Setting The Record Straight

                                                             DAVID AND GOLIATH REDUX

It might seem odd that Genesis Decompressed  begins by discussing an event in the eighth Old Testament book, SAMUEL I. However, that story perfectly illustrates our main thesis, that Scripture can only be understood in light of its original Hebrew text and the history and culture from which it emerged. When David’s confrontation with Goliath is so perceived, the conventional view of a heroic underdog overcoming tremendous odds is very different from what the text recounts. Malcolm Gladwell, in his David and Goliath, presents the startling claim that it was the shepherd lad who held the advantage. He was correct but for the wrong reasons, drawing lessons which may be sound but not what Scripture conveyed. Nevertheless, some of his observations provide useful background. 

It seems the Philistines and Israelites, who had been going at it for some time, stood facing each other on opposite ridges overlooking a valley, neither side keen to initiate hostilities. Out stepped a Philistine “champion”. Standing 6’ 9”, clad in a bronze helmet and heavy coat of armor, Goliath wielded a javelin, spear and sword. Attended by a shield-bearer, he strode into the valley to hurl a challenge: Israel was to send a man to meet him in a fight to the death. If Goliath wins, Israel will serve the Philistines; should their man prevail, the Philistines will return the favor. He delivered his oration twice a day for 40 consecutive days but no Israelite stepped forward.

Meanwhile, David, youngest of eight brothers, was home tending his family's flock of sheep. His three oldest brothers had joined the army of Saul, Israel's first king. One day, Jesse, David’s father, sent him to their camp with some provisions. He arrived just in time to catch Goliath’s act - and was aghast; not only was this lout disrespecting Israel's king and army, he insulted the Almighty! David boldly offered his services to Saul, who firmly discouraged him, pointing out that he had no chance of besting this experienced warrior. David countered that he had dispatched a huge bear and a ferocious lion who attacked his sheep - and walked away without a scratch. That convinced Saul; he accepted the offer, even giving David his armor. Now Saul was a big man, too; David was puny by comparison. He tried on the royal panoply but found it cumbersome and unwieldy. Sloughing it off, he reverted to his shepherd’s garb, seized his staff and descended into the valley.

An astounded Goliath berated his “challenger”, boasting that he will feed him to “the birds in the sky and the beasts of the field” (SAMUEL I 17:44). But he was rudely surprised; his armor and weapons proved useless when a rock slammed into his forehead. David used a slinger, a sleeve-like device with a pouch at one end, to propel a stone that struck with lethal impact. Goliath was a sitting duck, avers Gladwell, for he had a debilitating condition. He could see only a few yards out and arthritis made every move agony but was so arrogant, he thought he could overcome his infirmities. When his shield-bearer would tell him his adversary was within range, Goliath would strike; surely one of his swings would connect – if his opponent played by the rules. But David failed to do that, asserts Gladwell; he relied on intuition instead of blindly following protocol, turning Goliath’s handicap into his own advantage. No longer a story of divine help for His anointed, it presents a new mantra: Trust your instincts.

Gladwell’s theory rests on two premises. The first is that single surrogate contests were common in ancient warfare, a belief shared by many biblical commentators; his proof is a report by Quintus Quadrigarius of such a show-down in the first century BCE - a millennium later! But that was a duel, very different from combat by proxies. A few such clashes are mentioned in works of fiction; their actual number, other than the David-Goliath meet - is zero! Whether the bout between Paris and Menelaus took place on a battlefield or in Homer’s imagination is debated. Regardless, it came after the Trojans and Achaeans had fought to exhaustion and morale on both sides hit rock bottom. Richard the Lionhearted blurted out such an invitation to the Saracens but he probably knew Saladin was not in the vicinity – and none would make a move in his absence. Nor was there a major issue; the prize was Jerusalem, not capitulation. The closest this came to be was Charles V’s offer to face Francis I to spare their armies [16th century]. That was to be a contest between monarchs, not a fight to the death, a medieval joust within a feudal rubric to settle a dispute between two dynasts over territories not even central to their areas of hegemony. In any event, Francis demurred. Scripture itself belies this cockeyed idea. If it was normal protocol, why did Goliath have to spell it out? He had but to issue a demand and the Israelites would be bound to comply. Nor were the Philistines on the same page; when their hero fell, they did not proffer their services but turned and fled. And if this kind of engagement was truly routine, why did the Israelites not take advantage of it a few years earlier when Samson was around (JUDGES 13-16)?!

The second big plank in Gladwell's platform is Goliath's illness. Gladwell found textual “clues” that the giant suffered from acromegaly, which accounts for his size [excess growth hormone] and debilitates adults, impairing movement and vision. If the Israelites were aware of it (Saul, when dissuading David from facing Goliath, did not sound like he thought the chap had any health problems), why did they fear him? Saul’s own tribe of Benjamin had hundreds of expert slingers (JUDGES 20:16) who could easily have taken him out. If they did not know, Gladwell's conjecture makes no sense – David could only take advantage of this if he knew about it! 

Did Goliath know he was sick? Yes, maintains Gladwell, for the shield-bearer served as “eyes”. So did this fellow see David twirling his slinger? He was toting protection for just this – to divert “incoming”. But as David approached, let fly the stone, ran up to a prostrate Goliath, drew his sword and severed his head, this trusty aide, who we are twice told “walked before” Goliath with this protective screen, disappeared. Can we deduce Goliath’s condition from his own words? Sure, says Gladwell, making much of the “staffs” Goliath saw instead of the single one David held; the guy had double-vision, a symptom of acromegaly. But if he saw two staffs, why did he not see two David's? 

Gladwell's version has obvious flaws but traditional ones are also deficient. Our treatment, while not as extensive as our Genesis expositions, offers proofs and researched arguments. Sections in italic font can be skipped without loss of continuity.

Chapter 17 (SAMUEL I) has ten PAR-SHAs (paragraphs), the first being verses 1-11. (The chapters in standard translations do not conform to the Hebrew text – see Introduction.) Verses 1-3 set the stage for the coming battle. Four verses are then devoted to Goliath’s appearance, presumably underscoring the grave peril facing Israel. Goliath sets forth his terms in the next two verses, then adds an insult in a third. The last verse describes the consternation he caused among the Israelites. A closer look reveals a completely different narrative.

Verse 1 tells us the Philistines, whom Gladwell labels “battle-hardened... sworn enemies of Israel”, started this tiff by invading the territory of the tribe of Judah. Israel had implacable foes, notably Amalek (DEUTERONOMY 25: 17-19), Ammon and Moab (DEUTERONOMY 23:4-7). With the Philistines, they had a more fluid relationship. Both were relative newcomers to the region, competing for land and enjoying a few centuries of conquest, neither more battle-hardened than the other. The books of JOSHUA and JUDGES record that their dealings had ups and downs. The Philistines had a monopoly on iron weapons (only Saul and his son Jonathan had iron swords – SAMUEL I 13:22) but had no problem providing Israel with iron agricultural tools (SAMUEL I 13:19-21), hardly acts of “sworn enemies”. Nor were they upset when Samson took up with Philistine girls. David himself, while a fugitive from Saul, lived among them as vassal to the king of Gath (SAMUEL I 27).

