Abstract
Though the story of David and Goliath is unmatched in its iconic status, it is capable of being interpreted as either a story of David’s faith or a story of David’s cunning. These various portraits of David largely hinge on how the reader understands David’s sling. Is it a shepherd’s weapon that would be useless against the armored giant? Or is it a deadly long range weapon, the equivalent of bringing a gun to a knife fight? This essay examines the literary and historical considerations in interpreting this aspect of the biblical story and suggests that while David may have cunningly chosen a weapon that gave him an outside chance of victory, it is by no means a weapon that gave him an advantage, and so his faith in Yhwh must be considered the deciding factor.
Introduction
The story of David and Goliath is one of the most iconic stories in the Bible. In modern parlance when an underdog sports team upsets a better team, it is quickly labeled a ‘David and Goliath event.’ However, for all its iconic status, the interpretation of this story is not quite so straightforward. Though the common understanding of this story sees the young David approaching Goliath with vastly inferior weaponry and relying solely on Yhwh for victory, 1 significantly different interpretations of this story exist. For example, Baruch Halpern has gone so far as to suggest that ‘David may as well have pulled out a sten gun, [and] that Goliath never stood a chance.’ 2 Halpern suggests that the best commentary on the David and Goliath battle was offered by Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, which depicts a modern man in a duel with a knight, shooting the knight out of his saddle with a revolver. 3 Another suggested analogy along this line, is the scene in Steven Spielberg’s The Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones, faced with a ferocious-looking, sword-swinging baddie, shoots him with a pistol. 4 Even if one is not so quick to suggest that David’s slaying of Goliath with a sling is equivalent to bringing a gun to a knife fight, this interpretation is often implicit in many commentators. When one turns to the commentaries, often the only comment David’s sling elicits, if it is mentioned at all, is its deadly character. This suggests by implication that David’s sling may have given him an advantage. 5
The question at hand is then: how is David’s victory characterized? Is it the product of David’s savvy cunning? Or is it the product of his faith in Yhwh? In this short study, we will examine the literary and historical context of David’s use of a sling in his victory over Goliath to see if we can come to a better understanding of exactly what kind of victory is depicted in the biblical text. 6
Literary Considerations
Larger Literary Context (Deuteronomistic History)
We will start with the larger literary context. If one is reading the biblical narrative in canonical order, following the story as it unfolds, upon reaching the story of David and Goliath, the idea of a sling (עלק) as a military weapon is already familiar to the reader. It has been referenced in the book of Judges. Scholars often note that the only previous biblical reference to a sling (עלק) is in reference to an elite military group of the Benjaminite tribe.
7
This suggests that the biblical understanding of a sling was as a military weapon, not a tool of a shepherd. The text in Judges reads as follows:
From all this people there were seven hundred chosen men who were bound of the right hand,
8
all these were able to sling (עלק) a stone at a hair and they would not miss. (Judg. 20:16)
Commentators often point to this passage as evidence of the sling’s effectiveness. 9 However, even this reference in Judges, which clearly displays an elite military unit effectively using the sling as a weapon, does not necessarily communicate that the sling is such a deadly weapon. The note about this elite group of Benjaminite warriors in Judg. 20:16 communicates two things about them: they are ‘bound of the right hand,’ and they are very accurate slingers. Despite the standard translation of ‘left-handed,’ the Hebrew phrase says ‘bound of the right hand.’ In light of the fact that this note about these Benjaminite warriors is meant to communicate their elite status it seems very unlikely that this happens to be a group of ‘left-handed’ warriors, and much more likely that this is a group of warriors who have, like the ancient Spartans, trained themselves by binding their right hands to be able to fight left-handed. 10
Like the description of these Benjaminite warriors as ‘bound of the right hand,’ the reference to their abilities as slingers likely reflects training. In antiquity, the sling was a weapon often given to poor and unskilled warriors (as we will see below). These Benjaminite warriors, however, were not your average slingers. They were highly trained. However, a reference to their training and accuracy with a sling does not necessarily communicate how deadly these slings were. Thus, this reference to slingers in Judg. 20:16 informs the reader that slings were used in warfare without really giving very much information about just how deadly they were or how they were used.
