crag, and attacked the Philistines from behind it with arrows and slings. The Benjaminites were known to use these types of weapons with accuracy. Following the initial attack, Jonathan and his arms-bearer entered the Philistine camp and killed those who were already injured. Josephus explains that the mayhem resulted from miscommunications between the soldiers who came from different nations. This explanation sounds logical. This mayhem in the Philistine camp was noticed by Saul’s scouts. After realizing that Jonathan and his armsbearer were missing, Saul connected it to the chaos in the Philistine camp and attacked. The victory was total; even the men of Israel who were hiding in the hill country of Ephraim pursued them in a battle. According to the LXX, the battle against the Philistines also took place in some cities of Ephraim. Saul not only defeated the Philistines in Michmas, but chased them to Aijalon, the modern Yalu, some twenty miles to the west of Michmas to the edge of the hill country. The battle of Michmas was decisive; it removed the Philistine presence from the territory of Benjamin. The hill country was now dominated by Israel. It was one in a long series of battles against the Philistines that came to end their oppression, and free the rest of the land of Israel. The military strategy, the site identifications, and the topographical descriptions all show that the story reflects historical events, even though in some cases due to the theological view, the story was exaggerated.11
From a literary standpoint this is similar to the story of Gideon’s war against the Midianites, which represents the period of the Judges.12 The language that describes the calling of people to war, the strength of the enemy, the fear that fell upon the people, and the description of them hiding in caves, dugouts, and pits—all these elements appear in both stories. In both, Gideon and Saul lead a small contingent to battle the enemy. Gideon led three hundred; Saul led six hundred. Both stories describe spying on the enemy camp. On the one hand, Gideon and his lad went at night to the Midianite’s camp; on the other hand, it was Jonathan and his weapons-bearer who went to the Philistine camp. In both stories, the enemy soldiers gave the sign for victory. In both, it was the few who caused chaos and confusion in the enemy camp that led the enemy soldiers to kill each other (Judg 7:22; 1 Sam 14:20). In both tales, the people of Ephraim joined the chase after the enemy. Both have the same message; God has the power to deliver the victory of the few over the many; everything is in God’s hands and comes from God. Jonathan’s portrayal is akin to Gideon. Like Gideon he asked God for a sign, and fought with few against the many. Saul, on the other hand, failed because he did not query God. He did not trust the small number of his soldiers, and when their numbers dwindled, he committed a sin.
The Battle at the Valley of Elah
For forty days, a representative from the Philistine camp named Goliath, came out to challenge the Israelites to choose a man to fight him. This single battle would determine the outcome of the war, and the losers would become the slaves of the victors. There are many examples from the ancient Near East and classical sources that describe a battle between two representatives. The Iliad records the battles between Paris and Menelaus, as well as the famous encounter between Hector and Achilles. From the ancient Near East, we read about Marduk who killed Tiamat. De Vaux interpreted the battle of twelve servants of Ishbosheth and twelve servants of David as an extension of the single warrior battle (2 Sam 2:12–17).13
David’s appearance on the field of battle is portrayed as opportunistic and ambitious. He shows interest in the threefold reward that king Saul has promised to the one who will kill the Philistine: the king will enrich the man, he will give him his daughter, and his father’s house will be exempt from taxes.14 Giving such rewards for victory in war was a known custom in the ancient world. Caleb announced that he would give his daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who would capture Kiriath-sepher (Judg 1:12).15 The reward was announced several times. David probably heard about the reward, entered into a conversation with the men, and declared his intention to accept Goliath’s challenge.
David’s words of defiance about the uncircumcised Philistine were brought to Saul’s attention. As a result, he was summoned before the king. Saul appears hesitant and frightened in his conversation with David. It is David who encourages the king of Israel: “Let no man’s courage fail him.” Instead of “no man’s,” the LXX reads “not my lord’s.” Van der Kooij explains it as a secondary “exegetical rendering.”16 David encourages the king to overcome his fear. Not wanting to insult the king, he used the phrase “no man.” Moreover, he speaks to the king with respect and refers to himself as “your slave.”
David is the protagonist and initiates the conversation. Ironically, he, and not the king, speaks first, as might be expected. Although both Saul and David are anointed, David speaks first. Brueggemann believes that: “through this technique the narrator demonstrates David’s primacy over Saul.”17 David speaks to the point, and offers to fight Goliath. However, Saul’s hesitation and fear surface again when he refuses to grant David his wish. Saul cites David’s youth and inexperience for his initial refusal. David, on the other hand, shows persistence and power of persuasion. He points to his experience as a shepherd, protecting the flock from a lion or a bear. More than anything, David points out that it was God who saved him from the lion and the bear, and he will deliver him from the Philistines. It is David who mentions Yahweh for the first time. Neither the people nor Saul mentioned him. No doubt the narrator wanted to stress this since David’s perception of the battle is a theological one.18 David’s confidence and belief in God is similar to Jonathan’s in the previous battle against the Philistines at Michmas. Saul, on the other hand, is portrayed as frightened, and he ordered the priest to stop inquiring of God (1 Sam 14:19). In times of pressure, Saul does not properly consult God, and in this episode he did not even try to. He utters the name of God “and may the Lord be with you” (1 Sam 17:37); but this is a form of blessing. Evidently, the narrator wanted to exacerbate the differences between Saul and David.
David’s belief in God is emphasized as he approaches Goliath. The conversation between David and Goliath is remotely reminiscent of the speeches of the Homeric heroes before battle.19 David repeats his belief that the same God who was the subject of Goliath’s defiance will deliver him into his hands. The victory will be achieved through God, not by military means. God will battle Goliath through a human agent: a shepherd boy with a sling and a few stones. The significance is that David is God’s instrument. David came to rescue Israel and to defeat the Philistines, but by doing so, he announces: “All the earth shall know that there is a God in Israel” (1 Sam 17:46).
The MT describes Goliath the Philistine champion as being 9’9” tall. The LXX, Josephus (Ant. 6.171), and 4QSama read 6’9”. It appears that decreasing his height was deliberate since it felt his size was exaggerated. He wore a helmet and he was dressed in plated cuirass, which was believed to weigh about 126 pounds. He had bronze greaves on his legs, and a bronze scimitar between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear is compared to a weaver’s beam. Yadin renders this a javelin and says that a weaver’s beam refers to the shape and nature of Goliath’s javelin not to its size.20 The iron spear weighed 15 or 16 pounds. A shield-bearer preceded him. This is similar to the weapon used by Homeric heroes in the Iliad and in the Odyssey.21 It is possible that mentioning the bronze is archaic, since by that time the Philistines’ weapons were iron. Indeed this description does not match the portrayal of Philistine warriors in the Egyptians reliefs. This description shows how well he was prepared and armed. Needless to say, it was a frightening vision. This description of Goliath shows how imposing he was, and how God acted through David.22 Evidently the function of this description was literary rather than historical.
Saul dressed David in a garment with a bronze helmet and he bore Saul’s sword. This equipment, even though it was light, was too much for David. He tried to walk once or twice but told Saul he could not walk. David never tried previously to use this kind of gear; thus, it was unwise to give it to him before such an important battle. Also, the gear was insufficient for attacking Goliath, who was dressed in armor from head to toe. So they removed them, and David took his stick and five smooth stones, which he put in his pouch, and went out with the sling in his hand. According to this text, the sling was a shepherd’s weapon, but armies in the ancient world used it also. Assyrian slingers, wearing copper helmets and