What brought on this spat was Philistine awareness of Israel’s tribes coalescing into a monarchy, a step the Philistines had yet to take. (The Philistines in GENESIS [20, 21], ruled by a king, were indigenous Canaanites the text calls Philistines because they occupied areas that later became Philistia. The king of Gath [SAMUEL I 21:11] has that title to accentuate the status of his treaty with David. Each Philistine city was actually ruled by a SEH-REN [cf. JUDGES 3:1], cognate to the Greek “tyrannos” {“tyrant”}, originally a non-hereditary chieftain.) The fledgling King Saul had a series of victories, which made the Philistines nervous; they invaded Judah’s territory [Saul's tribe, Benjamin, was the smallest and normally aligned with Judah, as their territories adjoined] to test the viability of this new kingdom, for the other tribes did not always see eye-to-eye with Judah. Saul and the “men of Israel” (v. 2) assembled to meet the challenge. The Philistines had iron weapons but Israel bested them in  recent skirmishes wielding bronze armaments. They also deployed those deadly slingers - and had momentum.

Translations that put them on opposite hills overlooking a valley are faulty. Verse 3 does not begin V’HA-P’LISH-TIM (AND THE PHILISTINES) but U-PH’LISH-TIM (AND [SOME] PHILISTINES). The next word is not O-M’DOO (THEY STOOD - combat ready) nor the continuous YA-A-M’DOO (THEY WOULD STAND - in formation); the present tense OH-M’DIM (ARE STANDING) with the preposition EL (TOWARD), rather than the expected AHL (ON – cf. SAMUEL II 2:14), tells us they stationed troops in the direction of the mountain. The Israelites mirrored this, stretching a line of soldiers from their camp. (Had the text meant it the way it is typically portrayed, it would be VA-YA-A-M’DOO HA-P’LISH-TIM AL HAHR V’YIS-RA-EL O-M’DOO AL HAHR K’NEG-DOM or the more precise MEE-MOO-LAHM – cf. EXODUS 19:2, NUMBERS 22:5). The “Heh” definite article prefix to HAHR (MOUNTAIN) restricts it – there was only one mountain. (MEE-ZEH [FROM THIS] indicates flanking objects, not ones facing each other {cf. EXODUS 17:12, EZEKIEL 47:12}.) Both sides aligned troops using the mountain as a fulcrum, the vertex of two lines forming an obtuse angle and separated by a gulch extending from the mountain and bisecting the angle. This was a defensive tactic, not preparations for attack, the  respective lines serving as security details.

As the armies warily eyed each other, Goliath sallied forth from the Philistine camp (v. 4 - not from the sentry squad). The King James Bible calls him a “champion”. This came from England's chivalric legacy [more appropriate for GEE-BOH-RAHM – v. 51] and supported the faulty notion that Goliath's proposal was a norm. He is ISH HA-BEI-NA-YIM (THE MAN BETWEEN [THEM], the plural construct of BEIN [BETWEEN] – cf. GENESIS 9:12; EXODUS 31:17; KINGS I 15:29), an envoy delivering a message. Goliath took advantage of the formation to trudge out to where the lines both abutted the mountain and issued a proclamation, knowing it would get back to all the Israelites.

Another error is dubbing his man a “shield-bearer” (v. 7). “Shield” is MAH-GEIN (GENESIS 15:1) - he was NOH-SEI HA-TZEE-NAH (HOLDER OF THE CANOPY). These are not synonyms (cf. EZEKIEL 23:24; PSALMS 35:2). Translators who insist they are resort to tortuous interpretations, one positing TZEE-NAH to be a large shield and MAH-GEIN a small model. Multiple names for variants of the same military ware is a feature of language in martial societies, like Sparta and Rome, not of biblical Hebrew. TZEE-NAH, cognate to Tzadiq-Lamed {“shade”}, is an “overhang” (cf. JONAH 4:5; PROVERBS 25:13). The difference is crucial: a shield wards off blows - a canopy deflects projectiles (both are seen in ancient reliefs). We are twice told (v. 41) this fellow preceded Goliath, which made his cargo a sort of sun visor – strange in that Goliath only put on his act early mornings and late evenings (v. 16).

Goliath was from Gath, the Philistine city closest to Israelite territory. As this was not the first time these nations clashed, the Israelites must have run into him before (that he never tried this stratagem shows it was not common practice) and would not think him unusual. Gath’s original residents were ANAQIM (GIANTS). Joshua did not conquer Gath (JOSHUA 11:21-22), though he subdued other Anaqite areas, driving them out of all but three towns. Their remnants now served the Philistines; Goliath was such a mercenary, as deduced from his Canaanite name (Talmudic lore [Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 42b] made him Moabite), not a Greek one.] He may have been huge but nothing the Israelites had not successfully dealt with. When Saul tried to talk David out of fighting him, he did not argue that Goliath was enormous but that he was an experienced warrior (v. 33). Clearly, Saul knew him but, after hearing of David's prowess and agility, changed his mind. Why did the text embellish his description rather than just identify him as an Anaq? Another perplexity missed by the pundits is what reaction he expected; if he was confident of victory, he would try to elicit a positive response, much more likely had he sent a conventional courier, not one so intimidating the Israelites would recoil in terror. To appreciate his subtlety, we must dispel the view that the shock of seeing and hearing him paralyzed Saul and his army.

After first asking the Israelites why they were massed, Goliath seems to propose an alternative to unnecessary bloodshed. His true intent is discerned from the superfluous HA-LOH A-NOH-KHEE HA-P’LISH-TEE V’AH-TEM A-VA-DIM L’SHA-OOL (v, 8). The usual “I am a Philistine and you are Saul’s servants”, is imprecise; it is “Am I not the Philistine and (are) you (not) servants to Saul?”. The declarative HA-LOH draws attention to what the listener is presumed to know – or should know (cf. NUMBERS 22:30, DEUTERONOMY 11: 30, SAMUEL 1 20:37). The “Heh” definite article prefix puzzled many.  [“I am a Philistine”, as most translate it, is wrong.] AH-NOH-KHEE, the formal first person pronoun (unlike AH-NEE), emphasizes the contours of the relationship between the parties. Goliath announced that he was the warrior they had seen in action or heard about. Single letters, in biblical Hebrew, can convey multiple meanings, as this “Heh” prefix does. A courier would not come out bedecked as he was just to deliver a message. Goliath made it clear he was talking about the same one whom their representative would face in mortal combat – none other than himself.

The full import of his words are apparent in how he addressed his adversaries. “Servants of Saul”, which commentators interpret as mocking Israel, is A-BH’DEI SHA-OOL (the possessive construct - cf. GENESIS 26: 32, NUMBERS 14: 24, JOSHUA 1:2). Goliath calls them A-BHA-DIM L’SHA-OOL (SERVANTS TO SAUL - the dative “Lamed” indicates behavior, not status – cf. GENESIS 44: 9, 15, 17 and note both constructions in LEVITICUS 25:55). They are not servants but people who place themselves in subordinate positions, often voluntarily (like subjects to kings). The Philistines were concerned lest the Israelites form a unified monarchy that would challenge them, so Goliath tried planting doubt. “Are you sure of this? Are you risking your lives for Israel or for your king's glory? Does he have the courage to face me?” He was not insulting them but instigating them to abandon Saul.

