begg david goliath

8/10/2019 Begg David Goliath

1/20

In piam memoriam

Tony Hackens(1939-1997)

Membre du Conseil d'administration de notre revue,doyen de la facult de Philosophie et Lettres

de l'Universit catholique de Louvain


2/20

2 C. BEGG


3/20

THE DAVID AND GOLIATH STORY 3

THE DAVID AND GOLIATH STORYACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS

One might have expected that the publication, in 1986, of a four-au-thor monograph on the text-criticism and literary-history of the Davidand Goliath story (1 Sam. 17)1 would have left scholars with nothingmore to say on the subject. In fact, however, discussion of the chapterhas continued unabated since then2. In this essay I wish to take a moredetailed look at a text which is sometimes cited in passing in treatments

of 1 Sam. 17, i.e. Josephus' version of the episode as found in his Anti-quitates Judaicae (hereafterAnt.) 6. 170-1923. More specifically, mydiscussion will focus on two overarching questions: 1) which text-form(s) of 1 Sam. 17 did Josephus employ in composing Ant. 6. 170-192; and 2) how, why, and with what effect has he retold the David andGoliath story?

1 D. BARTHELEMY, D.W. GOODING, J. LUST and E. TOV, The Story of David andGoliath: Textual and Literary Criticism, Fribourg/Gttingen, 1986.

2 In addition to the newer Samuel commentaries, see from the post-1986 period:A. ROF, The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology, in J. NEUS-NERet al. (eds.),Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, Philadelphia, 1987, pp. 117-147;J. TREBOLLE, The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17-18): Textual Variants and Liter-ary Composition, inBIOSCS, 23 (1990), pp. 16-30; D. KELLERMANN,Die Geschichte von

David und Goliath im Lichte der Endokrinologie, in ZAW, 102 (1992), pp. 344-357;E. TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis/Assen/Maastricht, 1992,pp. 334-336; A.G. AULDand Y.S. HO, The Making of David and Goliath, in JSOT, 56(1992), pp. 19-39; B. COSTACURTA, Con la cetra e con la fionda. L'ascesa di Davideverso il trono, Roma, 1994, pp. 45-70; W. DIETRICH, Der Fall des Riesen Goliat:

Biblische und nachbiblische Erzhlversuche, in J. EBACHand R. FABER(eds.),Bibel undLiteratur, Mnchen, 1995, pp. 241-258; ID., Die Erzhlungen von David und Goliat in1 Sam 17, in ZAW, 108, (1996), pp. 172-191; P.A. ABIR, The Literary Character of1 Samuel 17, in ITS, 33 (1996), pp. 233-248; A. WNIN, David & Goliath, Bruxelles,1997; B. GRILLETand M. LESTIENNE,La Bible d'Alexandrie. Premier Livre des Rgnes,Paris, 1997, pp. 291-310.

3 For the text and translation of the works of Josephus I use H.St.J. THACKERAYet al.(eds.), Josephus, Cambridge, MA/ London, 1926-1965 (Ant. 6. 170-192 is found inVol. V, pp. 250-263, edited by R. MARCUS). I have likewise consulted the text and appa-ratus ofAnt. 6. 170-192 in B. NIESE,Flavii Iosephi Opera, II, Berlin, 21955. On Josephus'overall treatment of the two main Israelite characters in 1 Sam. 17//Ant. 6. 170-192, seeL.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' Portrait of Saul, in HUCA, 53 (1982), pp. 45-99 (hereafter:FELDMAN, Saul); ID., Josephus' Portrait of David, in HUCA, 60 (1989), pp. 129-174(hereafter: FELDMAN,David).


4/20

4 C. BEGG

Text-Form(s)

The various ancient textual witnesses for 1 Sam. 174evidence a note-worthy divergence: Codex Vaticanus (hereafter: B), along with a num-ber of LXX minuscules, lacks an equivalent to significant portions of thechapter as attested by MT and the other ancient versions, i.e. CodexAlexandrinus [hereafter: A], the Lucianic [hereafter: L] or Antiochenemanuscripts of the LXX, the Old Latin [hereafter: OL], TargumJonathan of the Former Prophets [hereafter: TJ], and the Vulgate [here-

