Popular depictions don't always line up with the Biblical text...
Yesterday we looked at one detail of the David and Goliath story that popular depictions often mess up. Goliath was "4 cubits and a span" in height (~6'6"-6'9") rather than "6 cubits and a span" (9'+).
Today I want to look at another detail that makes quite a bit of difference, as far as telling the story--though it doesn't change the overall thrust of the narrative.
Where did the stone that David launched strike Goliath? It seems straightforward enough, right? The text says:
“Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead (??? "metsach"). The stone sank into his forehead (??? "metsach"), and he fell facedown on the ground.” 1 Samuel 17:49"
So it hit him on the forehead and sank into it...except that from the previous description of Goliath at the beginning of the chapter we read that he was wearing a helmet, which would've covered his forehead! But what if Goliath's "forehead" (??? "metsach") was somewhere else on his body? What if his "forehead" was actually on his leg??
I can hear it now: "What?! His leg?? That's just crazy!"
It's not as crazy as you may think though...especially given the fact that in the description at the beginning of the chapter we read this little often-neglected phrase:
“…on his legs he wore bronze greaves (plural form of ???), and a bronze javelin was slung on his back.”
1 Samuel 17:6
Yep, the only time the word "greaves" appears in the entire Bible is in this verse...and it is the plural construct form of the word "forehead" that appears in v.49! In the Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1-2 Samuel, Evangelical OT scholar Ronald Youngblood has a footnote on this passage in which he writes:
"Medieval Jewish commentators wondered (1) how David's stone could have sunk into Goliath's "forehead," which was presumably covered by his helmet, and (2) why, if struck on the forehead, Goliath would have fallen "facedown" instead of on his back. Deem ("`And the Stone Sank Into His Forehead,'" pp. 349-51) suggests that metsach, the ordinary Hebrew word for "forehead," should here be translated "greave" (cf. mitschat nehosheth "greaves made of bronze"] in v.6).
David's sling stone would thus have struck Goliath on or near his knee, just above one of his two greaves, causing him to fall facedown and enabling David to rush forward and behead him with his own sword. Deem points out that such a reading has an interesting parallel in [Jewish pseudapigraphic book] Testament of Judah 3:1: "I ran out alone against one of the kings, struck him on his leg armor, knocked him down, and killed him" (translation of H.C. Kee in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments ed. James H. Charlesworth [Garden City: Doubleday, 1983], 1:796).
But Deem admits (1) the occasional possibility of the exposure of the forehead in helmets similar to that worn by Goliath, (2) the weight of Goliath's frontal armor and the momentum of his forward movement would surely have been enough to cause him to fall facedown rather than backward, and (3) a sling stone sinking "into his greave" seems much less threatening than one sinking "into his forehead."
[Youngblood, Ronald. Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 and 2 Samuel/Notes to First Samuel/First Samuel 17 Notes/First Samuel Note 17:49, Book Version: 4.0.2]
Though admitting the lexical probability that the "forehead" the stone hit was the "forehead" on Goliath's leg (aka. his "greave"), Youngblood still prefers the traditional understanding of the story due to the stone hitting Goliath's leg seeming "much less threatening." But is it? I don't think so.
We know from archeological findings that slingstones were not pebbles (as commonly depicted in retellings of this story). Rather, they were used to bombard city walls during seiges! David himself tells Saul in the story that he fought off lions and bears with the sling. Try throwing a pebble at a lion or bear next time you encounter one in the wild trying to prey on another animal...let me know how that works out for you!
No, slingstones were baseball-to-softball sized projectiles that could be slung at around 100 mph! One of these hitting Goliath in the actual head wouldn't "sink into" it...it would bust it wide open, sending the giant falling backwards rather than facedown as the text implies. However, were a stone the size of a baseball traveling at such speed to hit a bronze piece of armor on Goliath's massive leg, it would dent it in, possibly breaking the bone beneath, and knock him face-forward to the ground where the shepherd boy would then finish the job...
...which is precisely what we'll look at next time!
Comments
Okay, for some reason, my Hebrew font is showing up when I preview this post, but when it goes live the "chet" "tsade" and "mem" get replaced with "???"
That's very annoying. :(
Hey JM, my ultimate fantasy for you is to somehow get you to go study in Jerusalem and continue these fine studies. Very good work...excellent pull of sources. You actually remind me there of my Jerusalem school days... Brian Kvas kind of stuff. ')
Good stuff.
Is anybody else getting a little torqued that these mistakes continue to be repeated?
I've read the excuse about economics and profits, and that just gets me more torqued.
(Just where am I supposed to find the time to learn hebrew, aramaic, greek and latin?)
Thank you, JM, for exposing these blatant translation fouls to the light. Keep 'em coming.
(rant continued)...
four languages plus now I have to keep up on cosmology, metaphysics, and philosopy, too...sheesh!
Haha...BrotherB, it's not as bad as it appears. As I noted in my "Train up a child?" article, most information can be found in numerous commentaries in print. The problem is that we live in an individualistic "Just-me-and-Jesus" culture of American Christianity that views anything outer than what's between the gilded leather-bound pages of their particular Bible translation as suspect at best...and demonic at worst!
The only Christians who seem to offer critiques of translations and tradition, however, are mostly mainline liberals who go far beyond a responsible reading in order to denigrate or explain away the supernatural. This causes many Evangelicals to take a reactionary stance against such "cemetarians" and their "worldly wisdom."
But Evangelicals like Doug Stuart, Ben Witherington, Gordon Fee and Peter Enns have been doing much to change this--especially Fee and Stuart through their book "How to read the Bible for all its worth."
Very interesting! I like the textually sound way of looking at the story and seeing other possibilities.
Although, I still think I like the "forehead" on his head rather that the "forehead" armor on his legs. I would think that even if Goliath had his leg broken, he would not have been incapacitaed to the point of letting David take his sword and behead him.
Perhaps the stone "sunk in" to the armor of his helmet.
Anyway, thanks for very thought provoking articles on David and Goliath. I'll likely use it/them as an attention getter or an example of careful Bible (word) study in a class sometime.
If the stone would bust his head wide open, then surely it would dent or went into the helmet. With his armor his mobility would have been serverely limited in dodging stones even those slung at the head. His forward momentum would have continued. As the writer stated picture Lebron James armored up going after Danny Devitto. I am sure Goliath felt invincible in his charge of a small man (not a boy) hurling stones at him with a primitive sling. At this time David had profession was no longer a shepherd, he was the ARMOR BEARER of WHO? Answer: KING SAUL. Now armor bearer were present with king at all times, as he trained to fight, practice, traveled etc. This provided King david with a clearer more indepth understanding of combat and advantage he exploited as Goliath lay dazed. If Goliath's leg was broken he could have held David at bay just about any part of his his body considering his size regardless of the matter that David had his sword and a struggle makes a greater story. Cornish
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!