Verse 10 begins “And the Philistine said”, seen as continuing his oration. In biblical syntax, such a repeated phrase marks a changed focus or the speaker’s addressing a different party. Goliath was no longer lecturing the Israelites, for he related how he “shamed the ranks of Israel”, referring to them in the third person. (Translations of CHEI-RAPH-TEE, “I defied/denigrated/embarrassed” and the like, are better served with NEE-AHTZ-TEE [TAUNTED – cf. SAMUEL II 12:14], BA-ZEE-THEE [HUMILIATED – cf. NEHEMIAH 3:36], MA-AHST-TEE [DESPISED – cf. AMOS 5:21] or GEE-DAPH-TEE [DEFAMED – cf. EZEKIEL 20:27]; no translation captures exactly what he said - or accomplished.) This is unjustified. Soldiers challenged, in lieu of battle, to send one forth to fight the heavyweight boxing champion would scoff; an army is judged by how it fights as a unit. They would be foolish to even consider such an absurd offer - as the Israelites would have been. One translation that comes close is “shall reproach” (Institute for Scriptural Research, South Africa - They got the tense wrong {the word is in the past} but the Hebrew can connote reproach – cf. GENESIS 30:23, 34:14). His inserting HA-YOHM HA-ZEH (THIS DAY) indicates he made this claim but once. He was justifying himself to his superiors, who were flabbergasted when they heard of his offer. They knew this enemy was no pushover. Was this not a huge risk? How did he set them at ease? Both sides had intelligence sources. The Philistines knew the prophet Samuel was sitting this one out because he was displeased with Saul. This may not have affected Saul's confidence but surely concerned some of the men. Goliath assured the brass Saul would not initiate hostilities. He could not put them off indefinitely without attrition in his ranks, which Goliath tried to foment, but he would not go into combat without Samuel’s blessing. How would he keep his army intact in the meantime? Saul, theorized Goliath, would look for an out – and Goliath would hand him one. He proposed a one-on-one contest! No way would anyone meeting him win; it was purely a way for Saul to “save face”. The Philistines would avoid all-out war, the Israelites would resume paying tribute and Saul would soon be deposed because he could not survive the shame of not taking the field himself.

Verse 11 notes that Saul and all Israel heard these words and were much dismayed and fearful, taken as their reaction to Goliath’s challenge [these words do not connote the abject terror and panic they do in English]. If that was its intent, the text would read DI-BH’REI HA-P’LISH-TEE (THE WORDS OF THE PHILISTINE – cf. DEUTERONOMY 13:4; KINGS II 6:30; NEHEMIAH 2:18) or DI-BH’REI GOL-YATH (GOLIATH’S WORDS - cf. GENESIS 24: 30, SAMUEL II 23: 1; HAGGAI 1:12). ETH HA-D’BHA-RIM HA-EI-LEH (THESE WORDS) points to the last statement in a sequence (cf. DEUTERONOMY 5:19, SAMUEL I 24:17; ESTHER 9:20). It was not Goliath’s challenge that alarmed Saul and his army; nothing compelled them to pay attention to it. They had fought Anaqim before and, if war broke out, they could double-team this guy. Their intelligence about what he told his commanders – that bothered them. VA-YISH-MA (HE HEARD) should be VA-YISH-M’OO (THEY HEARD). The singular verb with multiple subjects means each heard the content at different times or places (cf. JOSHUA 22:30; JEREMIAH 38:1; NEHEMIAH 2:10, 19) or reacted differently (cf. KINGS I 1:41; JEREMIAH 26:21; HAGGAI 1:12). HA-EI-LEH (THESE) are the last of Goliath’s words, expressed to his commanders but which found their way to Saul and his men. What was the effect? Pairing YIR-AH (FEAR) and CHEE-TAH (TERROR) is common. YIR-AH, fear of consequences (cf. EXODUS 9:20) elicits protective measures. CHEE-TAH (“apprehension” - cf. GENESIS 35:5) inhibits response. Typically, YIR-AH is first, as when Joshua [1:9] was told not to fear the possibility of failure [that comes with any new undertaking] and, once he begins, not to be dismayed if things seem headed for derailment. Verse 11 reverses this order because the project was already underway. Saul was apprehensive, frustrated at being unable to act. He knew he should ignore Goliath and just attack. But he could not do that yet - he feared that Samuel had abandoned him and began to harbor misgivings about his ability to hold onto his throne. His soldiers were[DB1] [DB2] [DB3] [DB4] [DB5] [DB6] [DB7] dismayed by this indecisiveness and began to fear their demand for a monarch had been ill-advised.

The next paragraph (v. 12 - 16) shifts to David and his family, opening with known facts (Ch. 16). Traditionalist ignore repetitious passages as long as they are not inconsistent, thereby failing to uncover nuggets of meaning in “superfluous” texts. Academics claim these sections support the hypothesis of multiple Scriptural sources, a condescending attitude that casts the authors as naive copyists afraid to tamper with “inspired” texts and their readers as gullible dupes. Biblical Hebrew’s paucity of vocabulary prevented expressive essays, so its themes are painted with literary brushstrokes that use grammar and syntax to insert nuances intuitively perceived by early readers. All cultures have variations in their myths and stories but these are never interwoven into a single text of contradictory or pleonastic threads that cannot be worked into a coherent whole. 

The paragraph begins V’DA-VEED (AND DAVID), known from the previous chapter which recorded his anointment as Saul’s successor. Samuel did this covertly to avoid provoking Saul (SAMUEL I 16:2). It was not to seat David on the throne but to consecrate him (SAMUEL I 16:3) and imbue him with divine guidance and favor (SAMUEL 1 16:13). (David’s accession required two other anointments, when he was chosen to rule over his tribe (SAMUEL II 2:4) and again when he was accepted by the others (SAMUEL II 5:3). It was therefore performed B’QEH-REBH EH-CHAV, usually translated “among his brothers” but that is LI-PH’NEI (BEFORE – cf. LEVITICUS 16:7, NUMBERS 33:7) or NEH-GED (FACING – cf. GENESIS 31: 32, EXODUS 19: 2). Nor did the text use the more accurate B’THOHKH (IN THE MIDST OF – cf. GENESIS 23: 6, 42: 5, KINGS II 4:13). B’QEH-REBH is restrictive (cf. GENESIS 24:3, EXODUS 31: 14) - “within”, the act to remain secret until conditions warranted otherwise.

The next development came about when music was prescribed for Saul's melancholia. David was recommended as a singer and musician, not by the servants, but “one of the young men” who lauded him as if he was being considered for Saul's staff. David, claimed his sponsor, was GEE-BOHR CHA-YIL (WEALTHY - not “mighty of valor”; when Naomi called Boaz (RUTH 2:1) a GEE-BOHR CHA-YIL, she did not mean he was a great soldier but a man of means), ISH MIL-CHA-MAH (MAN OF WAR – a veteran), N’BHOHN DA-BHAR (UNDERSTANDING), ISH TOH-AR (A GOOD-LOOKING MAN) - and had the divine immanence “with him”. Considering Saul only needed cheering up, David seemed slightly overqualified. Were these claims even true? Was he wealthy? In the next verse, Saul refers to him as A-SHER BA-TZOHN (WHO IS WITH THE SHEEP). He had no military exploits (Saul was not aware of any when he warned him against taking on Goliath [ISH MIL-CHA-MAH refers to combat, not fighting predatory animals]). He was too short to be physically imposing. And one with religious proclivities would have been known (cf. SAMUEL I 9:10-11). So why the “pitch”? This nascent talent scout was more astute than the servants, for it would not do to let the camp know of Saul’s depression - that would not inspire confidence. David was passed off as qualified to advise the king. He became a NOH-SEI KEI-LIM (SAMUEL I 16:21), translated as “armor bearer” but generic for any attendant [literally “vessel carrier” – cf. JUDGES 9:54; ISAIAH 52:11; CHRONICLES I 11:39]. That justified his frequent presence in the king’s quarters; his performances were not talked about.