after: Vulg.]). The portions in question are vv. 12-31, 41, 48b, 50, 55-58. There are, in addition, various other differences in content among thewitnesses in those parts of the chapter common to all of them. This stateof affairs raises the question of which text-form(s) of 1 Sam. 17Josephus had available to him. In attempting to reach an answer to thisquestion, I note the following salient items of evidence. In his presenta-tion of David's antagonist (6. 171 // 17, 4-7) Josephus agrees with BLand 4QSama17,4 that Goliath measured four cubits, whereas MT, A, TJ,OL and Vulg. read six. By contrast, in line with MT 17,6b ( , RSVjavelin)5, he makes the object borne by Goliath between his shoul-

ders, not a shield (so BL [spv], Vulg. [clypeus], cf. OL balteus,sword-belt), but an offensive weapon, i.e. a spear (dru)6.

The historian does have, in 6. 175-179a, a partial equivalent to theextended plus, 17, 12-31, of MT L etc. concerning David and his hearingof Goliath's provocation, see further below. In accord with BL OL (theheart of my lord), he thereafter (6. 179b) represents David as urgingthat Saul himself (thy spirit) not be dejected in the face of the giant's

4 For these I use the following editions: BHS; P.K. MCCARTER, 1 Samuel, New York,1980, p. 286 (hereafter: MCCARTER, 1 Samuel), (for the readings of 4QSama1 Sam. 17, 3-6); A.E. BROOKE, N. MACLEAN, and H.St.J. THACKERAY, The Old Testament in Greekaccording to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, II, 1. I and II Samuel, Cambridge, 1927;N. FERNANDEZMARCOSand J.R. BUSTOSAIZ,El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega, I.1-2 Samuel, Madrid, 1989; A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic, II, Leiden, 1959 (forTargum Jonathan on the Prophets); P. SABATIER,Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae Versiones

Antiquae seu Vetus Italica, Rheims, 1751, p. 500 (for the Patristic Old Latin readings of17, 32-34.36.47); C.M. RODRIGUEZ, Glosas Marginales de Vetus Latina en las BibliasVulgatas Espaolas, I. 1-2 Samuel, Madrid, 1989, pp. 22-23; and Biblia sacra, LiberSamuhelis, Romae, 1944 (for the Vulgate).

5 On the question of the precise meaning of this Hebrew term, see G. MOLIN, What isa Kidon?, inJSS, 1 (1956), pp. 334-337 (he proposes the rendering scimitar).

6 Josephus likewise agrees with MT 17, 45 (javelin) against BL Vulg. (shield) in6. 187 where he has David mention a spear as the second accoutrement with whichGoliath is coming against him.


5/20


challenge, this in contrast to MT etc. where he speaks more generally of

(every) man's heart. Conversely, he aligns himself (6. 183) with theshorter MT form of David's words to the king in 17, 36 which lack theplus (shall I not go and strike him [Goliath] down, and remove the re-proach from Israel today?) found in BL and OL7. On the other hand, hefollows the opening of BL 17, 39 in making the king also gird Davidwith his (Saul's) sword; in MT the subject of this action is David him-self8. Like MT L Vulg. at the end of 17, 39, however, he depicts (6. 185)David as the one who removes what has been placed upon him, whereasB and OL attribute this initiative to an unspecified they.

B evidences another, brief minus at MT etc. 17, 41 with its notice on

the advance of Goliath and his shield-bearer; Josephus too lacks anequivalent. To the citation of Goliath's word which they share with MT17, 43 (Am I a dog that you [David] come to me with sticks?) BL andOL append a plus (and stones'. And David said No! But somethingworse than a dog'). Josephus goes together with the latter witnesses inciting a very similar response by David at this juncture (6. 186): No,'replied David, not even a dog, but something still worse'. MT L etc.17, 48 mention an advance by both parties following their exchange (17,43-47), while B speaks only of Goliath's move; in this instanceJosephus (see 6. 188-189a) agrees with the former witnesses. B also

lacks a parallel to MT AL 17, 50 which relates David's dispatch ofGoliath with a sling and a stone as well as the fact of there being nosword in the hand of David at this moment. Josephus does make refer-ence to the latter point in 6. 190. Like MT AL he further specifies (6.190) as B does not that David severed the giant's head with hisown (Goliath's) sword.

