How did David Kill Goliath?

[Reynolds]

I have always taken it that David actually killed Goliath with Goliaths sword. The KJV is not clear on the account, but the way I read it suggests that. I was reading the story to my son tonight in theNIrV. It plainly says he killed Goliath with the stone. NIV says same thing. NKJV implies both. CSB reads as if David killed Goliath three times.
The commentary seems to most universally say the stone knocked him out and the sword killed him, but some of the translations definitely don't say that.
What is correct?

 

[rlvaughn]

We grew up with the KJV, and the way I remember Bible stories, Sunday School and sermons was that it was generally always stated that David killed Goliath with the stone. My memory may be off, but seems like when I played Bible Trivia as an adult that was the first time I'd heard it suggested another way. The only point of my story is that it seems to me that most folks at the time did not see the KJV as ambiguous on the matter and fairly consistently interpreted it as the stone killing Goliath. (Obviously, this is only based on my own experience, and what I can remember of it at that!)

It appears to me that the same Hebrew word is used in verses 50 and 51, so I like the idea of seeing the same word in English. Perhaps our resident Hebrew scholars can explain if there is some connotation in the sentences that should cause us to understand them differently. The word is often translated kill, and that is what slay/slew means as well. IIRC, it is the same word translated kill in Exodus 4:24.

To my simple approach, I see it like this. David whacked Goliath square in the forehead with a stone speeding from his sling. Goliath fell down dead. David runs to the body, doesn't stop to take his pulse, pulls out Goliaths sword and lops off his head. If anyone had any question about whether Goliath might only be stunned by the rock -- well, now they know! Philistines know for sure he isn't getting up; take off running. Dead and dead!

 

[Don]

Not sure it matters one way or the other. The small stone toppled the giant. The sword made sure he stayed down.

 

[Reynolds]

Not sure it matters one way or the other. The small stone toppled the giant. The sword made sure he stayed down.

It would not matter to me much if my son were not wanting an answer. Well, that and the fact that I am OCD about having to get a question answered to get it off my mind.

 

[rsr]

Actually, the CSB has pretty much the same story as the KJV and most other versions:

"When the Philistine started forward to attack him, David ran quickly to the battle line to meet the Philistine. David put his hand in the bag, took out a stone, slung it, and hit the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown to the ground. David defeated the Philistine with a sling and a stone. David overpowered the Philistine and killed him without having a sword. David ran and stood over him. He grabbed the Philistine’s sword, pulled it from its sheath, and used it to kill him."

The NiRV, like some other versions (such as the NLT) smooths over the difficulty of David's apparently killing Goliath twice.

In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? Robert Chisholm analyzes Hebrew (which is far beyond me) and argues that the topic can be harmonized this way:

"The alleged ‘double killing’ of the Philistine in 17:50-51 can be explained reasonably when one takes a closer look at the Hebrew text. In verse 50 a hiphil form of מוּת, ‘die,’ is collocated with ‘he struck down,’ while in verse 51 a polel form of מוּת is used to describe how David killed the Philistine with the sword. The collocation of verbs in verse 50 has the nuance ‘dealt a mortal blow.’ The polel of מוּת (v. 51) is used in eight other passages in the Old Testament. In three poetic texts, it appears to mean, simply, ‘kill, put to death’ (Pss. 34:21; 109:16; Jer. 20:17). But in narrative (all in Judges-Samuel) it appears to have a specialized shade of meaning, referring to finishing off someone who is already mortally wounded (Judg. 9:54; 1 Sam. 14:13; 2 Sam. 1:9-10, 16). Abimelech’s statement (Judg. 9:54) is particularly instructive—he asked the armor bearer to kill him (polel) because otherwise people would say that a woman killed him (the verb is הָרַג, ‘kill’). So who killed Abimelech? Two answers are possible and both are correct—the woman (she delivered a mortal blow that made death certain) and the armor bearer (he delivered the death blow in the technical sense = polel). How did David kill the Philistine? Again two answers are possible and both are correct—with a sling stone (David delivered a mortal blow with the sling that made death certain) and with the Philistine’s sword, which he used to deliver the deathblow in a technical sense (= polel).”

That seems reasonable (from an outsider's viewpoint), but it almost seems too simple; if the text could have been harmonized that easily, why didn't someone do it earlier?

 

[TCassidy]

It probably was assumed that it was "common knowledge" that the stone stunned Goliath with a lethal wound followed by David finishing his task with Goliath's own sword.

The Pulpit Commentary (6th edition 1888) says "David, therefore, completes his victory by killing Goliath with his own sword as he lay stunned upon the ground."