David, his father and brothers are introduced again. Jesse (SAMUEL I 17:12) is not just a Bethlehemite (SAMUEL I 16:1) but “this Ephratite from Bethlehem of Judah”. He was not among those greeting Samuel (SAMUEL I 16:4) but became, BEE-MEI SHA-OOL (IN THE DAYS OF SAUL), an “elder come into the company of men”. [ZA-KEIN BA BA-A-NA-SHIM is typically “old and on in years”, an error by translators who confused it with ZA-KEIN BA BA-YA-MIM (cf. GENESIS 24:1). The additional ZEH (THIS) is not demonstrative but avowal that he was now known and respected (cf. GENESIS 24:65, 41:38). ZA-KEIN here is not “aged” but “elder” (cf. EXODUS 4:29; DEUTERONOMY 29:9; RUTH 4:11); Jesse was now a tribal leader. We are then thrice told (v. 13-14) of the brothers in Saul’s army. They followed A-CHA-REI SHA-OOL LA-MIL-CHA-MAH (BEHIND SAUL TO THE BATTLE). When individually enumerated, HO-L'KHOO BA-MIL-CHA-MAH (THEY HAD GONE INTO BATTLE - the verb in the completed past); they had already fought with him. The seemingly redundant (v. 14) HO-L’KHOO A-CAH-REI SHA-OOL (THEY FOLLOWED SAUL) omits any mention of war but puts the paragraph in perspective. David's father and brothers were privy to a fact no one else was - he was anointed to be Israel's next king. It would be understandable if they pulled back from Saul, especially given how disappointed Samuel was with him, and muted support, anticipating his failure. Instead, they strongly bolstered him. David would not come to the throne at the expense of Saul or his family; nothing must detract from the king’s majesty or their loyalty. Jesse advocated Saul’s cause in the council of Ephrata; his oldest sons joined the army. This is what the three references here tell us, the last one emphasizing their succor for Saul, the individual. David did his part surreptitiously, attending the king (v. 14), with intermittent trips home. (Shepherding was not his principal occupation; in biblical syntax, the dominant theme heads any sequence, the successive phrases modifiers or qualifiers. His “going and coming” from Saul was his primary occupation; this is supported by the punctuation, which separates these two phrases into two activities, the first one primary.) 

Verse 16 seems out of place; details of Goliath’s daily declamation and how long he had been at it belong at the end of the last paragraph (v. 11). Here, it reinforces that Jesse and his family were behind the monarch and forestalls an obvious question that eluded all commentators: given David's position,  how was it he knew nothing of this? It is clear he became aware of Goliath (v. 23) when he came to check on his brothers. Goliath took two curtain calls a day and had a forty-day run. He must have been the topic of discussion in camp; surely someone at headquarters mentioned it. And how strange the armies spent forty days just staring at each other, something not at all typical of ancient warfare.

Goliath had a HASH-KEIM V’HA-A-REBH routine (“rise early and make evening” - v. 16), delivering his oration before dawn and again after sunset - and was always preceded by the fellow with the parasol. He was not out at high noon - why the shade? He spoke to those within hearing distance, knowing it would get back to camp. He also knew no one was going to take him up on his offer - and did not care. His task was to rub it in until the Israelites got rid of Saul or abandoned the field. But he had identified himself as a combatant, losing a neutral’s protection; he knew no one would take him on but those slingers, firing deadly projectiles, were threats he appreciated. So he came out when visibility was poorest - and still kept behind the screen. David had not heard his speech because he was never near this formation; he did not wander far from Saul's tent, his “treatment” kept under wraps.

Many scholars submit the belligerents were at a tense impasse and something had to give, an appraisal stemming from their unfamiliarity with ancient warfare. The Philistines did invade Israel’s territory and were daring Saul to dislodge them; Goliath was baiting them into dumping Saul but did not want to provoke real fighting. Philistine advantages in weaponry were marginal and their chariots useless in the rocky, hilly terrain. Goliath was content to continue mocking as long as it took to undermine Saul and convinced his bosses this ploy would work. Saul was in no hurry, either. Samuel’s absence bothered him and may have made the men anxious but they could bide their time, waiting for Samuel to yet show up. Goliath sounded intimidating but the Israelites knew that he alone would not be the deciding factor in any clash. Nothing compelled either side to immediate action.

Verses 17-19 seem an innocuous paragraph advancing the plot. To place David near the “action”, it needed only a few words about dad sending him with provisions. Jesse did more than that; he bade him (v. 17) V’HA-REITZ HA-MA-CHA-NEH L’A-CHEH-KHA, usually translated “run quickly to your brothers in the camp”. These were not their first rations; what was the hurry? And it should be ROOTZ {RUN - cf. SAMUEL I 20:36; KINGS II 4:26; ZECHARIAH 2:8; better is MA-HEIR (HURRY – cf. GENESIS 19:22, EXODUS 32:8; ESTHER 6:20)}. HA-REITZ, an “intense” form of this verb not found elsewhere in Scripture, with “Heh” prefix to the radical “Resh-Tzadiq”, is not “run/hurry” but “run through” (persistently - cf. HEI-RA [HE INFLICTED - EXODUS 5:23]). The inverted order {L’A-CHEH-KHA (TO YOUR BROTHERS) should precede HA-MA-CHA-NEH (THE CAMP)} told David to make a “production” - the fare he brought would send a message of unwavering support (translators who treat verse 19 as part of Jesse's instructions are wrong; then the verse would begin with KEE, HA-LOH or HEE-NEI). 

The next paragraph (v. 20-25) begins with David circling the MA-A-GA-LAH [CIRCUMFERENCE - not MA-CHA-NEH {CAMP}] and bumping into a troop heading out for sentry duty (v. 20 - the “Vav” [“and”] prefix to HA-CHA-YIL (THE TROOPS) shows these were distinct from the main army). V’HEI-REI-OO BA-MIL-CHA-MAH is typically rendered “they shouted a battle cry”. This does not fit the context and requires HA-REE-OO (cf. v. 52; JOEL 2:1) without the “Vav”. There was no battle imminent nor any reason for an exhibition. The verb's root “Resh-Yud-Ayin” ("companion/intimate” - cf. SAMUEL I 20:41; ISAIAH 41:6; ESTHER 9:22) applies to pickets closely coordinating movements. The next verse explicitly records their reaction to Philistine maneuverings, as the order, Israel and Philistines, is reversed from that in verse 3. This deployment made David curious - and anxious when he heard his brothers were in this line. He immediately placed his entire load in storage (v. 22) and ran to find his brothers. From there to the end of the paragraph, expositors see a condensed re-enactment of Goliath’s tirade and Israelite reaction. But if this took place during David's visit, this interpretation is untenable. The Israelites are portrayed standing in awe before this colossus and scattering when he starts bellowing. It is a real stretch to say that was repeated, morning and evening, forty days in a row. We can also argue that David was ignorant of all this but if Saul had already offered his rewards, there was no way David was not aware of it given his presence at headquarters - and it would be recorded after verse 11! Verse 26 makes it clear he was hearing it now for the first time. [The hypothesis that this section was inserted here to explain David's impending involvement is not tenable, for then there would be no separation between the paragraphs.]

