DAVID KILLED GOLIATH,
ELHANAN KILLED A GOLIATH
(This is a copy of a rejoinder to an article published in The Vanguard
November 10, 2013 and November 17, 2013 However, the rejoinder was not
published; that, even with two reminders. No reason was given for the refusal and nor was communicated with. I have decided to
publish it here.)
 |
| Image; theponderingcyclist.com |
Before
now, I used to be baffled and sometimes irritated when people put in so much
energy to prove the ‘fallibility’ of the Bible by digging up so-called ‘contradictions’.
These days I only get amused – since I noticed it is only the seemingly
miraculous and heroic acts that get ‘contradicted’. No one has ever tried to
dig up contradictions in the story of David’s adultery, treachery, betrayal and
murder; no one has seen any ‘contradiction’ in Peter’s denial of his lord. That
is why I get amused when miraculous acts of God through these same characters get contradicted often.
For
this very reason the Bible should never be seen as a fabrication – the writers
of the story of David’s adultery were very close to David and family, yet they
put down both the good, the bad and the ugly ‘stuff’ about their hero. That can
only by divine inspiration.
I
stumbled on Femi’s Aribisa’s article published by The Vanguard titled: David
Did Not Kill Goliath (Part 1 published on November 10, 2013 and part 2
published on November 17, 2013) and
frankly speaking, it made an interesting reading – reminding me of the
Secondary School debate techniques of pulling down as much of your opponents’
points as possible, especially when you know you do not have enough points to
back your argument or when you realised you were not so conversant with the
topic you were told to handle.
Before
I throw light on those ‘contradictions’ and help the readers understand that
the so-called contradictions exist only on the minds of the biased, I would
like to suggest reasons many people see contradictions in the Bible where none
exist.
Like
Femi, many people try to force the Bible to say what it did not say – I will
point out where Femi’s article was guilty of this. Sometimes, this is as a
result of taking just the preacher’s account without checking the Bible; and allowing
the preacher’s account to ‘colour’ the mind while reading the Biblical account.
Another
reason people have the contradiction-problem might be their not-so-good
understanding of classical Hebrew writing style. In classical Hebrew, writers
(even oral narrators) sometimes bring in a summary or conclusion of the story
before the beginning or in the middle of the story. The immediate audience did
not have problem understanding the authors. Centuries later and continents
apart, readers in different cultures and styles will certainly encounter a
little problem understanding the classical Hebrew writers. A good example of
this is the story of creation: at a point in Genesis chapter one, the writer
presents the creation of man and woman as happening on the same day. But the
next chapter explains that the woman was created a long while after the man was
created. Chapter one’s narration was a conclusion or summary brought in
out-of-sequence in the middle of the story. I will also point out where Femi’s
article showed a lack of this vital knowledge.
I am going
to respond to only those contradictions Femi referred to as (quoting him)‘major
ones in the bible that effectively lead to the conclusion that the whole story
of David killing Goliath is fabricated’. There were other
‘contradictions’ Femi said were minor. I will not respond to those, I leave
them for the readers’ judgement.
I
never looked up Femi Aribisala, so I
do not know his religious or philosophical inclinations. I did not even read
other people’s on-line comments. I avoided all that so that I could be as
objective as possible without the temptation of attacking personalities. Femi
had used words like ‘bible-fanatics’ and ‘gullibility’ in referring to people
who choose to believe the Biblical story of David and Goliath, I will try to
avoid such blind generalisation.
The Choice of David
Femi's Assumption: Femi
said ‘It therefore beggars belief that
Saul would then agree to put the fate of the whole nation of Israel on the
shoulders of inexperienced young David’.
Fact: Goliath
had been daily-challenging (psychologically harassing) the Israeli Army for
forty days. The Bible says Saul and the Israeli Army were ‘dismayed and
terrified’ (1 Samuel 17: 11 NIV; I realized Femi had some good words for the
New International Version of the Bible).
Remember:
King Saul at this time was an emotional and mental wreck; for forty days no one
– whether young or old, experienced or inexperienced could come out to face
Goliath; everyone including ‘experienced officers’, for forty days, would run
inside their tents anytime Goliath came out; morale in the camp was at its
lowest ebb. At the time David came to the camp, no ‘experienced adult soldier’
was willing to step up to take Goliath’s challenge. David’s appearance was more
than welcome.
