Faith First Media

The Dual Death of Goliath: A Contradiction in the Bible?

by Matthew Elton

copyright 2009 Matthew Elton

matt@faithfirstmedia.com

Question:

Everybody knows about the fight David versus Goliath. The young David kills Goliath with his slingshot.

1.Samuel 17,4-50:

"A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp...

His spear shaft was like a weaver's rod, and ...

So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him."

David killed Goliath.

But Elhanan killed Goliath, too:

2.Samuel 21,19

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

Of course, Goliath can't be killed by both since a person can't die twice.

With a certain amount of fantasy one could imagine that the Philistines had another warrior in their rows who fit to the same description (a man named Goliath, born in Gath, so huge that he had a spear like a weaver's rod).

But to be honest, it looks like an obvious contradiction and the writer of the book 1.Chronicles, which appeared about 500 years later, probably agreed. In 1.Chronicles the same story is retold, except that Goliath has been exchanged for his brother Lahmi in order to vanish the mistake (Goliath's dual death):

1.Chronicles 20,5

"In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

In contrast to what we were told in 2.Samuel 21,19, we are told now that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother instead of Goliath himself - another obvious contradiction.

Some Bible translations of our time even correct this "phenomenon" on their own by changing the text. They just exchange Goliath for his brother Lahmi in 2.Samuel 21,19 as well for the story of Samuel not to contradict the story of Chronichles (King James Version, Webster's Bible Translation, American King James Version). In doing so, they confess that there is a mistake in the original scripture. They correct the "word of god".

Answer:

There shouldn’t be any confusion here since the Bible makes it very clear that these are indeed different Goliaths!  One Goliath is “from Gath” and he is the one who David killed - the one who made the name “Goliath” famous.

The second “Goliath” is not from Gath, but rather, he is a “Gittite”.  His legal name is Lahmi, but he is nicknamed “Goliath” because he takes after his brother, the infamous “Goliath from Gath”.

By stating where these two Goliaths are from, the Bible makes it clear that they are not the same, thus clearing up any confusion that might arise because of the shared names.

Now that this “contradiction” has been cleared up, let’s take a look at how the King James Version translated these verses.  It is only common sense that the Hebrew scriptures were intended to be read in chronological order.  2 Samuel was written shortly after 1 Samuel (they were originally two parts of the same one book) but Chronicles was was written 500 years later!

If we read the books in the order they were written, we first see David slaying Goliath from Gath in 1 Samuel.  In 2 Samuel, we read of Lahmi slaying “Goliath” and indeed, the Hebrew does not contain the word “brother of”.  This phrase was added by the Authorized Text translators and put in italics so that English speaking readers know that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew.

The addition of the phrase “brother of” was not, however, an attempt to “correct” the text.  It was only an attempt to make clear for English-speaking readers what was already readily apparent to Hebrew readers.  We must remember that the text was meant to be read in order, just like any other book.  Earlier in Samuel we already read that David slew “Goliath from Gath”.  It is therefore clear that the man Elhanan slew was another “Goliath”.  Even today, it is not uncommon to use the name “Goliath” to refer to any powerful enemy!

The omission of the phrase “the brother of” is not a textual error, since Hebrew scribes had a very effective method of ensuring the accuracy of every copy of the Hebrew scriptures by adding the total of the numerical values of every Hebrew character in every line and column of the copied text, and checking those values to make sure they match up with the numerical values inscribed in the source text.

Therefore, the omission of the phrase in the Hebrew text was not a copyist error, since the system used by Hebrew scribes ensured that such errors were virtually impossible.  The Hebrew scriptures have been preserved with incredible accuracy, and every last pen stroke matters.  For example, there is one verse in the Bible where a Hebrew word appears to be misspelled, but this “error” was actually done on purpose in order to utilize the numerical values of the Hebrew characters to encode the exact value of pi into the Hebrew word for “circumference”.  This demonstrates how apparent “mistakes” in the Bible are often codes for even deeper and more profound levels of meaning - exactly what one would expect from a God-inspired book.  See here for the details.