 

[Reynolds]

It probably was assumed that it was "common knowledge" that the stone stunned Goliath with a lethal wound followed by David finishing his task with Goliath's own sword.

The Pulpit Commentary (6th edition 1888) says "David, therefore, completes his victory by killing Goliath with his own sword as he lay stunned upon the ground."

Those are my thoughts, but translations such as the NIV seem to say the opposite. It seems that the modern translations would clarify this.

 

[Deacon]

There is more to this story than the words of the passage lead us to believe.

The SWORD is a major theme in the book of Samuel

The statement that David had no sword,
...and the idea that it was the stone that caused Goliath's death,​

both play into this theme.

Who's sword is it?
Who has the sword?
Who wields the sword?
Who ends up with the sword?

Rob

 

[Reynolds]

There is more to this story than the words of the passage lead us to believe.

The SWORD is a major theme in the book of Samuel

The statement that David had no sword,
...and the idea that it was the stone that caused Goliath's death,​

both play into this theme.

Who's sword is it?
Who has the sword?
Who wields the sword?
Who ends up with the sword?

Rob

There is a lot more to the story. The story is really about faith in Gods covenant.

 

[Deacon]

...and this whole assembly will know that it is not by sword or by spear that the LORD saves, for the battle is the LORD's. He will hand you over to us. 1 Samuel 17:47 CSB

 

[rlvaughn]

Those are my thoughts, but translations such as the NIV seem to say the opposite. It seems that the modern translations would clarify this.

Apparently some of the modern versions do just that, but maybe not all of them in the same way. I think the reason this is less than satisfactory is that ultimately it is an interpretational issue rather than a translation issue.

The NiRV, like some other versions (such as the NLT) smooths over the difficulty of David's apparently killing Goliath twice.

That seems reasonable (from an outsider's viewpoint), but it almost seems too simple; if the text could have been harmonized that easily, why didn't someone do it earlier?

It seems like a fine line between easy and difficult -- including bringing technicalities of the original language into it. Perhaps we make it more difficult with the presuppositions we bring to it. The text is not a coroner's report of how and when Goliath died, but a narrative of how David defeated Goliath.

For myself, I am satisfied that David struck Goliath with a mortal blow by one stone shot from his sling. Had a medical examiner checked him, he might not have pronounced him dead at that exact moment. But he was not going to get up and walk away. David renders all such speculation unnecessary by removing the head of Goliath with Goliath's own sword.

 

[Reynolds]

David put his hand in the bag, took out a stone, slung it, and hit the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown to the ground. [50] David defeated the Philistine with a sling and a stone. David overpowered the Philistine and killed him without having a sword. [51] David ran and stood over him. He grabbed the Philistine’s sword, pulled it from its sheath, and used it to kill him. Then he cut off his head.

I think the translators could do much better than what the CSB did above.

 

[tyndale1946]

David put his hand in the bag, took out a stone, slung it, and hit the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown to the ground. [50] David defeated the Philistine with a sling and a stone. David overpowered the Philistine and killed him without having a sword. [51] David ran and stood over him. He grabbed the Philistine’s sword, pulled it from its sheath, and used it to kill him. Then he cut off his head.

I think the translators could do much better than what the CSB did above.

I always looked at it this way... God gave David the courage and faith to stand before Goliath... No mater what stone David chose God directed the stone David slung, right to where it was intended and killed him... David may have cut off his head with Goliaths own sword but did David claim the victory?... Or was the victory the Lords... Brother Glen

 

[Don]

Reynolds - here's another way of looking at it, that Deacon has alluded to.

The Philistines looked to Goliath as god-like. Other armies trembled at the sound of his name, much less his appearance. As long as they followed him, they were assured victory. David slew Goliath with the stone; but the beheading was symbolic, letting the Philistines know that no one is bigger than God.

 

[rsr]

The text is not a coroner's report of how and when Goliath died, but a narrative of how David defeated Goliath.

I agree with the first part, but not necessarily the second. As Rob pointed out, the narrative is crafted to reinforce the theme, so I think it is a mistake to read it as strictly narrative. For example, the Septuagint omits verse 50, making Goliath's death explicitly by the sword. But the MT inserts verse 50, in which Goliath dies as a result of the sling, which reinforces v. 47, that "Yahweh does not rescue with sword or with spear, for the battle [belongs] to Yahweh, and he will give you into our hands!" (LEB)

 

[rlvaughn]

I agree with the first part, but not necessarily the second. As Rob pointed out, the narrative is crafted to reinforce the theme, so I think it is a mistake to read it as strictly narrative.

