HOW MANY TIMES DID DAVID KILL GOLIATH? (I SAMUEL 17:50-51)

How many time did David kill Goliath? (I Samuel 17:50-51)

Searching on-line for more biblical input from skeptics, I came across this one. Rayan Zehn lists this as his favorite biblical contradiction since it is a passage that seems to give two conflicting versions of how Goliath died within the space of two only verses.

Several commentaries I consulted did not even bother mentioning that there was necessarily any contradiction here. But McKenzie notes, “These verses make it appear as though David killed the Philistine twice, once with the sling stone (v. 50) and once by beheading him with his own sword (v. 51). The repetition results from the combination of two versions of the story, but v. 50 can be read as an overview of the entire episode.”

Notice that in a way, McKenzie himself is also guilty of formulating a contradiction, this time within the same sentence. He gives two somewhat competing explanations: (a) there is a merging of two competing versions of the same story in I Samuel 17:50-51 or (b) there is a literary explanation for the seeming conflict. Let me briefly discuss these two possibilities as well as others.

Different sources

This is the sort of explanation often given by liberal scholars who feel that many of the books of the Bible came into being after a long process of editing together various versions of the same story. Of course, if that is the case, then Zehn is correct in pointing out that the competing narratives give entirely different reasons for Goliath's death, and we will never know which is the historical truth.

For example, Kyle McCarter is one source critic who does identify verses 50 and 51 as coming from two separate and competing versions. On the other hand, Li, who also believes the story of David and Goliath comes from the combination of two different sources, assigns both verses to a single source. This is not untypical of source critics, and it demonstrates that the criteria these scholars use to identify different original sources are sadly lacking in any sort of scholarly precision.

Thus, Satterthwaite can state, “Until recently it was widely held that the books of Samuel are composite, fashioned from different sources that can be at least partially reconstructed today on the basis of their divergent viewpoints...Many still hold these views, but others argue that the different sections of 1-2 Samuel are better integrated with each other than such views would imply.”

Literary Explanations

Getting back to McKenzie's second possible reason for the “contradiction,” he invokes the well-known literary propensity of biblical narratives to sometimes make sweeping overviews of a time period or event followed by a more detailed description. In that respect, the author simply states in v. 50 that David knocked Goliath out with a stone and was then able to kill him, not that the stone itself accomplished the deed. Verse 51 describes how the deed was actually completed. If that explanation seems far-fetched to you, just consider how Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heaven and the earth; the rest of chapter 1 explains how that was accomplished; and Genesis 2 goes into further detail regarding the sixth day of creation.

There is yet another literary explanation provided by Tsumura which is a slight variation on the above. He explains that verses 50-51 are only part of an ABA structure described as below:

    A. (v. 49) David sent – took – slung – struck

            B. (v. 50) David prevailed – struck – killed

    A. (v. 51) David ran – stood – took – drew – killed – cut

Such a construction was designed to shed light on the all-important center section in which David prevailed over the Philistine.

Murphy's comments on this subject are also helpful when he states that the narrative's repetitions are “sometimes discounted as interpolations but integral to its literary texture.” Another close comparison demonstrating this point is the two accounts of the killing of Sisera by Jael in Judges 4-5. The first prose narrative appears to have her striking him while he is lying down, but the poetic version that follows has her hitting him while he is standing up.

Grammatical Explanations

Regarding this point I will readily admit that I am way over my head. However, it is interesting that Young's Analytical Concordance lists the Hebrew word for “slew” (mwt) in two places rather than one so that the usage in verse 51 is included with those passages in which the word means “to put to death” while the appearance of the same word in verse 50 has the meaning “to cause to put to death.”

Similarly, Merrill says “The podel [form] conveys the meaning 'kill definitely' (Judg 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51).” Note that 17:50 is not included here. Thus, there appears to be a subtle difference in the exact meanings of “slew” in these two different verses.

Logical Deductions

If one could demonstrate that a mere rock from a slingshot could not in itself kill a heavily armored soldier like Goliath, then that would go a long way toward indicating that “slay” in verse 50 refers to David's subsequent action in verse 51. But here we are entering into the realm of supposition. Off hand, it would seem that the heavy helmet Goliath wore would have adequately protected him from any damage from any such missiles hitting his “forehead.” But one would have to know exactly what the helmet looked like to know for sure.

However, Deem has proposed that the Hebrew word usually translated as “forehead” really refers to the part of Goliath's armor called a “greave,” protection to the lower legs. Since that armor must allow flexible movement of the knee, denting it could have caused it to freeze up so that Goliath would have lost his balance and fallen. A temporary concussion of the head would then have given David enough time to grab Goliath's sword and finish him off.

The above scenario, however, is highly speculative in several ways, and Tsumura discounts its possibility with the words, “But this probably would not have knocked a giant down, and certainly would not have left him helpless when David came and took his sword.” At this point, it appears that we really don't have enough information to use logical deductions as an answer to the question.