As David spoke with his brothers, V’HEE-NEI ISH HA-BEI-NA-YIM OH-LEH (AND LO THE COURIER ASCENDS). V’HEE-NEI signals the unexpected [see Genesis 1:29]; since David talking to his brothers opens this verse (it should end the previous one), Goliath's entrance was unanticipated (see v. 16). The second surprise was OH-LEH (ASCENDS); it should be YA-RAHD (CAME DOWN). To the Israelites' amazement, he crossed the wadi and moved up toward them! He had performed twice daily for forty straight days and was frustrated, for he assured his bosses Saul would be deposed but his words were falling on deaf ears - Saul's army was still intact. [This refutes the idea that Israel would default if they sent no one to engage Goliath.] That prompted this move the day David was there. In verse 4, VA-YEI-TZEI ISH HA-BEI-NA-YIM MI-MA-CHA-NOHTH HA-P’LISH-TIM GOL-YATH SH’MOH MI-GATH – “the envoy came out of the Philistine camps Goliath his name from Gath”; now he is ISH HA-BEI-NA-YIM OH-LEH GOL-YATH HA-P’LISH-TEE SH’MOH MI-GATH MI-MA-A-R’KHOTH P’LISH-TIM – “the envoy ascends Goliath the Philistine his name from Gath from the vanguard of the Philistines”. The first time, he came from the camp, bringing an adjutant and accoutrements; now, he emerged from the line, sans armor, sans weapons and sans aide. He was in no danger because he was a courier (seen from his change of designation – “Goliath the Philistine” from the Gath contingent, representing that corps and not now a combatant). When he first surfaced (and presumably thereafter), VA-YI-Q'RA (HE CALLED – v. 8) - he had to shout. Now, VA-Y’DA-BEIR (HE SPOKE – v. 23), he was close enough for normal speech – and not his usual harangue (D’BHA-RAV [HIS WORDS]) but KA-D’BHA-RIM HA-EI-LEH (“as these words”). The comparative prefix “Kaph” and pronoun HA-EI-LEH reference the rationale he gave his superiors (v. 10) that he now presented to Israel – with implied rebuke: “Why are you still here?  Your king will not fight. His prophet abandoned him. Your cause is lost. Go back to your homes!”

Saul was waiting to see how long Goliath would keep up his routine. After forty days, he realized the guy was not about to stop – and Samuel would not relent. From the prophet's last words, he understood victory was not in the cards for him or his son. But perhaps it would be for another; a son-in-law would not be subject to divine sanction but could preserve the throne for the family. Protocol prevented his placing another at the helm now – that would be abdication - but why not take a chance with a volunteer? These Anaqim had been bested before ... but how to broach thist?

The Israelite response was different than David's; he heard (v. 23), they beheld, the man. VA-YA-NOO-SOO should be YO-R’OO M’OHD VA-YIBH-R’CHOO MI-PA-NAV, in reversed order (BOH-REI-ACH is headlong flight – cf. GENESIS 16:8; EXODUS 14:5; JEREMIAH 4:29; “LA-NOOS” has a varied texture – cf. GENESIS 19:20; EXODUS 4:3; NUMBERS 35:6.). Here it means “retreated” (New American Bible, American Bible Society, 2010), since Goliath posed no danger - they recoiled at his suggestion but their fear was unlike that in verse 11 (that VA-YI-R’OO has one “Yud”; here, it has two, the intense form). It could not have increased; Goliath did not exhibit any menace, which the Israelites would be inured to it by now. Their initial fear was of a possible consequence; this one was a visceral reaction - as determined as any one of them was to remain loyal to Saul, his fellows may waver. This was an opportune setting for Saul’s spokesman, VA-YOH-MER ISH YIS-RA-EL (AND AN ISRAELITE MAN SAID – v. 25. HA-R’EE-THEHM [DID YOU {pl.} SEE]. If the Israelites were talking among themselves, it would be VA-YOH-M’ROO ISH EL A-CHIV [cf. GENESIS 37:19; EXODUS 16: 15; JONAH 1:7]).  “If any of you takes on this guy, the king will reward you generously, even giving you his daughter in marriage,” presenting Saul’s offer for the first time.

The next verse flows naturally but opens a new paragraph. David questions “the men standing with him”, although he was speaking with his brothers before Goliath intruded (the text has these men “with” him, not “near” him, as some translate, a crucial difference). He heard what everyone else did, both from Goliath and Saul's agent; what more did he need to know? And his inserting a religious dimension (v. 26), which induced commentators to cast this story as a clash of ideologies, was something early readers would not have identified with, for Goliath’s challenge was purely nationalistic. Perhaps this presumption spurred Eliab to dress him down, though David parried with a cavalier remark and carried on as if their conversation never took place. A favorite interpretation of this squabble is that Eliab's words echo the jealousy of Joseph's brothers (GENESIS Chapter 37), a view which cannot be sustained. Joseph’s pretensions appeared to his brothers as fabrications of his own imagination and his father exhibited overt favoritism (GENESIS 37:3); David's father did not even consider him until Samuel asked if there was another son he neglected to mention (Samuel 1 16:11). David’s brothers were all present at his anointment, understanding that it was to be kept sub rosa until Samuel or another prophet directed otherwise. None of them objected then, after Samuel departed or later, even when David was promoted to Saul’s “staff”. Furthermore, sibling rivalry is a central motif of the Joseph story; this conversation was incidental, having no effect on the plot or outcome. Inserting a gratuitous scene is bad form and inconsistent with biblical style. The alternatives, that Eliab accused David of trying to instigate action or suspected he was prematurely pushing himself to the fore, also do not hold up. Eliab first asked why David came and with whom he left the sheep, incomprehensible queries - David certainly told his brothers he came at his father’s behest. Eliab’s second objection is even harder to fathom; battle spectators characterized later periods, which might have influenced translators, but not the biblical era. David’s reply was given various interpretations. One has him trivializing his remarks, that HA-LOH DA-BHAR HOO (v. 29) means “they are but words/I was only talking”; that is DEE-BOOR, not DA-BHAR (cf. DEUTERONOMY 33:3; JEREMIAH 5:13; SONG OF SONGS 8:8). Others opine he downplayed the incident. That would be V’HOO LOH DA-BHAR (cf. NUMBERS 20:19; SAMUEL I 20:21) or ZEH RAQ DA-BHAR (cf. DEUTERONOMY 32:47; KINGS I 15:5). HA-LOH indicates this was significant (cf. GENESIS 29:25; EXODUS 4:14; DEUTERONOMY 3:11). It is possible he continued questioning (v. 30) just to show up Eliab but the text’s repetitiveness shows he really sought answers, although it is hard to see what he did not already know. 

David’s remarks open a paragraph because he was no longer near his brothers, for his questions could be answered only by those unaware he was the anointed royal successor. Nor was he inquiring about the reward. He asked MAH YEI-AH-SEH (WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE - cf. NUMBERS 15:34; ESTHER 6: 11) to the man, not who eliminates the threat, but who removes this opprobrium, for who is this barbarian to reproach His armies - and, by extension, His anointed, their new king? Saul was Goliath’s analog, a “giant” among the Israelites (SAMUEL I 9:2).Was he afraid to face Goliath himself? If another toppled this nemesis, would the army’s allegiance swing to that hero? David needed to know before he acted – and found the responses reassuring. They came from HA-AHM (THE NATION or PEOPLE), all the soldiers in the vicinity: the victor should get KA-DA-BHAR HA-ZEH (AS THIS THING - v. 27) - what Saul's agent promised. There was no hint of toppling the king, to David's relief.

Verse 28 should begin V’EH-LI-ABH ACH DA-VID SHA-MA… (AND DAVID’S BROTHER ELIAB HEARD…). The past imperfect VA-YISH-MA (HE HEARD) indicates he actively sought to find out what his little brother was up to. Word got back to his brothers that David was asking trenchant questions among the ranks, which aroused their suspicions. Was he taking matters into his own hands now that Saul abnegated his responsibility? When Eliab heard B’DA-B’ROH EL HA-A-NA-SHIM (HIS SPEAKING TO THE MEN), his fears were confirmed - David was maneuvering for the crown, in violation of his family's resolution that no steps be taken to dethrone the incumbent.

