Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan, and was Elhanan’s victim Goliath or his brother?
Hard question · Israel’s history: Joshua to Esther · raised by 4 of the lists sceptics circulate
See the passages joined in the interactive mapThe passages
David’s sling-stone fells the Philistine; David then takes the giant’s own sword, kills him and cuts off his head.
And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
In a later battle at Gob, Elhanan the Bethlehemite kills ‘Goliath the Gittite’ (so the Hebrew); the KJV adds ‘the brother of’ in italics, and the WEB and BSB also read ‘brother’.
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim, a Beth–lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Elhanan the son of Jair “slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite”.
And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.
Goliath’s sword is kept at Nob, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, and given to David.
And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.
The objection
1 Samuel 17 tells how David killed Goliath of Gath. But the Hebrew of 2 Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan of Bethlehem killed “Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam”; the words ‘the brother of’ in the KJV are supplied from Chronicles. Critics also ask why David seems to kill Goliath twice, with a stone and then with a sword.
The answer
David killed Goliath; Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother Lahmi in a later war. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says so plainly, and the Hebrew of 2 Samuel 21:19 is best explained as a copyist’s slip from the same wording. Chronicles reads ‘Elhanan son of Jair [killed] et-Lahmi achi Golyat’ (‘Lahmi the brother of Goliath’); Samuel reads ‘Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim beit ha-lachmi et Golyat’ (‘the Bethlehemite … Goliath’). The letters are nearly the same: ‘et-Lahmi’ became ‘the Bethlehemite’ and ‘achi’ (‘brother of’) became ‘et’, the sign of the object, while the odd ‘oregim’ (‘weavers’) in the father’s name is the word that ends the verse (‘a weaver’s beam’), probably copied in by an eye that slipped to the line below. Keil and Delitzsch and Adam Clarke both explain the verse this way.
The ‘two killings’ are one death told in two steps. The stone struck Goliath down (17:49), and verse 50 sums up the victory: David “prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone”, with “no sword in the hand of David”. Verse 51 then tells how it was finished: David took the giant’s own sword and “slew him, and cut off his head therewith”. That sword was later kept at Nob and given to David (1 Samuel 21:9).
Other answers Christians give
Elhanan was David
An old Jewish reading, found in the Targum and in Rashi as Gill reports, took Elhanan to be another name for David. Gill rejects it: this battle was at Gob, not in the valley of Elah, and David is never called Elhanan.
Two Goliaths
Some suggest that Goliath was a family name, or that two giants bore it. Keil and Delitzsch thought this very unlikely, since Chronicles names the second man as Goliath’s brother.
Still open
Some scholars, such as Bertheau and Böttcher in Keil’s day, have argued the reverse: that Samuel keeps the original wording and Chronicles altered it. Keil replied that the Chronicler is nowhere shown to falsify his sources, and conservative scholars generally follow Chronicles.
From the classic commentators
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.Adam Clarke, Commentary on 2 Samuel 21 (1810–1826)
The words of our text are so similar to those of the Chronicles, if we only leave out the word ארגים, which probably crept in from the next line through oversight on the part of a copyist, that they presuppose the same original textKeil & Delitzsch, Commentary on 2 Samuel 21
Sources
- Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on 2 Samuel 21, at Bible Hub
- Adam Clarke, Commentary on 2 Samuel 21, at Bible Hub
- John Gill, Exposition of the Bible: 2 Samuel 21, at Bible Hub
- The Septuagint (Brenton’s Greek text), 1 Chronicles 20