Mythbusters - 1 of 5

Welcome back to the next Vineyard Bible Study blog series, Mythbusters. We pick up today in 1 Samuel 17.

If you missed our previous introduction and first few series, you can go back and start at the beginning:

• Introductory guidance
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (4-part series)
• National (In)security (6-part series)

So, to begin, find a quiet space. Sit down and take a few breaths.

Today's session should may take about 45 to an hour. Ready?

Since our series is called Mythbusters, let's begin by watching with this little homage to the show on Discovery:




OK, on to 1 Samuel 17 and the famous battle that has become a byword: "David versus Goliath"


Section one. Myth #1 - David was a neophyte, untrained in warfare, when he took on Goliath.





The narrative now turns full-focus on David who, indeed, is a mystery. Maybe because he is sooo human, such a controversial and complex person, so realistically portrayed. I think almost everyone who reads about David identifies with him at one point or another.

We saw last time, David is first introduced into the narrative in 1 Samuel 16. He is chosen by God, anointed by Samuel and selected to appear at Saul's court as a singer/therapist with harp whose music gifting soothes Saul and drives the "evil spirit" afflicting Saul away.

Let's pick up at that point with our text and read 1 Samuel 17:1-19, then click back here.

You gotta love it. The Philistine "champion" Goliath, this giant who is over eight feet tall, comes at the Israelites as one of the biggest "trash-talkers" of the Bible, but he never backs-it-up. Who is the trash-talker who backs-it-up? David does indeed "trash-talk" back to Goliath and follow's through on it. It may also be interesting to note one of the other most famous "trash-talkers" of the Bible is the prophet Elijah, who trash-talks the prophets of Ba'al at their showdown on Mount Carmel- see 1 Kings 18 for Elijah's classic trash-talking.

Notice the very detailed list of how Goliath is outfit like a bronze tank, with helmet, plated cuirass with scale armour, molded bronze encircling his entire calf and a sword, which in Hebrew is called a kidon, which might be best translated into English as "scimitar", because kidon refers to a heavy, curved, flat-bladed oriental-type sword. Goliath is big and impressive with his body, his armour and his trash-talking.


Let's move on and read 1 Samuel 17:20-30, the click back here.

Biblical commentator Keith Bodner, as well as many other commentators, note that while David was introduced previously, it is here in chapter 17 that David utters his first words. In our scriptures the first words uttered by most characters say something really important and give insight into them. What do we find here in 1 Samuel 17:26? It reads, "What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?"

What do you think? Bodner thinks it is as though two different sides of David are being revealed. The first is that he asks somes to reiterate something he just heard, what exactly are the rewards offered for taking up this challenge and winning? As the youngest of eight brothers, his real chances for advancement and inheritance was pretty limited. Thus David is revealed as an opportunist, weighing what is to be gained and what might be lost and doing his own sort of risk management. As we will see, David has a fairly developed skill in this risk assessment/management area. Also, David's second sentence brings to life his courage based on his rock-solid faith and love for YHWH-Elohim.

Also in these verses David gets into a little verbal tit-for-tat with his elder brother Eliab. Again Bodner gives us some insight: "How should the words of Eliab, David's older brother be heard? On the one hand, his criticism can be heard as the ranting of a jealous older brother, and the kind of sibling rivalry that is popular in biblical narrative. On the other hand, he may be using hyperbole to sound a warning to David on this very public occasion. Notably, the word-clusters surrounding Eliab's speech resound at later points in the narrative, especially 2 Samuel 11, the episode of David and Bathsheba, the murder of Uriah, and the parable of Nathan the prophet. The response of Eliab, then, is rather more complicated than many readers have appreciated."


Ok, let's start busting some myths. First up: The myth that David was just a little boy when facing Goliath. Too often, I believe, we learn something in "Sunday school" and the real story of the Bible is "changed" to present it to children. Unfortunately, we take those "Sunday school" ideas into adulthood, and we never "grow-up" and move into maturity with respect to these false caricatures of events and people from scripture. The story of David and Goliath is the pinnacle of this kind of misperception, where so many pastors on Sunday merely teach the Sunday school lesson over and over again to an adult population.

Let's begin our mythbuster investigation by watching this clip from the "King David" movie:





I like this portrayal of the story, because it adheres closer to our text in scripture than most movie adaptations.

