Site Content

The next verse starts a paragraph whose content seems to flow naturally from the preceding one - no reason to be separate. David questions “the men standing with him”, although he was speaking with his brothers before Goliath’s interruption (the text has these men “with” him, not “near” him, as some translators put it, a crucial difference). He heard the same thing everyone else did, both from Goliath and from Saul's agent; what did he ask that had not been said? 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 by David prompted Eliab to dress him down, though David parries with a cavalier remark and proceeds to carry 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. David exhibited no such bent. Joseph’s 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 induction by Samuel, understanding that it was to be kept sub rosa until Samuel or a successor 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; here, this conversation was a side incident that had no effect on the plot or outcome. Inserting such 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). And while it is possible he continued questioning (v. 30) just to show up Eliab, the text’s repetitiveness indicates 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 OUGHTTO BE DONE - cf. NUMBERS 15:34; ESTHER 6: 11) unto the man, not who eliminates this threat, but who removes this opprobrium from Israel, 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 victor? 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, who were unanimous: the victor should receive 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’ROHEL 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 lays into 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 is being devious (cf. PSALMS 112:7; PROVERBS 6:14). His next words seem incongruous: L’MA-AN R’OHTH HA-MIL-CHA-MA, translated as something like “so you may see the battle”. That would have been LIR-OHTH ETH HA-MIL-CHA-MA, with both the direct object indicator ETH and the “Lamed” prefix to create an infinitive verb - and would be a comedown, as if he was accused of playing hooky so he could enjoy an afternoon’s entertainment. What he actually said (using a general definite article and participle verb form) was that David came “to size up the state of the conflict” - to see if he could insinuate himself into it. He chastised David for abandoning the unassuming role the family agreed he was to take and charged that he came to provoke an incident that might catalyze his ascension to the throne. His implied reprimand is that, just as Saul was remiss in not waiting for Samuel’s blessing and instruction (SAMUEL I 12:9-14), so should he do nothing on his own but wait for a sign from His prophet before acting.

David refutes him - MEH A-SEE-THEE A-TAH (WHAT HAVE I DONE NOW?). A-TAH emphasizes that he did not contribute to this state of affairs. His next words did not deflect his brother’s comments, as they are typically understood; they rebutted them. HA-LOH DA-BHAR HOO is correctly translated in the King James Bible: “Is there not cause?” (literally “Is this not something [of significance]?”); despite the family's resolve that David delay overt action, the current situation demanded a response. David feared attrition in the ranks, which had to be prevented - and his being “anointed” called for him to do this by redressing 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 Saul’s response: “Don't even think about it! And don't say a word to anyone.” Saul was not about to risk losing the most comforting thing he had, his musical Prozac. Imagine how he felt when David was presented to him by agents who had no idea David performed for him; that was known but to a handful. It would have been catastrophic if word leaked out that Saul was so depressed he needed a personal 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 as to a man about to be his son-in-law. This would already be done for anyone on his “staff” but it was not general knowledge. Saul pointedly asks Abner to investigate the young man’s background pending an appointment to a responsible position, hence his description of David as an EH-LEM, a mature young man, maintaining the pretense of being unfamiliar with him). This was not what Saul hoped for but he had to play along, starting with his attempt to dissuade David from embarking on a suicide mission.

The next paragraph, verses 34-36, is 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 beasts. He makes no mention of using a slinger against Goliath because it had not yet occurred to him. His verbose story could have been a short statement 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 thought to be 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 those to non-Semitic languages.)

David’s declamation in its own paragraph tells us it was not a counter 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 have been 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 into a 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 the victim. Should the marauder turn on the shepherd, 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-CHADMEI-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. So he fell silent. This does not come across in the translations but is inferred from the written text because David's next words, introduced with “And David said”, is a stand-alone paragraph containing only the first part of verse 37; the second part begins a new paragraph, with Saul’s response. David breaks protocol by speaking again, after a pause, before Saul replied.

David knew his anointment assured his victory. {Clerics who spin this tale into a sermon about David’s victory deriving from a “faith” not shared by others completely miss this.} He alerts Saul to this by abruptly changing his speech pattern, no longer talking of avenging insults or vanquishing ferocious 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 the personal Y-H-W-H (see 2:1 for the significance of these names). But though Saul’s spiritual antenna was attuned to the possibility that David might be his successor, his inner turmoil is still evident in the text, for he hesitates (there is a space before the next paragraph - it begins in the middle of the verse) - but eventually intones a terse “Go and may Y-H-W-H be with you”.

David then girded CHAR-BOH (HIS SWORD – v. 39), which could not actually have been his, for the text twice states he was not NEE-SAH (“practiced”) with it. After taking some practice swings with a borrowed weapon, 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 between 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 how would they explain David's requesting 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 the Greek martial ethos, individual combat, with strict propriety and fairness, was the epitome of valor. Hurling projectiles was cowardly, a conviction that so imbued Europeans 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 than its mass.