Josephus' account (6. 191) of the subsequent Israelite pursuit of thePhilistines agrees in several particulars with B(L) against MT: the pur-suit extends to Gath (Gitta) (compare MT: the valley) and the gatesof Ascalon (xri tn puln tn Asklwnov, BL wv tv

pljv Asklwnov), compare MT (as far as the gates of Ekron).Josephus' mention (6. 192) of the returning Saul's burning (n-prjse) the Philistine stockade has a certain counterpart in the peculiarreading of OL 17, 53a which speaks of the Israelites' returning fromburning (comburentes) after the Philistines9. Finally, like B, Josephus

7 See further MCCARTER, 1 Samuel, p. 287, ad loc.8 Compare Vulg. which has David putting on his (i.e. Saul's,eius) sword.9 For more on the readings of 17, 53 in the various witnesses and their possible rela-

tionship to Josephus' term burning in 6. 192, see MARCUS, Josephus, V, p. 262, n. band P.W. SKEHAN, Turning or Burning? 1 Sam 17:53 LXX, in CBQ, 38 (1976), pp. 193-195.


6/20

6 C. BEGG

concludes his David and Goliath story without a parallel to the MT sec-

tion 17, 55-58, where, problematically in light of what precedes (see 16,14-23 and 17, 31-39) David is depicted as someone whose identityseems completely unknown to Saul10.

The foregoing survey has shown Josephus in 6. 170-192 agreeing nowwith the distinctive B text of 1 Sam. 17, now with that represented byMT etc. More specifically, he seems to have made use, in first place ofan intermediate textual form, most similar to that represented by ourL manuscripts and having points of contact both with MT and B 1 Sam.17, of the David/Goliath story11.

Josephus' Rewriting of 1 Sam. 17

I now turn to a consideration of my second overall question, i.e.Josephus' retelling of the Biblical David and Goliath story. To facilitatemy comparison of them, I divide up the material into seven parallelsections as follows: 1) Armies' Movements (17, 1-3 // 6. 170-171a);2) Goliath Presented (17, 4-7 // 6. 171b); 3) Goliath's Challenge (17, 8-11 // 6. 172-174); 4) David in the Camp (17, 12-30 // 6. 175-179a);5) David and Saul (17, 31-40 // 6. 179b-185); 6) David/Goliath Encoun-

ter (17, 41-51a // 6. 186-190); and 7) Aftermath (17, 51b-54 [55-58] //6. 191-192).

1) Armies' Movements

The Biblical description of the opposing armies' movements in 17, 1-3 is characterized, inter alia, by its very loose linkage with what pre-cedes, a plethora of place names, and a somewhat confusing presentationin which, after first encamping (vv. 1-2), the two armies end up without apparent motivation taking their positions (v. 3) on two sidesof the mountain. Josephus' version makes more of a connection withthe foregoing: he dates the David/Goliath story not long afterwards(i.e. following David's admission to Saul's service, 1 Sam. 16, 14-23 //

Ant. 6. 166-169) and inserts reference (6. 170, cf. 17, 1) to the

10 In further agreement with B Josephus has no equivalent either to MT 18, 1-5(Jonathan's covenant with David); his presentation proceeds directly from his parallel to17, 54 in 6. 192c to his rendering of 18, 6 (Saul's envy of David) in 6. 193.

11 For more on Josephus' text of(1) Sam. overall, see: E.C. ULRICH,Josephus' Bibli-cal Text for the Books of Samuel, in L.H. FELDMANand G. HATA(eds.),Josephus, the

Bible, and History, Detroit, 1989, pp. 81-96; S. BROCK, The Recensions of theSeptuaginta Version of 1 Samuel, Torino, 1996, pp. 210-216.


7/20


Philistines' again advancing against Israel, thereby recalling the

earlier such move by them in Saul's time as recorded in 1 Sam. 13, 5(// Ant. 6. 97). He eliminates several of the place names of 17, 1-2(Ephesdammim, Elah, the double mention of Socoh). More no-tably, he reworks (6. 170b) the presentation of 17, 2-3 in such a way asto provide an explanation for the ultimate station assumed by the twoarmies at the same time accentuating the king's role in the proceedings:By pitching camp on a mountain (17, 2 in the valley of Elah) Saul 12

forced the Philistines to abandon their first camp (i.e. between Socohand Azekah, 6. 170a // 17, 1) and take their position on another moun-tain13.

