war, and the losers would become the slaves of the victors. There are many examples from the ancient Near East and classical sources that describe a battle between two representatives. The Iliad records the battles between Paris and Menelaus, as well as the famous encounter between Hector and Achilles. From the ancient Near East, we read about Marduk who killed Tiamat. De Vaux interpreted the battle of twelve servants of Ishbosheth and twelve servants of David as an extension of the single warrior battle (2 Sam 2:12–17).13
David’s appearance on the field of battle is portrayed as opportunistic and ambitious. He shows interest in the threefold reward that king Saul has promised to the one who will kill the Philistine: the king will enrich the man, he will give him his daughter, and his father’s house will be exempt from taxes.14 Giving such rewards for victory in war was a known custom in the ancient world. Caleb announced that he would give his daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who would capture Kiriath-sepher (Judg 1:12).15 The reward was announced several times. David probably heard about the reward, entered into a conversation with the men, and declared his intention to accept Goliath’s challenge.
David’s words of defiance about the uncircumcised Philistine were brought to Saul’s attention. As a result, he was summoned before the king. Saul appears hesitant and frightened in his conversation with David. It is David who encourages the king of Israel: “Let no man’s courage fail him.” Instead of “no man’s,” the LXX reads “not my lord’s.” Van der Kooij explains it as a secondary “exegetical rendering.”16 David encourages the king to overcome his fear. Not wanting to insult the king, he used the phrase “no man.” Moreover, he speaks to the king with respect and refers to himself as “your slave.”
David is the protagonist and initiates the conversation. Ironically, he, and not the king, speaks first, as might be expected. Although both Saul and David are anointed, David speaks first. Brueggemann believes that: “through this technique the narrator demonstrates David’s primacy over Saul.”17 David speaks to the point, and offers to fight Goliath. However, Saul’s hesitation and fear surface again when he refuses to grant David his wish. Saul cites David’s youth and inexperience for his initial refusal. David, on the other hand, shows persistence and power of persuasion. He points to his experience as a shepherd, protecting the flock from a lion or a bear. More than anything, David points out that it was God who saved him from the lion and the bear, and he will deliver him from the Philistines. It is David who mentions Yahweh for the first time. Neither the people nor Saul mentioned him. No doubt the narrator wanted to stress this since David’s perception of the battle is a theological one.18 David’s confidence and belief in God is similar to Jonathan’s in the previous battle against the Philistines at Michmas. Saul, on the other hand, is portrayed as frightened, and he ordered the priest to stop inquiring of God (1 Sam 14:19). In times of pressure, Saul does not properly consult God, and in this episode he did not even try to. He utters the name of God “and may the Lord be with you” (1 Sam 17:37); but this is a form of blessing. Evidently, the narrator wanted to exacerbate the differences between Saul and David.
David’s belief in God is emphasized as he approaches Goliath. The conversation between David and Goliath is remotely reminiscent of the speeches of the Homeric heroes before battle.19 David repeats his belief that the same God who was the subject of Goliath’s defiance will deliver him into his hands. The victory will be achieved through God, not by military means. God will battle Goliath through a human agent: a shepherd boy with a sling and a few stones. The significance is that David is God’s instrument. David came to rescue Israel and to defeat the Philistines, but by doing so, he announces: “All the earth shall know that there is a God in Israel” (1 Sam 17:46).
The MT describes Goliath the Philistine champion as being 9’9” tall. The LXX, Josephus (Ant. 6.171), and 4QSama read 6’9”. It appears that decreasing his height was deliberate since it felt his size was exaggerated. He wore a helmet and he was dressed in plated cuirass, which was believed to weigh about 126 pounds. He had bronze greaves on his legs, and a bronze scimitar between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear is compared to a weaver’s beam. Yadin renders this a javelin and says that a weaver’s beam refers to the shape and nature of Goliath’s javelin not to its size.20 The iron spear weighed 15 or 16 pounds. A shield-bearer preceded him. This is similar to the weapon used by Homeric heroes in the Iliad and in the Odyssey.21 It is possible that mentioning the bronze is archaic, since by that time the Philistines’ weapons were iron. Indeed this description does not match the portrayal of Philistine warriors in the Egyptians reliefs. This description shows how well he was prepared and armed. Needless to say, it was a frightening vision. This description of Goliath shows how imposing he was, and how God acted through David.22 Evidently the function of this description was literary rather than historical.