Since a copyist error is virtually impossible, we must therefore conclude that the phrase “the brother of” in 2 Samuel 21:19 was meant to be omitted.  This may seem strange to native speakers of English, but we must remember that in Eastern and Middle Eastern languages (and even in English sometimes) it is perfectly acceptable to omit words and phrases that are already understood by both the speaker and the listener (linguist calls these “pragmatically inferable” phrases).  As a speaker of Japanese, I can appreciate the simplicity of this approach to language.  Let’s compare some basic sentences in English and Japanese to demonstrate how pragmatically inferable information can be omitted in non-Western languages:

(make sure your computer supports Japanese text!)

English:

I am Matthew Elton.  I am a Christian.  I am a writer.

Japanese:

私はエルトン＊マットです。キリスチャンです。ライターです。

Watashi wa Eruton Matto desu.  Kirisuchan desu.  Raitaa desu.

Literal translation:

I am Matthew Elton.  Am Christian.  Am writer.

After the initial “I am” in the first sentence, the reader knows that I am talking about myself.  It is therefore unnecessary for me to repeat the pronoun “I” in the following sentences, since the reader already knows that I am talking about myself, and they will continue to assume that I am talking about myself until I use the subject-marking particle wa in reference to someone else.  Proper English requires that I repeat the pronoun “I” at the beginning of every sentence (saying “Am Christian” by itself sound silly in English) but in Japanese, there is no need to repeat Watashi (I) at the beginning of every sentence (saying “Am Christian” by itself sounds perfectly natural in Japanese)!

Most Eastern and Middle Eastern languages allow for some omission of pragmatically inferable phrases, though not always to the extent of Japanese.  I did some research to see how much omission is allowed in the Hebrew language, and I discovered that a “moderate” amount of omission is allowed.  Hebrew doesn’t go so far as to omit common pronouns (as Japanese does) but phrases already understood by both the speaker and the listener (or the writer and the reader) can be safely omitted.

We must remember that at the time Samuel was written, the slaying of Goliath from Gath was probably the talk of the town, so to speak.  Any Jew would know that David slew Goliath from Gath, and indeed anybody who reads Samuel in order (just as we would read any other book) would have already read about the event by the time he or she read about Elhana slaying “Goliath” (the Gittite).

Since everyone knows that David slew the infamous Goliath from Gath, it literally goes without saying that the “Goliath” Elhanan slew was a different Goliath.  In 2 Samuel 21:19, the word “Goliath” is used as we would use it today - to refer to any powerful foe.  There was no need for the writer to include “the brother of” in the text, since that was pragmatically inferable information.  It was common knowledge that David slew Goliath from Gath, and the fact that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath was probably also common knowledge among the Jews (these are major military victories we’re talking about - any Jew living at that time would know about them).  Therefore there would have been no confusion at all as to who “Goliath the Gittite” really was, even with the omission of “his brother”.

The book of Chronicles was written 500 years later.  When Samuel was written, the events were fairly recent, and everyone would have known about them.  When Chronicles was written, the events were ancient history.  To put things in perspective, how much do you know about 1500s history?  Most Jews living at the time Chronicles would have some understanding of their history, but they probably wouldn’t know the details of Goliath’s family tree.  What was pragmatically inferable to the Jew living 500 years prior was pragmatically inferable no longer.  This is why the writer of Chronicles goes into more detail about the identity of the “Goliath the Gittite” slain by Elhanan.  Chronicles takes what used to be pragmatically inferable, and states it outright.  “Goliath the Gittite” was Lahmi, the brother of Goliath from Gath.  Lahmi was called “Goliath” in a figurative sense, the way we use the phrase “a Goliath” today.  It could be said that Lahmi was a “representational Goliath” or a “replacement Goliath” or simply “a Goliath” which the dictionary defines as any “very large, powerful, or influential person or thing.”

Thousands of years after the slaying of the “Goliaths”, the King James translators did in 2 Samuel what the writer of Chronicles did: they took what used to be inferred information, and stated it outright.  This was done for the sake of modern readers who are not familiar with Jewish history, or the non-Western conventions of the Hebrew language.  With great respect for the Hebrew text, the King James translators placed their addition in italics to indicate that it was omitted in the Hebrew.  This was not an attempt to “correct” the text or to change its meaning in any way.  The translators were simply seeking to make clear to English-speaking readers what would have already been readily apparent to the ancient Jews who lived at the time when Samuel was written.