2) Goliath Presented

1 Sam. 17, 4-7 comprises a characterization of Goliath (v. 4), listingof his weaponry (vv. 5-7a), and reference to the shield-bearer who ac-companies

him

(v.

7b).

Josephus'

opening (6.171b)

qualification (a manof gigantic stature [nr pammegeqstatov]14 and clad in armourproportioned to his frame15) insists on the antagonist's overwhelmingsize16. He inserts an explanation for Goliath's wearing his (first) spear(see above) on his shoulders (so 17, 6b MT), i.e. it was not light

enough to be borne in the right hand, but leaves aside the comparisonused of the shaft of the giant's other spear (like a weaver's beam)in 17, 7a17. Finally, he underscores the intimidating character of Go-

12 The heightened role given Saul in Josephus' reworking of 17, 1-3 in 6. 170 is note-worthy. Whereas 17, 2-3 speaks simply of Saul and the men of Israel being gathered andencamping, Josephus refers to the king leading out his army and pitching his camp,thereby forcing the Philistines to change their position (see above). This same accen-tuation of the king's stature and initiative will recur throughout Josephus' version of1 Sam. 17.

13 See the comment of MARCUS, Josephus, V, pp. 252-253, n. a: Josephus infersfrom 1 Sam xvii. 3, mentioning a mountain for the first time, that the Philistines hadchanged their camp.

14

Compare the terms used of Goliath in the different witnesses for 17, 4: MT ( -, literally a man of the betweens, RSV champion); BL (nr dunatv); TJ

, a man from among them); Vulg. (vir spurius). Josephus' designation)has a counterpart in the phrase used by the Peshitta of 17, 4, i.e. gabr' ga[n]br. On theinterrelationships among these various readings see A. V IVAN, Golia 'is habbenayim.Traduzioni e tradizioni antiche, in Augustinianum, 18 (1978), pp. 555-564 (hereafter:VIVIAN, Golia).

15 The above phrase has no equivalent in1 Sam. 17 as such; I italicize such items inthis essay.

16 See further his appended qualification of Goliath's helmet and greaves as cited in17, 5-6, i.e. such as were meet to protect the limbs of a man of such prodigious size(paradzou t mgeqov).

17 This same comparison recurs in2 Sam. 21, 19 // 1 Chr. 20, 5, there too in referenceto Goliath's spear(shaft); Josephus' rendering inAnt. 6. 302, once again, leaves the com-

parison aside.


8/20

8 C. BEGG

liath's appearance by speaking, not of his single shield-bearer (so 17,

7b), but of the many who followed him, carrying his armour.

3) Goliath's Challenge

1 Sam. 17, 8-11 recounts Goliath's challenge to the Israelite forcesand the effect this has upon them. Josephus introduces (6. 172) this de-velopment by specifying that Goliath addressed himself, not simply tothe ranks of Israel (so 17,8) but also, in first place to Saul18and thathe stood between the opposing forces19 in making his challenge.

Goliath's words open in 17, 8 with two seemingly self-evident ques-

tions: Why have you [the Israelites] come out to draw up for battle?Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants (so MT, BL Hebrews) ofSaul? Josephus replaces these questions with an introductory word ofhis own formulation that points up the promise for Israel inherent in thegiant's following proposal: I [Goliath] hereby deliver you from battleand its perils. For what need is there for your troops to join arms and tosuffer heavy losses? Thereafter, he takes over the proposal set out byGoliath in 17, 8bb-9 (single combat between himself and a designatedIsraelite to determine which side will rule the other) in 6. 173a. To thishe has Goliath append (6. 173b) another appeal, corresponding to that

with which his speech opens in 6. 172 (see above) to the hearers' self-interest: It is far better, I think, and more prudent to attain your end bythe hazard of one man's life rather than of all. This rational reflectiontakes the place of Goliath's bombastic concluding word as cited in 17,10 (I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man, that we mayfight together). The Josephan Goliath seems then more intent on bring-ing his audience round to the sensefulness of his proposal than is his su-percilious Biblical counterpart.

1 Sam. 17, 11 rounds off the account of Goliath's challenge with men-tion of the consternation it evokes on the part of Saul and the Israelites.Josephus (6. 174) elaborates this datum with a series of additional items.Specifically, he precedes his equivalent to 17, 11 with two indications,i.e. Goliath returns to his camp after making his initial challenge, whileon the following forty days he reiterates the challenge. Of these, the first

18 On Josephus' consistent highlighting of the role of Saul in his version of1 Sam. 17,see n. 12. His making Saul the (first) addressee of Goliath's provocation here in 6. 172may be inspired by 17, 11 where Saul and all Israel are said to hear this.