Saul dressed David in a garment with a bronze helmet and he bore Saul’s sword. This equipment, even though it was light, was too much for David. He tried to walk once or twice but told Saul he could not walk. David never tried previously to use this kind of gear; thus, it was unwise to give it to him before such an important battle. Also, the gear was insufficient for attacking Goliath, who was dressed in armor from head to toe. So they removed them, and David took his stick and five smooth stones, which he put in his pouch, and went out with the sling in his hand. According to this text, the sling was a shepherd’s weapon, but armies in the ancient world used it also. Assyrian slingers, wearing copper helmets and coats of mail are depicted on Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh.23 The Benjaminites were known for using this weapon with astonishing accuracy (Judg 20:16; 1 Chr 12:2; 2 Chr 26:14).
Removing the gear from David gave him an advantage. David could now move more easily, while Goliath was limited in movement by his armor. Indeed, it says that David ran out quickly to meet him. Josephus makes a similar observation: “Still, the Philistine, the load of his armor impeding a more rapid advance, gradually approached David.”24 David hit Goliath in the forehead with a stone. The LXX adds, “through the helmet” (v. 49). The LXX translators were thinking of the Greek helmets with nose guards. However, the author of the Hebrew text was thinking of the helmet that was used by the Assyrians that did not have a nose guard. The stone killed Goliath, so David, with no sword in his hand, took Goliath’s own sword and decapitated him. Verses 5–7 do not say that Goliath had a sword nor did David, thus the general term for sword refers to the Philistine’s kidon, a scimitar.25 Interestingly, in Psalm 151 LXX addition to the book of Psalms, it says that David killed Goliath with his own sword and does not mention the sling at all. The authors were familiar with the LXX but not with the additions to the MT. Evidently those additions came to enhance the image of David who killed Goliath first with a sling.
According to this text, David killed Goliath. However, reading 2 Sam 21:19 suggests that Elhanan slew Goliath. It has been suggested by an Aramaic Targum, and later by Bright, that Elhanan and David were the same person. The name David afterwards was his name on the throne.26 This, however, is unlikely since 1 Chr 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. It appears that the author of the book of Chronicles tried to resolve the contradiction in Samuel. But still, if David killed Goliath, why is it not stated in the book of Chronicles? This book was written several hundred years after the Davidic dynasty. Why hide from the reader such a heroic deed performed by David? Instead, the heroic act is attributed to Elhanan, whom the sages claimed was David. Examination of the list of David’s warriors, however, reveals that one of his warriors was “Elhanan son of Dodo [from] Bethlehem” (2 Sam 23:24). In other words, Elhanan was a member of the royal family. This fact is repeated in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 11:26). Thus, it is possible that the author of 1 Samuel 17 attributed the great victory to David instead of Elhanan who killed Goliath for the simple fact that in ancient times, heroic actions of the king’s warriors were attributed to the king. Indeed as the reader might recall, Jonathan’s victory in Geba was attributed to his father, King Saul (1 Sam 13:3–4).
A shepherd boy who overcomes the giant is believed to occur in fairy tales. The same is true with rewards promised by the king to the man who will defeat the giant.27 In addition, theological elements were added to the story where the defeat of the Philistines does not point to the superiority of the shepherd’s slingshot over battle armor, but to David’s faith. David will fight and win: “All the earth shall know that there is a God in Israel. And this whole assembly shall know that the Lord can give victory without sword or spear. For