His first questions were for public consumption: “Why did you come and with whom did you leave M’AHT HA-TZOHN (THE LITTLE [BIT] OF FLOCK}?”, telling everyone this lad was needed at home and should banish any delusions of grandeur, for he is but a shepherd – and a poor one at that! His object was to draw David aside so they could chat privately. Then he upbraided him, claiming to know ETH Z’DOH-N’KHA V’ETH ROH-A L’BHA-BHEH-KHA. The closest English to Z’DOH-N’KHA here is “ambition” (cf. JEREMIAH 49:16; EZEKIEL 7:10; PROVERBS 11:2), while ROH-A L’BHA-BHEH-KHA, literally “badness of heart”, means he was devious (cf. PSALMS 112:7; PROVERBS 6:14). His next words are incongruous: L’MA-AN R’OHTH HA-MIL-CHA-MA, translated as something like “so you may see the battle”. That is LIR-OHTH ETH HA-MIL-CHA-MA, with direct object indicator ETH and “Lamed” prefix creating an infinitive - and would be a comedown, as if he played hooky for a day’s entertainment. What he actually said (with definite article and participle) was that David came “to size up the state of the conflict” - to see if he could insinuate himself into it. He chastised him for abandoning the unassuming role the family agreed he was to take and charged that he came to provoke an incident to catalyze his ascension to the throne. His implied reprimand is that, as Saul was remiss in acting hastily (SAMUEL I 12:9-14), he should wait for a sign from the prophet before acting.

David refuted this - MEH A-SEE-THEE A-TAH (WHAT HAVE I DONE NOW?), his next words a rebuttal (not a deflection, as typically understood). HA-LOH DA-BHAR HOO is correctly translated in the King James Bible: “Is there not cause?” (literally “Is this not something [significant]?”); despite the family's resolve, the situation demanded a response. David feared attrition in the ranks and his being “anointed” called for him to prevent Goliath’s “desecration”. He then pointedly turned away from Eliab, for he had to survey as many soldiers as he could to make sure the sentiment against insurrection was universal. Circulating in the camp also brought him to the king’s attention, although the obvious question leaps out: Was he not with Saul at least a couple of times a week (v. 14)? These two knew each other well. Why not approach the king directly?

That was out of the question. He could predict the response: “Don't even think about it! And don't say a word to anyone.” Saul was not about to risk the most comforting thing he had, his musical Prozac. David was presented to him by agents who had no idea he performed for the king; that was known but to a handful. It would be catastrophic if word leaked out that Saul was so depressed he needed a concert every few days to chase away the hobgoblins. David and Saul had to act like strangers, a charade continued even after David's triumph (SAMUEL I 17: 55-58 – some see Saul’s question to Abner as a standard inquiry about a prospective son-in-law. This would already have been done for anyone on his “staff” but that was not general knowledge. Saul asked Abner to investigate the young man’s background pending an appointment to a more responsible position, hence his reference to David as an EH-LEM, a mature young man, maintaining the pretense of not knowing him). This was not what Saul hoped for but he had to play along, starting with his attempt to dissuade David from this suicide mission.

The next paragraph (v. 34-36) contains David’s riposte. He is no slouch, having killed a bear and a lion with his bare hands. He did not use a slinger; had he been proficient with it, he would have opted for it rather than risk close combat with these beasts. He makes no mention of using a slinger against Goliath because it had not yet occurred to him. He could have curtly stated that, while tending the family flock, he single-handedly dispatched these mighty carnivores. That was all he needed to make his case - and should be appended to the last paragraph. Identifying Goliath with predatory animals is also unwarranted. They were stalking prey; he was trying to convince his opponents to defect. Nor did comparing motivations bolster David’s claim that he will prevail – that depended on the respective skills of the contestants. (Biblical language is often seen as baroque, rife with redundancies; this is due to translators’ inability to recognize subtle phrasing variances. Even poetic parallelisms close in meaning have distinct connotations lost in translation, especially to non-Semitic languages.)

David’s declamation in a separate paragraph tells us it was not a rebuff to Saul’s argument but a parable with a message for him in his persona as king. ROH-EH HA-YAH ABH-D’KHA L’A-BHEEV BA-TZOHN (YOUR SERVANT WAS A SHEPHERD FOR HIS FATHER AMONG THE SHEEP) should be ABH-D’KHA HA-YAH ROH-EH ETH TZOHN A-BHEEV (YOUR SERVANT WAS SHEPHERDING HIS FATHER’S FLOCK – cf. EXODUS 3:1). By opening with a predicate noun, rather than an active verb, attaching it to the past perfect “was”, putting “father” in the dative with the “Lamed” prefix and modifying “flock” with a “Beth” preposition instead of the direct object indicator ETH, David converted his statement to metaphor. The Father charged the “shepherd” to see to the safety and well-being of His “flock”; if “predators” snatch “sheep”, he must pursue (v. 35) and rescue. Should the marauder turn on him, he grasps his “beard” and slays him. Verse 36 clinches it: This human predator is like those animals, not KA-HEIM (LIKE THEM) but K’A-CHAD MEI-HEM (AS ONE OF THEM – an equal – cf. GENESIS 49:16; JUDGES 16:7; SAMUEL II 2:18) because he insulted the Most High, David again implanting a religious motif omitted in his first statement to Saul (v. 32). As His representative, it is incumbent on the King/Shepherd to repel any threat - or delegate another to do so. This challenge Saul could not brush aside but he faced a dilemma. Though loath to send his beloved songster into harm’s way, he could not object, for he himself seeded the idea – and David was the only volunteer. He could not go back on his word nor divulge their relationship. The youth was not a soldier but his stories evidenced courage and fighting prowess. Still, Saul held back, skeptical that David could pull this off; he fell silent. David's next words are in a stand-alone paragraph consisting only of the first part of verse 37; the second part begins a new paragraph, with Saul’s response. David broke protocol by speaking again, after a pause, before Saul replied.

David knew he would defeat Goliath - his anointment guaranteed that. {Clerics who spin this tale into a sermon about his conquest deriving from a “faith” not shared by others completely miss this.} He alerted Saul to this by abruptly changing his speech pattern, no longer talking of avenging insults or vanquishing predators but invoking Y-H-W-H to YA-TZIL, not “protect” but “rescue”, as if from imminent peril (“rescue” was the wrong supplication, for David was placing himself in danger - cf. GENESIS 32:11, EXODUS 2:19; PSALMS 72:12). Saul noticed that the austere E-LO-HIM was replaced by Y-H-W-H (see 2:1). His spiritual antenna was attuned to David's possibly becoming his successor but his inner turmoil still held him back (there is a space before the next paragraph - it begins in the middle of the verse); after a pause, he intones a terse “Go and may Y-H-W-H be with you”.

David then girded CHAR-BOH (HIS SWORD – v. 39), which was not  his - the text twice states he was not NEE-SAH (“practiced”) with it. After some preliminary swings, he realized this was not going to work and proceeded to remove all his armor, which no doubt astonished everyone present, although readers should be struck by a more salient point: when Goliath first appeared (v. 4), he slung a bronze spear over his shoulders, made necessary by his carrying an enormous javelin with both hands - no mention of a sword! David likely knew Goliath had one and early readers must have intuited this, else why would David request a weapon not suitable against a spear or javelin? (Some render one of these, KEE-DOHN or CHA-NEETH, as “sword” but that is untenable; Scripture does not use synonyms, plus David himself mentioned all three [v. 45]).