19 This expression perhaps reflects the Hebrew phrase, literally translating as a manof the betweens used of Goliath in MT 17, 4 (see n. 14); thus VIVIAN, Golia, p. 558 (ifthis proposal be accepted, I would further suggest that Josephus, in fact, gives a doublerendition of the phrase of 17, 4, first in 6. 171 [a man of gigantic stature] and then herein 6. 172).


9/20


has no Biblical parallel, while the second is anticipated by him from 17,

16 where it appears to disrupt the flow of the narrative, see below. Tohis attached reference to the hearers' fear-filled reaction (// 17, 11)Josephus then appends a reference to the two armies remaining in battleorder, though without engaging. Also this notice might be seen as ananticipation/expansion of a later component of the Biblical story, i.e. 17,21 (Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army).

4) David in the Camp

As noted above, 1 Sam. 17, 12-30(31) constitutes the great plus of MT

etc. to which B lacks an equivalent. As also previously remarked,Josephus does have a much abbreviated version of this segment,dealing with David's coming to and activity in the camp, in 6. 175-178.The historian's abbreviation of the source's data is already evident at theoutset. From the section's opening, 17, 12-14, he leaves aside thepersonalia (vv. 12, 13, 14a) concerning Jesse's sons which are repeti-tious of what he has reported shortly before in his version of the story ofDavid's anointing (// 1 Sam. 16, 1-13) inAnt. 6. 157-16520. Conversely,he expatiates on the passing notice of 17, 15 (but David went back andforth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem) whose purpose

is to explain why David, who, just previously, had been taken intoSaul's personal service according to 1 Sam. 16, 21-22 (// 6. 168-169),should have been absent from the Israelite camp at the time of Goliath's(initial) challenge. In Josephus' rendition (6. 175) David's return toBethlehem is attributed, not to the lad's own initiative (as apparently in17, 15), but, in accord with the consistent tendency of his version (see n.12), to a decision by the king: Now, on the outbreak of the war be-tween the Hebrews and the Philistines, Saul had sent David away to hisfather Jesse, being content with the latter's three sons whom he had sentto share the dangers of the campaign [compare the double mention oftheir following Saul in 17, 13a, 14b]. David then returned at first tohis flocks and cattle pastures.

To the notices on Jesse's family of 17, 12-14(15) is appended a paren-thetical mention of Goliath's continuation of his challenge (see 17, 8-10)over a forty-day period, 17, 16. As we saw above, Josephus anticipateshis parallel to 17, 16 to an earlier point, i.e. 6. 174. Accordingly, at thispoint, he proceeds directly to the next development within the complex

20On this passage ofAnt. (and its counterpart in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum59),see C.T. BEGG, Samuel's Anointing of David in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo,inRivista diStoria e Letteratura Religiosa, 32 (1996), pp. 492-529.


10/20

10 C. BEGG

of 17, 12-30, i.e. Jesse's sending of David to the Israelite camp, vv. 17-

18. In his rendition of this sequence in the continuation of 6. 176, heboth generalizes the list of foodstuffs David is to take with him andleaves aside Jesse's obscure closing directive (RSV: and bring sometoken from them [the brothers]21).

1 Sam. 17, 19-23 tells, quite circumstantially, of David's coming tothe camp and hearing Goliath's challenge there. Josephus (6. 177) leavesaside much of the source's detail here (e.g., the duplication of v. 2 inv. 19 noting the Israelites' presence in the valley of Elah to fight thePhilistines; David's first confiding his sheep to a keeper [v. 20]; andhis handing over the things he had brought to the camp to the keeper of

the baggage [v. 22])22. On the other hand, his version of v. 23 suppliesa content both for Goliath's speaking as cited there (challenging andtaunting the Hebrews with not having among them a man brave enoughto venture down to fight with him) and for David's own talking withhis brothers (i.e. about the matters wherewith his father had chargedhim).