Femi
also rushed into two quick conclusions; that David’s tale of killing a lion
with bare hands would not cut and that there was no proof. Whether Saul
believed David or not was not evident; what was evident was that Saul was
willing (by divine influence) to allow David confront Israel’s embarrassing
enemy.
My
aim here is not to highlight the role of God’s discretion and power in using
David to deliver Israel – which is what the story is all about, ultimately –
but to point out that it is only a biased mind that searches out non-existent
contradictions ‘not just to demonstrate the fallibility of the bible’ (Femi’s
words) but to show that David and Goliath
story is a fabrication’.
The
article also wrongly concluded that Saul’s permission to David would provoke a
revolt among the soldiers. I asked myself, ‘was it this same army who had been
terrified for forty that would revolt because someone, howbeit a teenager, had
volunteered’? Remember the old English saying: drowning man grabs at straw? Anyone who questioned Saul’s choice
should be ready to do the job…anyone? The above also explains the reason Saul
allowed David to go without armour. If David would go…it would be on his own
terms.
There
was a side comment (kind of) that the article made about David’s complaints
about Saul’s armour being too heavy for him (David). Femi hoped to use this point
prove the fabrication of the whole story since David was earlier employed as Saul’s
armour bearer.
Now
this is one of the places Femi tried to force the Bible to say what it did not
say. David never complained about Saul’s armour being too heavy for him. He
actually said ‘he was not used to them’ (1Samuel
17: 39 NIV). Even an ‘experienced soldier would find another man’s armour ‘as
not used to them’. Moreover, the job of
an armour bearer did not include wearing them or ‘practicing battle’ with
them.
Did David Kill With a Catapult or a Sword?
 | |
|
I
was so amused that the non-existent contradiction of death by a catapult or by
a sword was the so-called proof that ‘effectively leads to the conclusion that
the whole story of David killing Goliath is fabricated’.
Staying
with the NIV, the Bible NEVER said that the stone killed the giant. The word
‘struck’ or ‘smote’ (as KJV used it) should not be confused with the word
‘kill’ (as the article emphasized) or ‘slay’. At this point Femi was guilty of
both trying to force the bible to say what it did not say and lack of knowledge
of the classical Hebrew prose style.
If
you read 1 Samuel 17: 39-53, you will realize that verse 50 is an
out-of-sequence narration: bringing in the summary/conclusion in the middle of
the story, then continuing with the story. Let’s try reading verse 49, jump
verse 50 and continue with verse 51 and you will understand.
‘reaching
into his bag and taking out a stone, he (David) slung it and STRUCK the
philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his fore head, and he fell
facedown on the ground.
David
ran and stood over him. He took hold of the philistine SWORD and drew it from
the scabbard. After he KILLED him, he cut off his head’.
Truth
is: the stone from the catapult struck the giant’s forehead;
the giant fell to the ground (the New Living Translation said ‘and Goliath stumbled and fell
face down on the ground’ – certainly
unconscious); David ran up to the giant; drew out the giant’s sword and killed
him with it; finally, David cut of the head of the giant.
Do
the contradictions still exist? Judge for yourself.
Pure Fiction?
54 (David took
the Philistine’s head to Jerusalem, but he stored the man’s armour in his own
tent.)(1Samuel 17: 54; New Living Translation)
I
agree with Femi that David could not have taken the giant’s head immediately to
Jerusalem.
But
again, the Hebrew writer brought a summary in the middle of a story. This
clearly shows that the author – who was conversant with the story of David
killing Goliath – must have written the story when David was already King in
Jerusalem. My take (not directly written in the scriptures) on this is that
David only took the head with him to Jerusalem when he became king.
Was David Made a General Over Other Senior Officers?
Quoting
Femi: ‘David was then made a General in the Israeli army and we are
told this promotion of a young upstart over older more-experienced soldiers
pleased everyone including Saul’s officials. (1 Samuel 18:5). This is nothing
short of political propaganda’.
I
wish I knew the definition of political
propaganda; so I will not comment on that. However, the article clearly
misrepresented the referred scripture – another case of forcing the Bible to
say what it did not.
‘5 Whatever mission Saul sent
him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This
pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well (1Samuel 18: 5).