To the Philistines, steeped in their Greek martial ethos, individual combat, with strict propriety and fairness, was the epitome of valor. Hurling projectiles was cowardly, a conviction that so imbued European knights they were appalled by such innovations as rapid firing cross-bows from China or firearms and artillery in Western theaters. This attitude among Japanese Samurai lasted into the 19th century. It demanded arms parity, which Goliath knew was impossible - Israel had no iron weapons (except Saul and Jonathan – SAMUEL I 13:22). How were they expected to take him up on his offer? A sword was part of his standard garb (which early readers knew) but not intended for this encounter! The weapons specified in verses 6 and 7 were. He gave his opponent a choice: spear or javelin. The Israelites’ bronze weapons made a spear a possibility. If it was to be the wooden-shafted javelin, the iron head on Goliath’s was not determinative, for with this club, it was speed that mattered, like a baseball bat or golf club whose velocity contributes more to a struck ball’s momentum and energy than its mass.

David resolved to face Goliath with a sword (v. 39) but did not have one, hence he requested CHAR-BOH (HIS SWORD) - Saul’s (the subject in verse 38)! But if it and the armor hampered his mobility, VA-YOH-EL is the wrong word; there are better ones (e. g. SAMUEL II 18:16, EZEKIEL 31:15; JOB 23:11), the most unambiguous being NEH-EH-TZAR (cf. GENESIS 16:2). The Septuagint transposed the letters of VA-YOH-EL to VA-YIL-AH on the assumption our text was a scribal error but that verb implies exhaustion, not restraint; the “Yud” prefix makes it active, not reflexive (the passive has a “Nun” prefix – cf. ISAIAH 1:14) with the actor the implied object (cf. GENESIS 19:11, which the King James correctly translates “they wearied themselves to find the door” [i. e. they tired themselves out searching for it]). The emendation is unnecessary - the original is correct. Failing to find an adequate interpretation, translators rendered this phrase exactly like its repetition in the second half of the verse; this should never be done in biblical exposition, for Scripture abhors redundancy, especially in one verse. The closest English of VA-YOH-EL is “disposed/inclined” (cf. EXODUS 2:21; JUDGES 17:11) - David was looking forward to this fight! The stated reason, he was not “practiced”, seems contradictory but was exactly what he intended. He would wield his enemy's prized weapon, knowing he would win but  precisely because he lacked  expertise. He could never beat this guy without overt divine help – and that would make headlines. Then the import of Goliath’s challenge struck him. The giant’s discarding his sword seemed egalitarian but was really a rebuke to Israel’s king. Saul had an iron sword – yet would not face Goliath (The Philistines had no monarch; one warrior was as good as another); David’s miraculous victory with a sword might prompt the army to depose Saul – and that he had to avert. If Saul gave him his daughter in marriage, he would ascend the throne that way. What was his alternative - a slinger? That was exactly what that wily fighter had taken precautions against, what he feared most. But if David could find a way - he could still use divine help but it would not be obvious, for his lack of skill with a slinger was not public knowledge.  

VA-YOH-MER DA-VID EL SHA-OOL (AND DAVID SAID TO SAUL – v. 39) needed only VA-YOH-MER (HE SAID); the full phrase shows these words were directed only to Saul. David would not use the sword or armor, evidenced by BA-EI-LEH (WITH THESE) instead of the expected KA-KHA (THUS – cf. EXODUS 12:11; DEUTERONOMY 25:8; ESTHER 6:9). We are not told his plans but Saul was – and went along, for when David reverted to shepherd's garb, he took his staff (v. 40), which means Saul surreptitiously sent someone to retrieve it (v. 22). David then headed out, concealing his intentions from everyone but the king. How could Saul let him do this? Actually, it was not a bad bet. Neither side took Goliath’s “offer” seriously, so if he won and presented his bill, Saul had a response: “Would I send out a kid to face you? Never! This boy had a history of mental instability. A ‘voice’ told him to go and he ran out before we could stop him. You think I would send him out without weapons or armor?” On the other hand, David might just pull it off.

VA-YIBH-CHAR LOH CHA-MEE-SHAH CHA-LOO-KEI A-BHA-NIM MIN HA-NA-CHAL (v. 40) is usually rendered “And he chose five smooth stones from the stream”. NA-CHAL is a wadi, a seasonally dry bed in the middle of the vale that Goliath had to cross to get to the Israelite side so he could be heard. For David to go into it, he had to get behind Goliath. A shepherd ostensibly on his way home, he made his way to the point furthest from the hill and descended. The translators have him picking up five stones. What were his plans for these? If the first one missed, by the time he got the next one off, Goliath would join his buddy behind their bulwark. As for choosing stones, he had plenty of experts in camp who had stocks of them but could not consult them without giving the game away. The text says, not VA-YIBH-CHAR (HE CHOSE), but VA-YIBH-CHAR LOH (HE CHOSE FOR HIMSELF), while “smooth stones” would be A-BHA-NIM CHA-LA-QIM (cf. PROVERBS 2:16; DANIEL 11:32). Some translate it “stone fragments”; that is CHEL-QEI EH-BHEN (cf. ISAIAH 57:6; ECCLESIASTES 2:10). CHA-LOO-QEI is the construct of CHA-LOO-QAH (“partition” - cf. CHRONICLES II 35:5). He selected stones sorted into five types and put into two satchels (those giving him one bag got this wrong, too), small stones in the shepherd's pouch and larger ones in a YAL-QOOT, a fold-over leather container. He loaded up because he did not know how many or what kinds he would need. Goliath may have spotted a figure in the distance but it was only a shepherd, recognizable by his staff. He paid him scant attention, for he was busy delivering his lines. David took advantage of this to clandestinely load up with rocks, while slowly approaching him (VA-YEE-GASH indicates purposeful approach – cf. GENESIS 44:18; KINGS I 18:21; ISAIAH 50:8).

The big guy soon realized who he was. At first, he denigrated him (v. 42), insulted that Saul sent a scrawny youth. Then it dawned on him – he was neutralizing Goliath’s weapons advantage. That is why he said “staffs”, not because he saw double - he thought staffs were his adversary’s choice of arms. This was the furthest thing from David's mind. He was quick and agile, so may have had a chance with kendo (assuming that Japanese martial art had made its way to the Levant) but the only sure thing was the slinger. Unfortunately, that vexing fellow hauled the armored hood in front of Goliath, who was not likely to step from behind it until David was too close to use the slinger. But David's bringing a staff proved a stroke of genius. Goliath had standard weaponry – why would he bring a shepherd’s staff? But he needed one now; the only way to avoid a humiliating retreat was to send his aide to fetch one – handing David a major tactical victory by compromising his own defense.

How can we postulate something not explicitly stated? We infer it from Goliath’s curse (v. 43), which should open his outburst or end it; its being in the middle tells us what he meant. L’QA-LEIL (TO CURSE - root "Qooph-Lamed"  [KAL - “slight/deficient”]) is to imprecate following an injury or offense (cf. GENESIS 27: 12; SAMUEL II 16:5). Other curses are anticipatory; Balaq, the Moabite king, uses three such (NUMBERS 22-24) but not once does he use QA-LEIL. Similarly, when the ground is “cursed” (GENESIS 3: 17), it is A-ROO-RAH, a prelude to man's new station in life but when He promises never again to impose a global sanction for committed sins (GENESIS 8:21), the text uses L’QA-LEIL. Goliath reacted to David’s behavior. Translators misconstrued BEI-LOH-HAV, presuming Goliath invoked his own deity to inject a theological slant. In biblical syntax, possessive nouns reference the last preceding noun in the text; Goliath cursed by David’s god (confirmed in verse 45, where David contrasts his trust in Y-H-W-H with Goliath’s reliance on his own prowess and arms - no mention of a god) and did so as people do today, out of the frustration brought on by David's forcing his hand, depriving him of his weapons and forcing him to send his aide-de-camp to fetch a wooden club – the only way to explain the disappearance of the one whose main job was to protect the boss and whose presence had been constant.