Immediate Narrative Context (1 Samuel 17)
We move now to the immediate narrative context. The story of David and Goliath begins with the movements of the two armies, setting the scene and depicting the geopolitical importance of the upcoming conflict (17:1-3). 11 With the scene set, the story turns to a description of the main antagonist, the giant from Gath named Goliath. The narrative spends an unprecedented four verses describing the giant and his armor, making him perhaps one of the most described characters in the Bible. Phil Long has suggested that one of the major characteristics of the narratives in the books of Samuel is their succinct manner of storytelling. 12 Thus, to spend four verses describing him and his armor greatly slows the narrative and catches our attention. It is important for the narrative that the reader have a detailed picture of Goliath. The description of Goliath begins by stating his great height at roughly nine feet nine inches. 13 Having drawn the reader’s eye upward to Goliath’s great height, the narrative proceeds to depict the giant’s armor from head to toe. His armor includes a helmet of bronze, a coat of mail, bronze greaves, and a shield. His weapons include some type of sword or javelin of bronze, 14 and some sort of throwing spear. 15 Even if the description of Goliath’s armor does not fit the classic images of Philistine armor that we know from archaeological records, it does clearly communicate a warrior who is armed to the teeth. 16
The story goes on to detail the reaction of the Israelites to this Philistine champion. After Goliath gives his challenge, the narrator informs the reader that ‘When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid’ (17:11). The second descriptive word which describes the Israelite’s response to Goliath, translated by the NRSV as ‘greatly afraid,’ is the standard word for fear (ארי) plus the intensifying adverb (דאמ). This implies that the Israelites were ‘very afraid.’ The first word, translated by the NRSV as ‘dismayed,’ is a much less common word (תתח) used only one other time in 1 Samuel. HALOT suggests the word may mean ‘be broken to pieces,’ ‘be dismayed’ or ‘be terrified.’ So this word may communicate a slightly stronger force than suggested by the NRSV translation of ‘dismayed.’ Supporting a stronger reading here is the fact that the only other use of this word in 1 Samuel is in the song of Hannah who pronounces, ‘Yhwh! His adversaries will be shattered (תתח)’ (1 Sam. 2:10). It is not without a little narrative irony that what Hannah says will happen to Yhwh’s adversaries is in fact happening to Goliath’s adversaries, Yhwh’s own people! 17 Goliath has the same effect on the people of Israel as Yhwh has on his enemies.
Once David is on the scene the narrator again informs us of the reaction of the Israelites to Goliath. This time it is to the sight of him: ‘And when all Israel saw the man, they fled from before him and were greatly afraid’ (17:24). In verse 11 the people are greatly afraid in response to Goliath’s challenge. In verse 24 the narrator suggests that the people are greatly afraid in response to the sight (האר) of Goliath. This is confirmed by the next verse which depicts the men of the camp saying to each other ‘have you seen (האר) this man who has come up?’ (17:25). The narrative is very clear that Goliath is an intimidating and formidable enemy whose very presence sends the men in the camps of Israel running in fear.
In comparison, the narrative depiction of David is such that it seems to emphasize his unsuitability for combat. However, it must be said that the depiction of David is slightly complex. On the one hand, it does not make sense to depict him as a little boy. He is, after all, old enough for Saul to take him into his service as an armor bearer (16:21; 18:2). He is also enough of a warrior to dispatch lions and bears (17:34-37). Furthermore, unless 17:38-39 is intended as an absolute comic interlude to depict Saul as a moron who attempts to put his armor on a little child, we must assume that David is of a similar size to Saul. 18 This is an aspect of David’s characterization that is not often depicted.
