endorsed by McCarter, Tsumura, and Auld. But it is not a defense of the text's inerrancy as received; it is an admission that the canonical MT of 2 Samuel 23 contains a counting error visible to anyone who tallies the names. The harmonizer and the textual critic agree on the mechanism (a lost name) and differ only on the conclusion they draw from it. This is a useful corrective to the assumption that all contradiction claims hinge on theological mismatch; some, like this one, hinge on the plain failure of a list to match the total the same verse supplies, and the resolution itself confirms that the numbers in the transmitted text are not perfectly preserved.
Where the critical reading lands: harmonizable as to original intent via scribal loss of one name, but the received Masoretic text is internally inconsistent — a transmission error, not a reliable count.
Sources for this reading