If by "strictly narrative" you mean relating a story just for the purpose of relating a story/history, then I agree. I can agree that it is well-written in a way that reinforces a theme without thinking there are inaccurate additions. I wouldn't agree (if that is what you mean) that the crafting of the theme includes the Masoretes adding and adjusting new information that is not historical to verse 50. I know that the Septuagint is notable in 1 Samuel 17 for agreeing with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic text re the height of Goliath, but in general I tend to see the Septuagint as less reliable. How do you see that?

For example, the Septuagint omits verse 50, making Goliath's death explicitly by the sword. But the MT inserts verse 50, in which Goliath dies as a result of the sling, which reinforces v. 47, that "Yahweh does not rescue with sword or with spear, for the battle [belongs] to Yahweh, and he will give you into our hands!" (LEB)

 

[Reynolds]

From what I have found so far, the NLT has the most logical, easy to understand account of the death of Goliath.

"As Goliath moved closer to attack, David quickly ran out to meet him. [49] Reaching into his shepherd's bag and taking out a stone, he hurled it with his sling and hit the Philistine in the forehead. The stone sank in, and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground. [50] So David triumphed over the Philistine with only a sling and a stone, for he had no sword. [51] Then David ran over and pulled Goliath’s sword from its sheath. David used it to kill him and cut off his head."

 

[Deacon]

From what I have found so far, the NLT has the most logical, easy to understand account of the death of Goliath.

The sacrifice for clarity was the accuracy to the Hebrew text.

The Hebrew text clearly adds "and killed him" in verse 50.


The purpose of the passage was not to define how David killed Goliath,

it was not to determine with what instrument David killed Goliath,​

The purpose was to declare that it was done through the power of THE NAME, the LORD of Hosts, the God of the Armies of Israel.
The battle was between the gods of the Philistines and the GOD of Israel.

“He [Goliath] said to David, “Am I a dog that you come against me with sticks?” Then he cursed David by his gods. “Come here,” the Philistine called to David, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts!”” (1 Samuel 17:43-44, CSB)

“David said to the Philistine: “You come against me with a sword, spear, and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord of Armies, the God of the ranks of Israel—you have defied him. Today, the Lord will hand you over to me. Today, I’ll strike you down, remove your head, and give the corpses of the Philistine camp to the birds of the sky and the wild creatures of the earth. Then all the world will know that Israel has a God, and this whole assembly will know that it is not by sword or by spear that the Lord saves, for the battle is the Lord’s. He will hand you over to us.”” (1 Samuel 17:45–47, CSB)

Our LORD prevailed through the hand of David!

Rob

 

[rsr]

I wouldn't agree (if that is what you mean) that the crafting of the theme includes the Masoretes adding and adjusting new information that is not historical to verse 50.

I was not suggesting that the information is "not historical" but rather that it was selected to reinforce the theme of the story. This is not unheard of; the different accounts of the Gospels come to mind in that they have different emphases depending on the message they intend to impart. (See, for example, the different genealogies of Christ.)

I know that the Septuagint is notable in 1 Samuel 17 for agreeing with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic text re the height of Goliath, but in general I tend to see the Septuagint as less reliable. How do you see that?

I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of the LXX vs. MT, other than to say I would affirm the opinion of the Reformers on preferring the MT. However, given that there are recognized corruptions or scribal errors in the books of Samuel, it may be that the LXX has preserved some readings that shed light on certain words or passages in the MT.

As to Goliath's height: Got me. The LXX height is the same as in the Dead Sea fragment (which, being singular, does not clearly prove or disprove another reading). Josephus also agreed with the LXX and DSS; it may be assumed that he was relying on the LXX, but that doesn't preclude the possibility he may have picked it up from Hebrew, which he may have known because he was a member of the priestly class.

 

[rlvaughn]

I was not suggesting that the information is "not historical" but rather that it was selected to reinforce the theme of the story.

Thanks. Then I don't think we really have much difference on the idea and purpose of the story.

I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of the LXX vs. MT, other than to say I would affirm the opinion of the Reformers on preferring the MT. However, given that there are recognized corruptions or scribal errors in the books of Samuel, it may be that the LXX has preserved some readings that shed light on certain words or passages in the MT.

Nor I am particularly, but am of the opinion of preferring the MT over LXX. I nevertheless think reading and comparing the LXX is useful. Interestingly, the Septuagint has a lot of missing info in 1 Samuel 17 compared to the MT. See 1 Samuel 17 HERE (Septuagint w/ Brenton translation).