On the other hand, however, there are aspects of the narrative that rhetorically emphasize David’s ‘smallness.’ He is the youngest of eight sons (16:10-12; 17:12-14), of whom only the eldest three joined Saul on this military campaign. Furthermore, in the introduction to David in ch. 17, the narrative emphasizes his status as the ‘youngest’ or ‘smallest’ (ןטקה). Verse 13 notes that ‘the three eldest (or ‘greatest,’ םילדגה) sons of Jesse went out after Saul for war.’ Verse 14 then states, ‘Now David was the youngest (or ‘smallest,’ ןטקה), and the three eldest (or ‘greatest,’ םילדגה) had gone out after Saul.’ The juxtaposition of the description of the three brothers as the eldest or greatest, with David as the youngest or smallest, allows an emphasis on the theme of David as the younger brother, one who is poorly equipped, by conventional standards, to be the hero of Israel. 19
When David then confronts Goliath, the giant’s response in 17:42 is one of scorn. He despises David because he is a youth (רענ), because of his ruddiness (ינמדא), and because of his fair appearance (הארמ הפי). Though David’s good looks seem to be a positive quality when we are first introduced to him in ch. 16, they may in fact be depicting him as boyish (perhaps even feminine?). 20 From Goliath’s perspective, anyway, David does not seem to be an appropriate opponent, let alone a serious threat. Goliath is affronted and complains that this boy, with his ‘sticks,’ is an appropriate opponent for a dog, not a champion like Goliath. Some scholars suggest that Goliath has failed to notice David’s sling, which will give the young warrior the element of surprise. 21 However, the version of the story in the Septuagint depicts Goliath mentioning both the ‘stick and stones’ (ῥάβδῳ καὶ λίθοις). In the Septuagint version at least, Goliath is not bothered by David’s sling and it seems likely that the well-armored Goliath in the MT version would likewise not be overly worried.
Though the iconic element of the narrative is David’s victory over Goliath with the sling, the narrative itself places more stress on the verbal exchange between David and Goliath. David’s confrontation with Goliath is told in 17:41-51, of these eleven verses, only vv. 49 and 51 detail the battle. Verse 50 is a narrative aside. Verses 41 and 48 narrate the movement of the two combatants and vv. 42-47 detail the verbal exchange between the two. The stress of the narrative is therefore on the dialogue. Furthermore, the dialogue is artfully framed by the movement of the two combatants and draws emphasis to the verbal exchange:
A) And David approached the Philistine (v. 40b) B) And the Philistine came (ךלה) and drew near (ךלה) to David (v. 41) X) David and Goliath: A Battle of Words (vv. 42-47) B’) And the Philistine came (ךלה) and drew near (ךלה) to greet David (v. 48a) A’) And David hurried and ran … to greet the Philistine (v. 48b)
The content of David’s speech is the theological high point of the narrative. In this speech David gives the reason he is confident in his upcoming victory. He is confident because Yhwh will give him victory. He says to the giant, ‘I come to you in the name of Yhwh of hosts’ (17:45), and ‘this day Yhwh will enclose you in my hand’ (17:46), and ‘the battle is Yhwh’s and he will give you into my hand’ (17:47).
In sum, the literary presentation of the story is one that emphasizes Goliath’s great military advantage over David. David tells Goliath that Yhwh will deliver the Philistine into his hand (17:46) and the reader is led to believe that David is in serious need of Yhwh’s help in this confrontation.
However, before turning to historical factors for interpretation, we should probably note that it is not advisable to suggest the false dichotomy that David’s victory is either through his own cunning or through his dependence upon Yhwh. The narrative does not seem to suggest such a dichotomy. Yhwh, after all, works through people. For example, when Saul tells David that he is not able to fight the Philistine giant (17:33), David responds by boasting of his victories over lion and bear (17:34-37). In his ‘boast’ to Saul, David emphasizes his own actions and abilities with a string of first person verbs: ‘I would go after it.… I would strike it… . I would deliver it … I would seize it … I would strike … I would kill it’ (17:35). In verse 36 David begins to turn the boast away from himself and toward Yhwh by saying Goliath will be like one of these because he defied the armies of the living God. Then, in verse 37 he gives all the credit to Yhwh by stating that it was Yhwh who delivered him from the lion and bear in the first place. It seems plausible to suggest then, that David’s victory over Goliath is being depicted as a great military triumph by a daring young warrior who is nevertheless dependent upon Yhwh.
Historical Considerations
The suggestion that David has a military advantage over Goliath is based on the historical recognition that slingers were a regular and effective part of an ancient military arsenal. That slingers were a common and effective part of ancient warfare is not in doubt. They feature prominently in the reliefs from the royal palaces at Ninevah and Nimrud. 22 Thucydides recounts the effectiveness of Athenian light-infantry, including slingers, against the more heavily armed Lacedaemonians (Thuc. 4:32-34). Furthermore, Livy discusses special slingers brought in from Aegium, Patrae, and Dymae who, like the Benjaminites from Judges, were extremely skilled slingers able to hit not only an enemy’s head but any part of the face that they aimed at (Livy 38.29). Thus, for David to take down the giant Goliath with a sling is historically possible, but it will take the skill of the legendary Benjaminites and specialist slingers mentioned by Livy.