In his popular work on David, David's Secret Demons, Baruch Halpern of the Penn State University Classics program argues that - contrary to the popular myth of David as the classic underdog, a naive boy full of faith in God - David is in actuality not the underdog in his fight with Goliath. Halpern makes the case that David uses surprise tactics and attacks from "outside the ring." David characterizes "thinking outside the box." Halpern does concede that "David would be the underdog, had he accepted combat on traditional terms," but David doesn't. David utilizes, "...the element of surprise, the ruse," as a method for "...leveraging his skills into victory." Notice the text goes into great detail with Saul trying to give David his armour, and while David tries it on, it doesn't fit, but especially does not fit with the tactics he wants to use against this Philistine giant.

Again, Halpern points out that, "David is modern man, rejecting the mindless, medieval ritualized combat of the Philistines: the fates of nations cannot depend on single combat, but the fates of nations are too important to scruple about the rules of sport. Combat is not a matter of personal honor, but of national destiny...David begins his career as a musician playing the lyre for Saul. In the Goliath episode, he moves on to reject the etiquette of social relations shared by all around him. This is the pattern that will persist throughout his history. He is not just Yahweh's elect: he is Yahweh's avenger. He is not just destined for greatness: he shapes his greatness by a complete disregard for orthodoxy."


Remember when I mentioned that we needed to pay close attention to the Hebrew words and meaning when we went through 1 Samuel 14? Particularly, I mentioned to take note of the Hebrew term na'ar and it's translation in verse 1, "young man bearing his armour" or just "armour-bearer". Well, we have come to the point of making the point of that phrase yet again. You see while na'ar can have the meaning of a youth or boy, it more precise meaning and essence of the word is "apprentice". The "young man bearing his armour" is apprenticing to be a full-fledged warrior by training - by apprenticing - under a warrior skilled in combat, and by going into combat with that warrior and serving the warrior in the heat of battle. This is just the way discipling some young man in the ways of the warrior was done. That is why Jonathan's na'ar accompanies him in his exploit and God's victory over the Philistines in chapter 14. So, how is David described heretofore? In 1 Samuel 16:21, our narrative states clearly that David came to attend to King Saul and became his armour-bearer. David is apprenticing to learn the skills of a warrior under the tutelage of Saul. David is learning to fight. He is growing in skill and military-strategy by being in the presence and attending to the person who is gathering all of the best warriors of Israel to his army. This is actually the best place to learn from the best of the best. Thus a na'ar is an apprentice, after all, a youth/boy is just a male apprenticing to be a man someday, right?

While busting the myth that David was just a shepherd boy (not that this didn't teach him valuable lessons, as David himself says: I fought off lions and bears while protecting the sheep), I wonder what an affect on parenting and also discipleship in the church there might be if we used the word "apprentice" for our children and for disciples in our congregations. Would the mere usage provoke us to be better at apprenticeship...and not in a Donald Trump kind of way!


Before we go on to the next section, let's consider some comments from Keith Bodner's commentary on 1 Samuel: "Goliath is usually understood as a "champion," which is how a number of translations render the unique phrase "man-of-the-space-between" (the idea that the "last one standing" in the "space between" two armies is, logically enough, a champion - because he is still alive). I have rendered this phrase as a more technical term, "Challenger" (or "duelist/infantryman") based on the Qumran material, and because hand-to-hand combat seems to be Goliath's forte. "Gladiator" might be a stretch, although perhaps closer to the mark than one might think."






Section two. Myth #2 - The slingshot is just a child's toy.



OK, read 1 Samuel 17:31-54, then return here.

David uses sling and stone to fell the mighty Goliath, then removes Goliath's head with Goliath's own sword. We don't think about the slingshot being a military weapon nowadays, but the slingshot was a military weapon in the ancient world, not a child's toy as it is now. As recorded by the ancient Greek Thucydides, and attested to by Diodorus Siculus, when the Demosthenes invaded Sicily to capture the large Greek colony at Syracuse, he failed, and taking his army and retreating through the hills, Demosthenes and his hoplites were trapped when the Syracusans blocked a pass. The ensuing missile engagement - in which arrows, javelins and sling shot were used and hurled upon them. The missile attack was so terrible that Demosthenes and his 6000 men surrendered.

The sling was an ancient weapon employed by the Egyptians as well. It was a projectile weapon (polished stones make great missiles!) you can check out a short article on Egyptian projectile weapons, then click back here.

The sling is also attested in sources from the Lelantine war. In his Geographica, Strabo (ca. 63 BC to 23 AD) reports that the two poleis, Chalkis and Eretria had once been friendly. He states that their former friendship resulted in both parties to the conflict agreeing before battle on contractually determined conditions, especially on not using missiles. This treaty seems something like what was witnessed in the bad old days of the "Cold War" where we agree not to use our heavy atopmic weapons.