The section 17, 24-27 features David's asking (see v. 26) the men ofIsrael (vv. 24-25) about the reward awaiting the one who should killGoliath. David here appears to be motivated above all by self-interest.Josephus (6. 177 in fine) gives us a more high-minded youth who, im-

mediately upon hearing Goliath's provocation (and without any thoughtfor what he himself might get out of this) becomes indignant(ganktjse) and announces to his brothers i.e. those to whom hehas been speaking immediately beforehand that he is ready to engagethe giant23.

The Biblical account of David's coming to the camp ends up in vv.28-30 with a confrontation between him and his eldest brother Eliab.The latter begins his rebuke of David with two questions (why haveyou come down? and with whom have you left those few sheep in thewilderness?), the first of which he then proceeds to answer himself, ac-

cusingthepresumptiousand

evil-hearted David of having come tosee the battle. The historian adapts (6. 178a) Eliab's words in accordwith the statement of intention he has just attributed to David. Respond-ing to David's expressed readiness to take on Goliath (see 6. 177), Eliab

21 On the meaning of the Hebrew word rendered token from them by RSV,see the commentaries.

22 Recall too that he has anticipated the notice on the two armies confronting eachother of 17, 21 in 6. 174.

23 On Josephus' modification of the Biblical depiction of David in1 Sam. 17, 24-27,see FELDMAN,David, p. 142.


11/20


censures him for being bolder than became his years and ignorant of

what was fitting24; and then enjoins him to be off to his flocks and hisfather25. In 17, 29 David responds to his brother's rebuke with petulantself-justification: What have I done now? Was it not but a word? Inplace thereof, Josephus (6. 178b) speaks of David's respect for his bro-ther, this prompting his withdrawal from him as cited at the begin-ning of 17, 30. The continuation of v. 30 reprises, somewhat obscurely,the exchange between David and the men of Israel from vv. 24-27.Thehistorian,whoearlierreplacedthat exchange

with David'sannounce-ment to his brothers of his readiness to take on Goliath (see 6. 177), hashim now re-iterate that resolve, this time to some of the soldiers. Here

too, then, the Bible's mercenary-minded youth yields to an enthusiastichero who gives no thought to any reward for his intended initiative.

5) David and Saul

The next section I have distinguished within 1 Sam. 17, i.e. vv. 31-40(// 6. 179b-185) relates the extended exchange between David and Saul.Once summoned by the king (v. 31, MT L etc.) the Biblical David initi-ates the conversation (v. 32). Josephus (6. 179) portrays a more deferen-tial David who waits until Saul asks what he wanted. David's open-

ing word to Saul in v. 32 urges the king (so BL OL, see above) not to bedejected since he (David) will fight against this Philistine. TheJosephan David is considerably more emphatic in the promise-motiva-tion he attaches to his exhortation: (let not thy spirit be downcast OKing) for I will bring down the presumption of the foe by joining battlewith him and throwing this mighty giant down before me. Josephusstill further accentuates David's assurance that he will indeed prevail byhaving him speak, already now, of the effect his triumph will have andthe reason it will produce such an impact. This Josephan appendix (6.180) to David's opening word of 17, 32 reads: Thus would he[Goliath] be made a laughing-stock, and thine army have the more glory,should he be slain, not by a grown man fit for war and entrusted with thecommand of battles, but by one to all appearances and in truth no olderthan a boy. With this expansion of David's word, Josephus goes be-yond the source (17, 32) in representing him as one who is not lookingfor his own glory this will go to Saul's army and who, at the same

24 These charges represent a toning-down of the sharper language of 17, 28 whereEliab cites David's evil heart.

25 This injunction might be seen as Josephus' adaptation of the question put David byEliab in 17, 28, i.e. with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?


12/20

12 C. BEGG

time, is fully aware of his own seeming lack of qualifications for the task

at hand.1 Sam. 17, 33 depicts Saul dismissing David's offer to fight Goliath

out of hand, given the discrepancy in military experience between them.Josephus' inserted preface to Saul's response represents him (6. 181a) asmore impressed by David and readier to entertain the youth's claims:Saul admired the lad's daring and courage, but could not place fullconfidence in himby reason of his years, because of which, he said, hewas too feeble to fight with a skilled warrior. David responds to Saul'srebuff with a lengthy discourse in 17, 34-37a in which he first (vv. 34-36) speaks of his own achievements in combat against wild beasts, and

only then of God as the source of all his (past and future) accomplish-ments (v. 37a). Josephus accentuates the youth's piety by having him (6.181b) make reference to the divine aid given him right at the start:These promises', replied David, I make in the assurance that God iswith me; for I have already had proof of His aid'. In reproducingDavid's words about his dealings with the lion (// 17, 34-35) Josephus(6. 182) dramatizes, while also accentuating the preternatural strength ofthe self-designated boy (so 6. 180) David who, in his version, reportsthat he lifted the marauding lion by the tail (compare MT: by the beard,BL TJ: by the throat) and killed him by dashing him upon the ground.

