The following is my response to a common set of objections about the story of David that I repeatedly notice in Facebook groups. In purple is the set of objections. My response is below in black.
Who Killed Goliath? A Question of Source Criticism:
David and
Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is
a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). The giant Goliath
comes out to challenge someone to fight him. David takes the challenge,
hits Goliath square in the head with a stone, kills him, and then
decapitates him.
However, as it often is with the Bible, things aren't that simple. It appears this story is a doublet: one of two stories about David's rise to be in Saul's court. The other is in 1 Samuel 16.
In 1 Samuel 16, David is brought in to play the harp for Saul. David is
introduced to Saul and is described as "a man of valor, a man of war,"
(v. 17) and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul
"loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)
But then in 1 Samuel 17, David
is a youth and not a warrior at all. Even more confusing, why is David
not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? Worse yet, why would Saul ask
"whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose
son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently
not.
Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was
actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense
either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v.
25, 18:17-19)
These two stories are in complete conflict.
But complicating things further, there's another Biblical claimant to be Goliath's killer!
2 Samuel 21:19 "...Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed
Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam."
So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying
Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual
interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after
David.
This is a classic case of source criticism. Whoever was
compiling the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) was
working with multiple sources that were combined. They're even named in
various parts. This causes minor or even major discrepancies like this,
and it helps us better understand the composition of the Bible.
1. While I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Inerrancy. Christianity could still be true even if there were minor errors in the Bible.
2. Regarding 2 Sam. 21:19 the text is corrupted. Textual corruption is not inconsistent with the historical doctrine of Inerrancy. Notice the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5. I'll post them next to each other. First Chron. 20:5 preserves the datum that Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, and not Goliath himself.
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 2 Sam. 21:19
And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 1 Chron. 20:5
Here's what some commentaries say:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
//where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite; the word "brother" is rightly supplied from 1 Chronicles 20:5; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan; he was one of David's worthies, 2 Samuel 23:24; where he is called the son of Dodo, and in 1 Chronicles 20:5, the son of Jair; and Lahmi there may not be the name of Goliath's brother, but, as here, the country name of Elhanan; for the words (z) there may be rendered,"and Elhanan the son of Jair, the Lehemite (i.e. the Bethlehemite), slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,''and so perfectly agrees, with this:
the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam; not of Goliath's brother, but of Goliath himself, 1 Samuel 17:7.//
Adam Clarke's Commentary states:
//Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.//
3. //So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David.//
How do you know it's a "clear textual interpolation"? What's the evidence?
4. //David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). //
It's not clear that 1 Sam. 17:33, 42 states that David is not a warrior. That's an unnecessary inference. The verses merely contrast David's youth with Goliath's status as a seasoned warrior. Moreover, if you take 1 Sam. 16:18 literally, then David was "a man of valor, a man of war" [i.e. a warrior]. Though, it's possible that 1 Sam. 16:18 was hyperbole on the part of Saul's servant who spoke and not literal (e.g. referring to David's courage/bravery).
5. //and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)//
//Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.//
21 And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer.22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight."- 1 Sam. 16:21-22
Saul as King would have had multiple servants, musicians and armor-bearers. You wouldn't expect a King [or a modern day president or prime minister] to know all his assistants/servants by name and intimately. When it says Saul loved David greatly, it might merely mean that he enjoyed David's music and service so much that he instructed one of his servants to notify Jesse that the King wanted to take David into his service for a while. None of that requires Saul to have known David personally and intimately.
An added fact that can help explain Saul's lack of recognition is that David was growing. A boy without a beard will look vastly different once he starts maturing and developing a masculine physique and facial hair. Even hair color can change with age.
6. //Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? //
David's service as one of Saul's armor-bearers may have been temporary.
7. //Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)//
That the story in 1 Sam. 17 may have occurred before 1 Sam. 16 is a legitimate possibility. Not all of the Biblical stories are chronologically recorded. So, that would solve some of the difficulties that were brought up earlier. That the stories may be chronologically reversed was something I was going to bring up earlier, but I figured it would be easier to address the apparent contradictions directly as if chapter 16 & 17 were chronological. It's argued that they couldn't be reversed because David became Saul's son-in-law. But David didn't IMMEDIATELY become Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom. That must be assumed in order to maintain the apparent contradiction. Reading chapter 18 (the next chapter) shows that David didn't immediately rise to prominence to rival Saul. It was a relatively quick ascendancy, but it still took time.