"Now in general these cities were in accord with one another, and when differences arose concerning the Lelantine Plain they did not so completely break off relations as to wage their wars in all respects according to the will of each, but they came to an agreement as to the conditions under which they were to conduct the fight. This fact, among others, is disclosed by a certain pillar in the Amarynthium, which forbids the use of long distance missiles."
A similar agreement is indirectly referred to by Archilochos (seventh century BC), the second contemporary author to refer to the Lelantine War. He tells how the "warlike lords of Euboea" will not use bow or sling, but only swords, in a (future) battle.
"Not many bows will be drawn,nor will slingshots be common,whenever battle will be joined in the plain;instead the much-sighing work will belong to the swords, for the warlike lords of Euboea are experienced in that manner of war."

The Romans, masters of military that they were, also employed slingers as part of their mighty military. Below are two videos on the slinging.

basic slinging:




here is the closer look at the ancient mediteranean style, as witnessed in thucydides:



Thus the myth is busted: the sling was not a child's toy.




Section three. Myth #3 - The Bible contradicts itself, because it says Elhanan killed Goliath.


OK, let's read 1 Samuel 17:50-51 and then 2 Samuel 21:19, and then 1 Chronicles 20:5, then return here.

OK, what's happening here? Who killed Goliath...David or Elhanan?

Some scholars have posited that David and Elhanan are the same person and that Elhanan was David's personal name he was born with, while David was the throne name he took on when he became king. While this practice is attested throughout the Ancient Near East, this assumption, as McCarter points out, causes more problems than it solves. Let's look at another perspective from Old Testament scholar and Semitic language expert Gleason Archer and his extended answer and analysis to this perplexing question:

"First Samuel 17:50 states that David cut off Goliath's head with the giant's sword, after he had first felled him with a sling and a stone. Because of this amazing victory over the Philistine, David became the fore-most battle-champion among the Israelite troops, even though he was still a mere teenager. But 2 Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew Masoretic text states that "Elhanan the son of Yaare-oegim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." As this verse stands in the Masorestic text, it certainly contradicts 1 Samuel 17. But fortunately we have a parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 20:5, which words the episode this way: "And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittie." It is quite apparent that this was the true reading, not only for the Chronicles passage but also for 2 Samuel 21:19. The earlier manuscript from which the copyist was reading must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse, and hence he made two or three mistakes. What apparently happened was the following:

• The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.
• He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chron. passage does).
• The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patrronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya'arey 'ore-gim - "the son of the forest weavers" - a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore-gim ("weavers) comes right after menor (a beam of") - thus making perfectly good sense.
  In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5."

Let's tackle one more mystery before we end today with the last few verses in this chapter.

Read 1 Samuel 17:55-58, then return here.

Waitaminute. I thought Saul all ready knew David and "loved him" like scripture says at the end of chapter 16. How is it that Saul now asks Abner who this David person is?

Perhaps Gleason Archer can give us another solid understanding of what is happening at this point: "It is altogether true to life for Saul to see David in an entirely new light and to show a keen interest in his background. Apparently General Abner had no previous acquaintance with David except as a harp player and so was not even aware of Jesse's name (17:55). Abner had not been involved in David's earlier introduction to the palace as a soothing musician (16:18)...Saul's rekindled interest, however, went far beyond the name of David's father - even though that was his lead-off question. It is quite apparent that Saul wanted to know whether there were any more at home like him; this was in line with his standard policy set forth in 1 Samuel 14:52: "When Saul saw any mighty man or valiant man, he attached him to his staff" (NASB). That is to say, Saul was intent on building up a first-class bodyguard of champion fighters, and he saw in David a promising lead to obtaining more soldiers like him. From 18:1 we are informed that David carried on a fairly extensive conversation with Saul, going far beyond the giving of his own father's name. Thus we find that when we view the two episodes in their own context and situation, they turn out to be very true to life; and there is no real contradiction between them."



Section four. Assignments.

• Memorize this passage that memorializes David's trash-talking the enemy of God: "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD'S and He will give you into our hands." - 1 Samuel 17:45-47
• Take some time to reflect on how you may have conceptions given to you about events and people in our scriptures that are caricatures of it rather than the real deal. Do you picture Moses as Charlton Heston? Is Jesus a white-pastie Swedish actor? What about other events or particularly caricatures of Jesus. Ask God to move in and help you re-think some of your underlying assumptions about Him and His ways. See what emerges and consider that God may be calling you into a deeper knowledge and relationship with Him through this activity.