TWO MYTHS REGARDING KING DAVID

The July/August 2023 issue of Christianity Today contains two back-to-back articles regarding King David. And interestingly, one explodes an understanding common among conservative churches while the other one casts grave doubts on a more skeptical view of David's status.

David and Goliath

Jordan Monson writes the first article titled “The Other Giant,” in which he provides a more accurate picture of the young David as he faced off against Goliath. A popular picture of David at this point in his life, at least the way the story in I Samuel 17 was told to me in Sunday school while growing up, was that David was a mere boy at the time – perhaps no older than twelve or thirteen. The rationale behind such a characterization has probably been to exaggerate the odds against David defeating his giant foe. But here are the numerous points Monson brings up to counter that unrealistic and unbiblical view:

David was already recognized as a brave man and a warrior.

Back in I Samuel 16:18, someone in Saul's court had recommended David to Saul as a person who was, among other things, “a man of valor, a warrior.”

He was exceptionally strong.

Calculations show that during his roughly 15-mile run (!) from Bethlehem to the battlefield he was carrying approximately 45 pounds of food on his back (as calculated from I Samuel 17:13,17-19). As Monson says, “David is no child. He's more like a marine.”

Goliath was probably not as tall as we have pictured him.

We tend to picture David's enemy as one of the mythical giants in fairy tales such as “Jack the Giant Killer.” And while it is true that he was obviously of greater than normal height for that day, estimates of the length of a cubit vary to the point where Goliath may have only been 7-feet tall. That would probably not even qualify him for a place on an NBA team today.

David is characterized in the text with the ambiguous Hebrew term na'ar.

The linguistics scholar Michelle Knight states that this word can indicate a male anywhere from birth to someone in their mid-20's such as the warrior Absalom. And the timing of subsequent events proves that he was at least twenty years old since he becomes king at age thirty and it is unlikely that even ten years intervened between his battle with Goliath and that later event.

David's offer to fight is taken seriously by Saul.

Remember that the fate of the whole nation was at stake in this one-on-one encounter (see I Samuel 17:9). It would be absolutely ridiculous for Saul to put this vital issue in the hands of some mere pre-pubescent boy. That was an issue which has bothered me for years.

He is able to fight hand-to-paw battles with bears and lions.

This is hardly something that a pre- or early-teen would be able to do easily.

Saul offers his armor to David.

Monson perceptively points out that I Samuel 9:2 provides us with a physical description of Saul, one of the few such physical descriptions in the whole Bible. Saul is twice in the text (I Samuel 9:2; 10:23) said to be exceptionally tall. It would have been the height of absurdity for Saul to offer his own armor to a boy who was not yet fully developed physically. Note that David doesn't complain that the armor hardly fits him. Instead, the only problem David expresses is that he is having trouble walking in it because he isn't used to it (I Samuel 17:39).

Within a few years, David will lead an army that kills hundreds of enemy troops.

It is doubtful that an inexperienced boy in his early teens would have been able to command any respect whatsoever in that capacity.

Ancient slings were powerful weapons.

Monson quotes from a Scientific American article stating, “In the hands of an expert, a heavy sling bullet or stone could reach speeds of up to 100 mph.”

In addition, Monson provides some reasonable explanations for how David was able to get by Goliath's defenses. He states that the duty of the armor carrier mentioned in I Samuel 17:7 was not just to hold Goliath's shield in case he should need it. Instead, the custom was for a highly trained man to use the shield as a barrier between the man he was protecting and any flying projectiles which should come his way. And when all the flying weapons had been successfully been deflected, the confrontation could then proceed to hand-to-hand combat.

Thus, David taking five smooth stones was a usual precaution. But he only needed one. This brings up the question of how David was able to outwit the shield carrier. Monson admits that we are not told how it was accomplished, but brings up two possibilities: (1) David may have been left-handed, which could have confused the man (see Judges 20:16) or (2) David may have picked up some tricks on how to outmaneuver a shield carrier since he had earlier served in that capacity for Saul himself (I Samuel 16:21).

In any case, it is ultimately the miraculous element that enabled David to win the day.

The Extent of David's Kingdom

The second article of note in the same issue of Christianity Today was written by Gordon Govier and titled “Excavating the House of David.” He takes issue with those biblical minimalists who either have their doubts that David even existed or if he did exist, whether he really commanded any such kingdom as is described in the Bible. Both of those concerns, however, have been pretty much laid to rest by now for several reasons.

Excavations in Jerusalem

Archeologist Eilat Mazar uncovered the foundation walls of an impressive public building which she was able to date to the 10^th century B.C. It corresponds closely to the stronghold mentioned in II Samuel 5:17. But even outside David's capital city we see evidence of his presence.

Other Excavations in Israel

A massive fortification has been found near the site of the confrontation with Goliath which appears to be neither Canaanite not Philistine in origin. And other impressive sites in Judea have been excavated which skeptical scholars felt should not be there.

Findings Outside of Israel

One of the most telling discoveries, of course, was the Moabite stone deciphered using the latest technology in 2022 erected about 800 B.C. The phrase “House of David” appears on the inscription. That shows that David did indeed found an important dynasty and was not a mere tribal leader.

General Considerations

But one could still ask why archeologists have not uncovered anything like the massive stone walls and gates found throughout Israel and dating to Solomon's reign. First, note that the Bible really doesn't give David credit for any such building projects as we are told for Solomon.

And Govier notes that Bible critics such as Finkelstein were guilty of “making broad assumptions about what a 10th-century B.C. would look like.” That, coupled with archeologists' well-known “architectural bias,” caused them to generally overlook the fact that the far-flung empire of David at the time probably consisted mainly of some smaller villages and well as a number of Bedouin-type portable tent encampments which would have left no permanent archeological record.

Thus, David could have easily been accepted as the leader of a vast number of people living all over the territory of Israel without having any monuments other than the capital in Jerusalem to attest to that fact for later researchers.