Someone who is open-minded when reading
the Bible will notice that the whole of chapter 18 happened quite some time
after the killing of Goliath. David’s
promotion was never for killing Goliath; it was for David’s success at
‘whatever mission Saul sent him’.
Reading the whole chapter 8, you will
discover that there were other
responsibilities Saul gave to David that earned him his ‘high rank’ (not a General). By this
time David had become experienced and certainly had juniors and had earned the
respect of both the military community and the civil populace. David had been
leading smaller units on raids; his success at this earned him a command of a
unit of a thousand troops. This unit may not have necessarily been made of his
seniors – haba). The Bible never said David was made a General over senior officers.
Abner still remained the Captain of Saul’s Army.
Now, Couldn’t David Have visited Gath (about thirteen after Goliath)?
Femi then presented what he referred to as
the clincher that proved that the whole story of David killing Goliath is a
fabrication. Let me quote his clincher:
Of
all the cities that David could choose for safety, he chose Gath, the very
hometown of Goliath: “So David dwelt with Achish at GATH, he and his men, each
man with his household.” (1 Samuel 27:3). This is conclusive proof that David
did not kill Goliath. If he did, the last place he would seek refuge would be
in Goliath’s hometown.
So
because David, who had been running for his life for about thirteen years, went
to Achish – a Philistine king who was more interested in having David as his
subject than killing him (1Samuel 27:12) – we should conclude the whole story
as a fabrication?
12 Achish
trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people,
the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.”(1Samuel 27:12 NIV).
What
the article did not tell its readers was that at this point David had been
running from Saul, experiencing near-death situations for well-over a decade.
Gath was the only place Saul would not go to look for David. And David knew
that he was more useful to the present king of Gath – King Achish – alive than
dead.
Imagine
this: Odimegwu Ojukwu comes back to Nigeria from exile, 13 years after the
civil war –his return being made possible by a president of Northern origin,
arch-enemies of Ojukwu and his people (13 years before his return). If Ojukwu
decides to be a guest of one of the Northern governors and probably stay there
for a year and four months (which was actually
the duration David stayed as Achish’s guest in Ziklag, not Gath, although used
the word ‘several years’), would that make the story of the civil war a
fabrication?
Most importantly, David was not living in Gath but in Ziklag – which happened to be a virgin land near Gath that David and his people happened to be the first landlords. David had attempted to stay at Gath disguised as a mad man some years before then, but his identity was discovered. This time around, he requested Achish (his personal friend) to give him a land outside the royal city. So, diplomatically, Ziklag was not a Philistinian territory – the Bible says, Ziklag belonged to the Kings of Israel from that time onward. You need the reference? Check out 1 Samuel 27.
Achish had his personal political ambitions and reasons for keeping David; David had safety as his paramount reason for seeking asylum in a philistine territory. Do you think anyone would harass David – King Achish’s guest?
David’s stay in a Philistinian
territory as a guest of the king is not a proof that the story was fabricated.
The practice back then was that there
was no grudge against anyone for any killing done in battle. This is why David
did not forgive Joab for the death of Abner whom Joab killed at peace time to
avenge the death of Asahel his brother in battle. Abner had killed Asahel in
battle; Joab killed Abner in peacetime.
The Bible Truth
 |
| Image courtsey: us-en.superbook.cbn.com |
Femi’s article purposely avoided a very
important passage of the scripture. There is another story in the Bible that
happened before David became king that corroborate the story of David killing
Goliath in 1samuel 17.
The story is in 1Samuel 21. In one of
David’s flights from Saul, he went to Ahimelek the priest of God at Nob. One of
the things the priest gave him was the sword of Goliath.
9 The
priest replied, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the
Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want
it, take it; there is no sword here but that one.”(1Samuel 21: 9 NIV).
What
Femi’s article used as a foundation to his conclusion was that Elhanan had
killed a Goliath of Gath. Was it impossible for another giant of the same name
(or probably same family) to have existed in the same town? That was not impossibility.
Truth
is: David killed Goliath long before he became king (Priest Ahimelek of Nob
confirmed it); Elhanan killed another giant of the same family (probably with
the same name) with Goliath long after David became king.
Femi suggested that those who believe the story of David vs. Goliath ‘are
entitled to your gullibility’.
Readers,
please draw your conclusions: who is entitled to whose gullibility.