In short, the use and effectiveness of slingers in ancient warfare is well established. 23 This means that to interpret David’s sling as a useless child’s toy is inaccurate. However, to conclude that David’s use of a sling is the ancient equivalent of bringing a gun to a knife fight is significantly overstating the case. The picture of the ancient slinger is more complicated than that.
In his extensive study of ancient Greek warfare, W. Kendrick Pritchett lists five military scenarios in which slingers were most effective: 1) in siege operations, 2) in mountainous and difficult terrain, 3) against elephants, 4) against cavalry, and 5) in naval operations. 24 In all of these situations the effectiveness of slingers depends on large groups of slingers being able to barrage the enemy from a distance, not in a single combat situation. So it is by no means certain, and is in fact unlikely, that the historical effectiveness of an ancient slinger suggests that David had an advantage over Goliath.
It should further be noted that even in instances where the effectiveness of a slinger is being stressed it is not always clear against what kind of armor and in what situation its effectiveness is being judged. For example, when the Roman military writer Vegetius stresses the effectiveness of slingers he seems to be envisioning effectiveness against leather armor (loricis) 25 and may even be offering his own embellishment to try and sell the effectiveness of the slinger. 26 In practice, however, he sees their usefulness in rocky or mountainous terrain (Veg 1.16). So although there is ample evidence of the effectiveness of the ancient slinger, we should be cautious in assuming that a sling would be similarly effective against the heavily armored Goliath.
Moshe Garsiel further examines the possibility of the use of a sling in a one-on-one combat and suggests that is unlikely to be effective. He notes that in such a one-on-one combat the target of the sling has but to move, or raise his shield once the slinger begins to spin his sling above his head. 27 Goliath had such a large shield being carried by his shield bearer (17:7), but he apparently saw no need to use it. He further notes that Goliath himself had a mid-range throwing spear. 28 In short, Goliath is well protected against a ballistic attack from a sling and has his own projectile weapon should he desire to mount an attack from a distance.
Perhaps the most significant references to the effectiveness of a slinger come from Xenophon. He notes Cyrus’ practice of punishing poorly performing soldiers by relegating them to the group of slingers (Xen. Cyrop.7.4.14). For his opinion of the sling was that it was the weapon most suitable for slaves (Xen. Cyrop. 7.4.15).
29
In short, a sling is a dishonorable and less than valuable weapon, which should be relegated to the lowest ranked soldiers in the army. The reason he gives for Cyrus’ low opinion of slingers is that:
in conjunction with other forces there are occasions when the presence of slingers is of very effective assistance, but by themselves alone not all the slingers in the world could stand against a very few men who came into a hand-to-hand encounter with them with weapons suited for close combat (Xen. Cyrop. 7.4.15, LCL).
This brief survey shows that the historical record of the effectiveness of the sling is complex. On the one hand, effective and accurate slingers were known in the ancient world. On the other hand, they seem to have been regularly used in certain situations involving groups and in certain terrain, and were sometimes relegated to the lower classes in the army. This brief historical survey suggests two things. First, the sling was in fact a regular part of ancient warfare and so to depict David as approaching the Philistine giant with a child’s toy is certainly inaccurate. Second, however, the sling was used in certain circumstances, always where it could be used in groups and would very likely not have been an advantage in a one-on-one combat situation. It seems safe to say that the historical record is a long way from suggesting that David’s use of a sling is the equivalent of bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Conclusion
What kind of victory is depicted in the biblical story of David and Goliath? In this short essay we have shown that both the literary presentation and the historical record suggest that David did not have any sort of tactical advantage over Goliath. The literary presentation portrayed Goliath as a mighty warrior, armed from head to toe (17:4-7). In response to his challenge all Israel is afraid (17:11, 24). David, in turn, is depicted as ‘the small one’ (ןטקה), who is no serious threat to the Philistine giant. The historical evidence suggests that though a sling was a regular and effective part of ancient warfare, it was effective in contexts where many slingers could barrage a group with stones, not in an individual confrontation such as depicted in 1 Samuel 17. We noted that it is probably a false dichotomy to suggest that David’s victory is depicted as either a product of David’s military prowess or his dependence upon Yhwh, it may be both. However, while David’s ability and his dependence upon Yhwh may both have had a part to play, the narrative seems to emphasize his dependence upon Yhwh. David may have shrewdly chosen a weapon that gave him an outside chance of victory over the giant, but the narrative and the historical setting make clear David is not depending on military might for this victory.