The Josephan David's speech concludes (6. 183) with a conflation of hiswords according to 17, 36b, 37ab (in the shorter form of MT, seeabove), plus an inserted reference to Goliath's insulting of God himself:Let this enemy26then be reckoned even as one of those wild beasts, solong has he insulted our army and blasphemed our God[compare 17,36: seeing he has defied the armies of the living God], who will deliverhim into my hands.

Saul's response to David's affirmations of divine support (17, 34-37a)begins in v. 37b with his telling David to go and calling on God to bewith him. Josephus' rendition (6. 184a) has the king once again ex-

press appreciation for David's qualities (see 6. 181) and expatiates onSaul's petition for him: So then Saul, praying that the lad's zeal andhardihood(proquma ka tlmj)27might be rewarded by God with alike success, said Go forth to battle'. The preparations for David'sventure continue in vv. 38-39aa with Saul outfitting David with hisarmor, helmet and coat of mail (v. 38, MT etc.), while David's himself

26 This term replaces the derogatory phrase used by David in 17, 36, i.e. thisuncircumcised Philistine. The substitution likely aims to avoid giving gratuitous offenseto (uncircumcised) Gentile readers.

27 This collocation is hapax in Josephus.


13/20


(so MT L) girds on his (own) sword (so MT, etc. [in BL Saul is the sub-

ject also of this action, see above]). Josephus rearranges this sequence,mentioning David's equipment in the order breastplate, sword28, and hel-met; to it he further appends a reference to the king's sending himout.

1 Sam. 17, 39abb recounts David's difficulties in moving aboutunder the weight of the unfamiliar equipment, his reporting this to Saul,and then doffing what had been placed upon him. Josephus' version(6. 185a) of David's rather brusque statement to the king in the source(I cannot go with these, for I am not used to them), here again (see on6. 179), heightens the youth's deference before Saul: Let this fine ap-

parel be for thee, O King, for thou indeed art able to wear it, but sufferme, as thy servant, to fight just as I will. The scene between David andSaul concludes in 17, 40 with the former selecting the three weapons(staff, five smooth [so MT L; B perfect, teleouv] stones, and sling)with which he will advance against Goliath. Josephus (6. 185b) omitsthe source qualification of the stones, while specifying that David car-ried the sling in his right hand.

6) David-Goliath Encounter

The story of 1 Sam. 17 climaxes in vv. 41-51a (// 6. 186-190) with adescription of the long-delayed encounter between the two championswhich eventuates in Goliath's death. 1 Sam. 17, 42 attributes the Philis-tine's disdain for David to the youth's ruddy and comely appear-ance. The nexus between these two items seems obscure whyshould a handsome appearance provoke disdain? Perhaps on this consid-eration, Josephus (who, like B, has, as well, no equivalent to the noticeof MT etc. 17, 41 concerning Goliath's advance, see above) provides analternative explanation of the giant's attitude towards David. In his ren-dition (6. 186a) the giant's contempt is linked rather with Goliath'squestion to David of v. 43a (am I dog, that you come to me withsticks?). Josephus' expanded, indirect discourse version of this ques-tion reads: (he deried him) for coming to fight, not with such weapons(pla)29as men are accustomed to use against other men, but with those

28 As in B (and Vulg., cf. n. 8) Josephus makes the sword in question that ofSaul rather than David's own (thus MT) and so has the king be the one to girdDavid with this, see above.

29 This general term takes the place of Goliath's reference to sticks (so MT; BL andOL read a stick and stones) in 17, 43. The substitution might have in view the fact thatin 17, 40 where David is said to equip himself with three different weapons (staff, stones,sling), sticks are not mentioned.


14/20

14 C. BEGG

wherewith we drive away and keep off dogs. Or did he perhaps take him

for a dog, and not a man? With BL OL 17, 43, as noted above, he hasDavid respond (6. 186b) to Goliath's taunting question with the asser-tion that the giant is indeed worse than a dog.