Then Goliath QAHM (AROSE - v. 48), problematic for many but easily explained – he had been sitting to remove his armor. Fairness demanded this and he needed more flexibility now but still puzzling is the MA-A-RA-KHA (ARRAY) to which David sprinted. Most take it as the Philistine “line” but Goliath was near the Israelites - why would David run to the other side? Some saw it as the “battle line” between them, a reading without basis in the text or story. That leaves the Israelite line but running toward it would be a retreat. Actually, he ran diagonally “to meet the Philistine”. As they approached each other, Goliath scanned the hill behind him for his delivery. David positioned himself in front of the Israelites, so Goliath had to turn completely around whenever he looked back and each time, David searched through his stones for the one that would inflict the most damage - he did not know how many he would need - and had to start his assault before the other guy came back. After one of Goliath’s turns, David launched the first missile; when Goliath turned back, it was in flight, taking but a second to reach its mark. The most difficult object for a target to pick up visually is one headed straight toward him - Goliath was a sitting duck. David’s breach of battlefield etiquette should have outraged the Philistines but they held back. They saw Goliath struck in the face but fall forward (not backwards, as depicted in paintings and sculptures), noted by a handful of Hebrew scholars (v. 49). VA-YEE-POHL (AND HE FELL) can connote demise (cf. EXODUS 32:28; JUDGES 4:16; SAMUEL I 4:10) but when accompanied, as here, by AL PA-NAHV (ON HIS FACE – cf. GENESIS 17:3, 17; SAMUEL II 9:6; KINGS I 18:7) or AR-TZAH (TO GROUND -  cf. JOSHUA 5:14; SAMUEL I 20:41; JOB 1:20), and especially if by both, the collapse is due to physical or psychological weakness (cf. NUMBERS 16:4; JOSHUA 7:6; SAMUEL I 28:20) - Goliath pitched forward to his hands and knees, not prone. He was still alive and his compatriots, not knowing how badly wounded he was, waited for him to get up. 

The beginning of verse 50, translated “And David triumphed over the Philistine” or a variation, should be V’DA-VID GA-BHAR AL HA-P’LISH-TEE (cf. ISAIAH 42:13; PSALMS 117:2; LAMENTATIONS 1:16) or VA-YIKH-BOHSH DA-VID ETH HA-P’LISH-TEE (cf. SAMUEL II 8:11; JEREMIAH 34:16; NEHEMIAH 5:5). The intransitive VA-YEH-CHEH-ZAQ (cf. GENESIS 41:56; EXODUS 7:13; SAMUEL II 18:9) and comparative MIN make this “And David proved mightier than the Philistine” (cf. Amnon’s rape of Tamar [SAMUEL II 13:14], VA-YEH-CHEH-ZAQ MI-MEH-NAH - “he overpowered her”) - but had not yet killed him! {Young’s “is stronger” was closer but inexplicably in present tense.} His triumph emerged from the fortunes of combat, not an overt miracle (he did get divine help but the assumption that Goliath was dead when he hit the ground is not borne out). The text relates what he did next. BA-QEH-LA U-BHA-EH-BHEN (WITH SLING AND STONE) does not reprise his first blow; that would be VA-YA-METH DA-VID ETH HA-P’LISH-TEE B’QEH-LA V’EH-BHEN (cf. JUDGES 20:16; ZACHARIA 9:15; JOB 41:20). David propelled another stone but had to strike him with a third, adduced from these words joined by the conjunctive “Vav” (both have “Beth” prepositional prefixes, indicating two successive, but distinct, acts. Only Kimhi {13th century Provence}, Abarbanel {15th century Spain} and the aforementioned Altschuler picked this up). V’CHE-REBH EIN B’YAD DA-VID (A SWORD [WAS] NOT IN DAVID’S HAND) would be a fitting coda had he been deprived of one but he elected to dispense with it. Goliath kept his (he was not about to relinquish it until he had the staff), which David now took advantage of. VA-Y’MOH-TH’THEI-HOO (v. 51), with doubled “Taph”, is not “and he slew him”; that is VA-Y’MEE-THEI-HOO (cf. GENESIS 38:7; KINGS I 2:34 and already so stated in the previous verse) or the more accurate V’HOR-GOH (cf. GENESIS 34:26; EXODUS 21:14; SAMUEL II 3:30). The word used connotes execution (cf. JUDGES 9:54; SAMUEL II 1:9; CHRONICLES II 22:11), objectified by severing his head in full view of the Philistines. Goliath had breached decorum; he did not issue a challenge, one warrior to another, but fomented rebellion against a sovereign, a lese majesty which demanded forcible retaliation.

Malbim [R. M. Weisser, 19th century Lithuania/Romania] was the only who noted that David's flouting the rules of engagement exempted the Philistines from any duty under the terms of Goliath's offer but their flight should not be misconstrued. The text portrays them as fleeing in disarray. The reality is they reacted to what they saw as the local god acting on behalf of his faithful in this region, a key component of Canaanite belief systems (cf. SAMUEL I 5:2-7; CHRONICLES I 10:10); David's besting their hero was attributed to the regional deity of war, not David's prowess. Any impression he made was not permanent, as seen from later interactions between these erstwhile enemies (SAMUEL I Ch. 23, 28-31; SAMUEL II Ch. 5, 21, 23; KINGS I Ch. 15-16; KINGS II Ch. 18; JEREMIAH Ch. 47; ZACHERIAH 9:6; CHRONICLES II 28:18); indeed, David himself offered his services to the potentate of Goliath’s city of Gath (cf. SAMUEL I 21:11-13, 27:2).

This saga was not about an underdog overcoming great odds - it was about preserving a king’s honor. Respect for a sovereign office transcending its occupant was a radical idea in an era when the highest authority was vested in a personality who was often a god or avatar. [Allegiance to institutions emerged in ancient Sparta, a militarist society in which such an ethos was critical for continuity and success. Sporadically tried by the Romans, its effectiveness, especially in the Imperial period, was marginal. It became the dominant political model in the modern era but the old one persisted, witness the entire German military establishment taking personal oaths to the Fuehrer.]  It was not because David wanted to make sure this respect was extended to him when he was king nor due to his own reverence for the throne (evidenced by his treatment of Saul after their falling out or even after Saul's death, for David summarily executed the one who dared lay a hand on “His anointed” [SAMUEL II 1:16] even when that had been Saul's explicit direction and it resulted in David’s succession). Veneration of the crown is the theme of this story because it is an essential part of the Old Testament Weltanschauung.

A correct understanding of any Scriptural narrative rests on a thorough familiarity with its original language,  culture and historical background. The following must always be kept in mind: a) translations must be based on correct identifications of word roots, along with their grammar and syntax, not on preconceptions; b) the redactors were diligent, careful and adept in their native tongue - absent solid grounds, “scribal errors” are more likely translators’ blunders; and c) as the physicist Richard Feynman, said, “Regardless of how beautiful and elegant a hypothesis is, if it is contravened by facts, it must be discarded.” Similarly, loose ends, contradictions and anomalies cannot be brushed aside or ignored. If an interpretation does not assimilate these, one that does must be found. Biblical accounts are not myth, fable or legend that have to be recast into a “realistic” mold to make them believable or palatable. To the contrary, as quality literature, their components must be meaningful and consistent – and sometimes, as with all sophisticated literature, requires “reading between the lines”; in other words, they have to make sense - and would have had to make sense to their earliest readers. Anything other than that, regardless of how revered, authoritative or expert the proponents of any interpretation were, sprouted from preconceived ideas, many of them from alien sources, that must be rejected.

ReplyForward