David resolved to confront 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 it to VA-YIL-AH on the assumption our text was a scribal error but that verb implies exhaustion, not restraint; with its “Yud” prefix, it is not reflexive but active (the passive form takes a “Nun” prefix – cf. ISAIAH 1:14) with the actor the implied object (cf. GENESIS 19:11, which the King James Bible 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 successor in the second half of the verse, making one of them superfluous – precisely what should not 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 had in mind. A stripling defeating a mighty, well-armed foe with but a slinger is an inspiring story - but wrong! He would wield the weapon his enemy most prized. David knew he would win; his anointment guaranteed that. He would use a sword precisely because he had no expertise with it; there was no way he was going to beat this guy without overt divine help – and that would make headlines. Then the import of Goliath’s challenge hit him. The giant’s discarding his sword seemed egalitarian but was also a sly rebuke of Israel’s king. Saul had an iron sword – yet would not face Goliath himself (The Philistines had no monarch; one warrior was as good as another); David’s miraculous victory with the sword might prompt the army to depose Saul – and that he had to avert. If Saul really intended to give the winner his daughter in marriage, he would ascend the throne that way. What was his alternative - a slinger? That was exactly what that wily warrior had taken precautions against, what he feared most. But if David could find a way to do that - he could still use divine help but it would not be obvious, for his lack of expertise 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 the 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 needed to get behind Goliath. Dressed like a shepherd lad ostensibly on his way home, he made his way to the point of the Israelite line furthest from the hill and descended unobserved into the wadi. The translators have him picking up five stones. What were his plans for the extra ones? 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 back in camp who had stocks of them but he 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. PSALMS 12:3; PROVERBS 2:16; DANIEL 11:32). Some translate it “stone fragments”; that is CHEL-QEI EH-BHEN (cf. ISAIAH 57:6; ECCLESIASTES 2:10; LAMENTATIONS 3:24). CHA-LOO-QEI is the construct of CHA-LOO-QAH (“partition” - cf. CHRONICLES II 35:5).He selected a number of stones sorted into five types and put into two satchels (those having him carrying one bag got this wrong, too), the smaller stones in the shepherd's pouch and the larger ones in a YAL-QOOT, a large 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 and occasionally glanced his way 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 Saul would send a puny youth. Then it dawned on him – David tried to neutralize Goliath’s weapons advantage. That is why he said “staffs”, not because he was seeing double - he thought staffs were his adversary’s choice of weapons. This was the furthest thing from David's mind. While he was quicker and more agile, so he may have had a chance doing kendo (assuming the Japanese martial art involving staves, or a Levantine variation, had made its way to the near East), 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.

Can we postulate something not explicitly stated? We infer it from Goliath’s curse (v. 43), which should have opened his outburst or ended it; its being in the middle tells us what he meant. L’QA-LEIL (TO CURSE) is rooted in the radical Qooph-Lamed (KAL - “slight/deficient”). A M’QA-LEIL imprecates 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 previously committed sins (GENESIS 8:21), the text uses L’QA-LEIL. Goliath reacted to David’s behavior. Translators also misconstrued BEI-LOH-HAV, presuming Goliath invoked his own deity and injected a theological tilt. 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 his 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.

After his errand-boy left, 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 anyway. Also 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.}This reinforced a victory emerging 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 {15thcentury 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 had kept his sword (he was not about to relinquish it until he had a staff in hand), 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 this coming for breaching decorum. He did not just issue a challenge as one warrior to another; he tried to foment rebellion against the opposing sovereign, a lese majesty which demanded a demonstrative retribution.

Malbim [R. M. Weisser, 19th century Lithuania/Romania] was the only who correctly observed that David's flouting the rules of engagement exempted the Philistines from any duty they had under the terms of Goliath's offer; nevertheless, their flight from the battlefield should also not be misconstrued. While the text portrays them as turning tail in disarray from the pursuing Israelites, they actually reacted to what they saw as the local god acting on behalf of the faithful inhabitants of his region, an important component of polytheistic belief systems prevalent in Canaan then (cf. SAMUEL I 5:2-7; CHRONICLES I 10:10); David's besting their hero was thus attributed to the fortunes of war, not his prowess. Any impression he made certainly 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 Philistine potentate of Goliath’s own city, Gath (cf. SAMUEL I 21:11-13, 27:2).

This saga was not about an underdog overcoming tremendous odds but 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 his avatar. [Systemic allegiance to institutions emerged in ancient Sparta, a militarist society in which such an ethos was critical for its continuity and success. Sporadically tried by the Romans, its effectiveness, especially during the Imperial period, was marginal. It became the dominant political model in the modern era but the old one persisted, witness the tragic results in the 20th century when the entire German military establishment took a personal oath 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 thought nothing of executing 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 ethos.

A correct understanding of any Scriptural narrative rests on a thorough familiarity with its original language, context and cultural and historical background. The following must always be kept in mind: a) translations must be based on precise identifications of word roots, along with their grammar and syntax, not on superimposed 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 observed 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 must also not be treated as 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.