Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 23:1 (NA 2013)
Article: A Farewell To Arms: Goliath’s Death As Rhetoric Against Faith In Arms
Author: Gregory T. K. Wong

BBR 23:1 (2013) p. 43

A Farewell To Arms:
Goliath’s Death As Rhetoric Against Faith In Arms

Gregory T. K. Wong

Evangel Seminary, Hong Kong

In a 1978 article, Deem proposes to read מצחו in 1 Sam 17:49 as “his greave” rather than “his forehead,” thereby asserting that it was not Goliath’s forehead but one of his greaves that David’s stone hit. This article attempts to lend further support to that view by focusing on the rhetorical function of specific pieces of armament first cited in 17:5–7 and subsequently allowed to recur within the narrative. In light of the narrative’s prevailing overall rhetoric against a faith in arms, it will be argued that there is every indication that the author/redactor has crafted his narrative intending מצחו in 17:49 to be referring to one of Goliath’s greaves rather than his forehead.

Key Words: David, Goliath, rhetoric, faith in arms, forehead, greaves, sword, 1 Samuel 17

Introduction

In a 1978 short note, Deem proposes an alternative understanding of the manner of Goliath’s death. Contrary to how 1 Sam 17:49 is normally understood, that David’s stone struck the Philistine on the forehead, thus killing him, Deem suggests that David’s stone may actually have been aimed at and struck one of the Philistine’s greaves. This caused Goliath to stumble and fall, thus rendering him temporarily immobile so that David could run over and kill him.1

Arguing on the basis of iconographic and lexical consideration, Deem first points out that depictions in Egyptian artifacts and reliefs associated with Ramses III show Philistine warriors in the 11th century B.C. wearing helmets covering the forehead and at times reaching down to the bridge

BBR 23:1 (2013) p. 44

of the nose. This renders it less likely that David would aim his stone at the well-protected forehead.

Deem also argues that the word “greave” in 1 Sam 17:6, pointed in the MT as a feminine singular construct, מִצְחַת, but uniformly translated in the plural in the ancient versions, may have originally been a defectively written feminine plural construct, מִצְחֹת. After all, this provides a better agreement with the following plural “on his feet” (