It seems we are best off seeing David’s victory over Goliath as something that was possible (cf. the skill of the Benjaminite slingers in Judg. 20:16), but not very likely. To interpret David’s victory over Goliath as due primarily to David’s reliance on Yhwh seems a very good reading of the evidence. If we are to seek a modern analogy we should not look to Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court or Spielberg’s The Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perhaps a better modern analogy to David’s victory over Goliath is Luke Skywalker’s victory over the Death Star in George Lucas’s Star Wars. While it may be physically possible for a proton torpedo to penetrate a small thermal exhaust port on the Death Star, it is highly unlikely and the viewer knows the real secret to Luke’s success. Similarly, while it may be physically possible for David to take down the well-armored Goliath with a sling, it is highly unlikely and the reader knows the real secret to David’s success. In short, just as the Force was with Luke, Yhwh was with David.
Early Baptismal Imagery
Robin M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions (Grant Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. pp. xviii + 238. $24.99. ISBN: 978-0-8010-4832-6).
Jensen’s new book is a treasure-trove of reflective discussion and suggestive juxtaposition of imagery anciently associated with baptism. It is not intended to provide a history of the rite to rival the grand narratives published in recent years by scholars such as Everett Ferguson, Max Johnson or Thomas Finn. Rather, Jensen seeks to offer a ‘visual and textual resource for students of early Christian liturgy and to show the symbolic and sensual dimensions of ancient rituals.’ To that end she divides this eloquent little book by theme, focusing it around five central but partially overlapping motifs: cleansing from sin and sickness (Chapter 1); incorporation into the community (Chapter 2); sanctification and illumination (Chapter 3); dying and rising (Chapter 4); new creation (Chapter 5). Drawing on a wide range of ancient sources, biblical and post-biblical, she does not underscore chronological or regional variations, but seeks to draw out the complexity of the sacrament by exploring its imprint on text, art and ritual. The volume is richly illustrated in black-and-white. Notwithstanding a lengthy bibliography, the narrative of the book is reticent on scholarly debates, giving priority to the primary sources, whose conversations and resonances with one another thus emerge in a particularly engaging manner. The focus on sensual, liturgical and theological dimensions of baptismal imagery draws the reader into the mind and heart of early sacramentalism, helping to open up a view from within. Differences between the sources are not flattened, but their overarching coherence emerges in the creative and prayerful places of imagery. As in her other works, so here too Jensen offers a rich fund of intriguing details and connections between art and text, theology and practice. She is a master of pace, combining breadth with detail, vivid vignette with insightful analysis. As enjoyable as it is informative, this is a book that is likely to be treasured by a wide audience, specialist and non-specialist alike.
Footnotes
1
E.g., Tony W. Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth& Helwys, 2001), 219; Stephen J. Andrews and Robert D. Bergen, 1 & IISamuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary; Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 121-22.
2
Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2001), 13.
3
See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 11-12.
4
This analogy is suggested by Uriah Y. Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story: A Postcolonial Reading (Hebrew Bible Monographs 22; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 80.
5
E.g., Ralph P. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 179; Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 157; Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999), 108; Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 77; David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 460; Paul Borgman, David, Saul, & God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 44-45. Though these scholars would likely not promote a reading of the story that sees David as having a military advantage their comments suggest it as a plausible interpretation.
6
Though the story existed in antiquity in two versions, a short version found in the Vaticanus manuscript of the LXX, and a longer version found in the MT and likely in 4QSama (see Benjamin J.M. Johnson, ‘Reconsidering 4QSama and the Textual Support for the Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story,’ VT 62/4 [2012]: 534-49), we will limit our examination to the MT version of the story. This is the version of the story printed in English Bibles since the MT was accepted as the Old Testament canon of Protestant and Catholic Churches. The best study of the literary and textual issues surrounding these two versions remains Dominique Barthélemy, et. al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (OBO 73; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1986).
7
E.g., Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoneix Press, 2009), 185.
