%BWJET5SJVNQI0WFS(PMJBUI4BNVFMBOE "ODJFOU/FBS&BTUFSO"OBMPHVFT

James K. Hoffmeier

Trinity International University – Divinity School

Abstract archaeologists during the past two decades. ’s portrayal of The Story of and Goliath is surely one of the best-known dramatic narra- David as a powerful conquering tives in the Bible. Biblical scholars and monarch has been questioned in archaeologists have investigated the duel recent years as literary studies of the from the perspective of archaeology, espe- Hebrew have chal- cially concentrating on the weaponry lenged their historiographic intent, involved. One aspect of the story that has and even the historicity of the bibli- not been sufficiently studied and clarified 1 is found in 1 Samuel 17:54, which reads, cal character has been questioned. “David took the head of the Philistine and This negative assessment was chal- brought it to ; but he put his lenged in the view of many by the armor in his tent.” These rather enigmatic discovery in 1993 and 1994 of the statements will be the focus of this paper. Tell Dan fragmentary stela with byt We will investigate what is the significance dwd, “house of David” on it. That of removing Goliath’s head to Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold, and we will attempt in turn has produced scores of arti- to resolve the question of “whose tent” was cles and studies about David and his taken and why. By carefully examining the dynasty. In fact, within a decade of text of 1 Samuel 17:54 and offering some the discovery of the first fragment, contextual data about ancient Near East- Lawson Younger has documented, ern military practice, we will attempt to no fewer than 95 articles and one answer what was behind David’s strange antics after slaying the Philistine cham- monograph had been published on 2 pion. Furthermore, these questions will be this text, and more has followed. examined within the present debate about 1 Some recent monographs that take the historiographical value of 1 Samuel 17 up the question of the historicity of as raised by I. Finkelstein and A. Yadin David include McKenzie, King David: A who have independently proposed Greek Biography; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons; influence on the biblical narrative. Thompson, The Messiah Myth; Finkelstein and Silberman, David and ; Van Introduction Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David. 2 Younger, “‘Hazael, Son of a Nobody’.” David son of , the dynastic For a more recent discussion of the text and progenitor of the kings of Judah, an up-to-date bibliography, see Hagelia, has been the subject of countless The Tel Dan Inscription. I am grateful to studies by biblical scholars and professor Hagelia for giving me a copy of his monograph. 88 JAMES K. HOFFMEIER In addition to the recent Tell Dan (2 Sam. 21:19), some biblical reference, Andre Lamaire has pro- scholars have distanced themselves posed a previously unrecognized from the traditional understanding reading of byt dwd in the Mesha that David slew Goliath, prefer- Stela.3 And finally Kenneth Kitch- ring to see that David’s biographers en has proposed a possible read- embellished the Elhanan story and ing of David as a toponym in the transformed it into a legendary or / list at .4 romantic story about David.6 These references to the dynasty of Over sixty years ago, A.M. Hon- David or David notwithstanding, eyman proposed that Elhanan was questions remain surrounding the the birth name, while David was his historical David. throne name.7 McCarter demurs, pointing out that this solution cre- David and Goliath in Recent ates more problems than it resolves.8 Research Indeed both Elhanan and David Indubitably David’s victory over are identified as Bethlehemites, but the Philistine champion, Goliath, their patrimony is not the same, is one of the best-known stories in Jaare-oregim and Jesse respectively. the Old Testament. In recent years There is no dispute that there are scholars have devoted considerable serious textual problems with 2 Samuel 21:19 and various emenda- attention to textual issues surround- 9 ing the David and Goliath episode, tions have been proposed. Rather particularly examining the differ- than viewing the Chronicler’s ver- ences in the textual traditions pre- sion of this verse (1 Chron. 20:5) as served in the (LXX) and an attempt to harmonize 1 Samuel the Hebrew (MT).5 Because of what 17 and 2 Samuel 21:19 and resolve appears to be an alternative tradi- the conflicting testimonies, it has tion that Elhanan killed Goliath of been suggested that the Chroni- cler actually better preserves the 3 Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in earlier Hebrew text behind 21:19: Moabite Inscription.” “Elhanan the son of Jair struck 4 Kitchen, “A Possible Mention of David down Lahmi the brother of Goli- in the Late 10th Century BCE, and Deity ath the Gittite” (1 Chron. 20:5).10 *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” 5 Several recent monographs devoted 6 See the sources cited in note 1. to text critical and literary questions are 7 Honeyman, “The Evidence for Regnal Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Names among the Hebrews.” Books of Samuel; Barthélemy, et al., The 8 McCarter, I Samuel, 291. Story of David and Goliath and Isser, The 9 McCarter, II Samuel, 449; Anderson, 2 Sword of Goliath. The latter has a fairly Samuel, 255. comprehensive bibliography on critical 10 For a helpful treatment of the text of 2 issues surrounding this narrative. Sam. 21:19, see Harrison, Introduction to