8
‘Bound of the right hand’ is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase ונימי-די רטא Translations often gloss this phrase as ‘left handed.’ E.g., NRSV, NIV, NET, NASB.
9
E.g., Klein, 1 Samuel, 179; Borgman, David, Saul, & God, 45.
10
Baruch Halpern, ‘The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery,’ BR 4/6 (1988): 32-41, 44; Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 57; and Joel S. Kaminsky ‘Reflections on Associative Word Links in Judges,’ JSOT 36/4 (2012): 419.
11
See John A. Beck, ‘David and Goliath, a Story of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1 Samuel 17,’ WTJ 68/2 (2006): 321-30.
12
V. Philips Long, ‘Scenic, Succinct, Subtle: An Introduction to the Literary Artistry of 1 & 2 Samuel,’ Presbyterion 19/1 (1993): 32.
13
This number is calculated based on an 18 inch cubit. See R.B.Y. Scott, ‘The Hebrew Cubit,’ JBL 77/3 (1958): 205-14. The LXX, however, lists Goliath as four cubits and a span, making him around six feet six inches; still an imposing figure but not of near-mythic proportions as in the MT. On this variant see Johnson, ‘Reconsidering 4QSama,’ 539-41.
14
On the meaning of ןודיכ as some type of sword see G. Molin, ‘What Is a Kidon?’ JSS 1 (1956): 334-37; Klein, 1 Samuel, 175-76; and P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980), 292.
15
See Yigael Yadin, ‘Goliath’s Javelin and the םיגרא רונמ,’ PEQ 86 (1955): 58-69; Kurt Galling, ‘Goliath und seine Rüstung,’ in Volume du Congrès: Genève 1965 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 158-61; and McCarter, Samuel, 292-93.
16
On the suggestion that Goliath’s armor is not an accurate historical representation of a tenth century Philistine armor, see Azzan Yadin, ‘Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,’ VT 54/3 (2004): 373-95. On a defense of the historical plausibility of Golitah’s armor see Alan Millard, ‘The Armor of Goliath,’ in Exploring the Longe Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (ed. J. David Schloen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 337-43; Moshe Garsiel, ‘The Valley of Elah Battle and the Duel of David with Goliath: Between History and Artistic Theological Historiography,’ in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VTSupp; ed. Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 404-10; and Philip J. King, ‘David Defeats Goliath,’ in ‘Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (ed. Sidnie White Crawford; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 350.
17
This parallel is slightly stronger in the MT than in 4QSama, which has a singular verb with Yhwh as subject: ‘Yhwh will shatter his enemies (ובירמ תחי הוהי).’ See Frank Moore Cross, et. al., Qumran Cave 4: XII: 1-2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 34.
18
David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (AOTC 8; Nottingham: Apollos, 2005), 199.
19
Cf. Rachelle Gilmour, Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel (VTSupp; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 252.
20
See Frederick E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 88. Cf. Stuart Macwilliam, ‘Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible,’ BibInt 17/3 (2009): 276-79.
21
E.g., Gordon, Samuel, 157.
22
See J.E. Curtis and J.E. Reade (eds.), Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum (London: The Trustees of the British Museum by the British Museum Press, 1995), figs. 016 173.
23
See Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 9, 64, 296; Ovid R. Sellers, ‘Sling Stones of Biblical Times,’ BA 2/4 (1939): 41-44; John W. Wevers, ‘Sling,’ in International Dictionary of the Bible (ed. George Arthur Buttrick et. al.; New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4:391-92; Manfred Korfmann, Schleuder und Bogen in Südwestasien: von den frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten (Antiquitas 13; Bonn, Germany: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1972), esp. 17-20; and idem. ‘The Sling as Weapon,’ Scientific American 229/4 (1973): 34-42.
24
See W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Greek State at War (Vol. 5; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974), 1-65, esp. 56-61.
25
Cf. Korfmann, ‘Sling as Weapon,’ 40. Though helmets (cassidibus) are also mentioned.
26
N.P. Milner, Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science: Translated with Notes and Introduction (second revised ed.; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001), 16, notes that since this idea of the effectiveness of the sling ‘is militarily unsound V[egetius] pads out and embellishes from his own medico-Christian perspective.’
27
Garsiel, ‘The Valley of Elah Battle,’ 402.
28
Ibid., 403.
29
Cf. Pritchett, Greek State at War, 53-54.