Goliath's verbal assault on David continues in vv. 43b-44 where thegiant first curses him by his gods (v. 43b) and then summons him tocome to him that he might give his flesh to the birds and beasts ofprey (v. 44). Josephus (6. 186c) inserts a reference to Goliath's angerprovoked by David's preceding answer, reverses the order in which thegiant's source speech mentions the predators, and has him append aspecification as to why David's flesh will be given them, i.e. to rend

asunder.1 Sam. 17, 45-47 constitutes David's response to the giant's threats.

The youth's discourse opens with him drawing a contrast betweenGoliath who has come with three sorts of weapons (sword, spear and

javelin [so MT, BL Vulg. shield, see on 17, 6]), and himself who ad-vances in the name of the Lord defied by Goliath. The Josephan ren-dition in 6. 187a substitutes mention of Goliath's breastplate(qraki) for the source's javelin (MT)/ shield (BL Vulg); corre-spondingly, it has David claim to come having God for my armour(plismai)30. In v. 46a David proceeds to announce that God will

deliver Goliath into his hand with the result that he (David) will cut offthe giant's head and give the corpse(s) of the Philistines to those samepredators to whom Goliath had threatened to hand over his own body(see 17, 44). The Josephan David (6. 187b) accentuates the all-encom-passing divine role in what will follow by first announcing God's de-struction of both Goliath and the Philistines and then his own decapita-tion of the giant and casting of his corpse to the dogs thy fellows(mofloiv)31. David's reply to Goliath concludes in 17, 46bb-47 witha statement concerning the double realization about the Lord David'supcoming victory is intended to evoke, first on the part of all the earth

(i.e. there is a God in Israel) and then from the side of all this [the30 This verbal form echoes the nounplaused by Goliath in his question to David in

6. 186.31 David's use of the term dogs in reference to the Philistines here in 6. 187b ech-

oes the canine language of the earlier Goliath-David exchange (see 6. 186): David,who previously called Goliath himself worse than a dog, now uses similarly insultingterminology to characterize the giant's whole people. According to MARCUS,Josephus, V,pp. 260-261, n. a Josephus' above formulation reflects his reading of the words of 17, 46(literally: I will give the carcase of the camp of the Philistines to the birds ofheaven) as thy(Goliath's) carcase to the camp. On Josephus' exceptional use ofthe term mofloito designate, not his own, but a foreign people here, see FELDMAN,

David, p. 166.


15/20


Israelite] assembly (i.e. the Lord saves not with sword and spear, for

the battle is the Lord's). Josephus' version (6. 187b) confines itself towhat others are to learn from David's triumph32: and all menshall learn that Hebrews have the Deity for their protection33, and that

He in His care for us is our armour(pla)34and strength(sxv), andthat all other armament and force are unavailing where God is not35.

Following their extended exchange (17, 42-47), the two champions(17, 48) resume (cf. 17, 41 MT etc.) their approach to each other.Josephus (6. 188-189a) elaborates considerably on this moment of theopponents' respective advances, introducing, e.g., a contrast between themanner of their approach: And now the Philistine, impeded by theweight of his armour(plwn)36from running more swifty37came on to-ward David, at a slow pace, contemptuous(katafronn) and confidentof slaying without any trouble an adversary at once unarmed and of an

age so youthful(pada ti tn likan)38. But the youth advancedto the encounter, accompanied by an ally(summxou) invisible to the

foe, and this was God39.32 His doing so might be inspired by the consideration that Jews would already be suf-

ficiently aware of the lesson about God as the sole giver of victory which David's tri-umph is designed to teach them according to 17, 47.

33 This formulation might be seen as an eludication of the Gentiles' intented realiza-tion according to 17, 47, i.e. there is a God in Israel; more than simply being present

in Israel, that God (so Josephus) actively protects the nation.34 This term echoes the same noun as used by Goliath in his question to David in 6.186, as well as the cognate verb employed by David when speaking of God as my ar-mour in 6. 187.

35 The above conclusion to David's discourse according to Josephus represents anelaboration of the youth's affirmation of 17, 47ab( the Lord saves not with sword andspear; for the battle is the Lord's) which, e.g., draws therefrom the practical conclusionabout the futility of military ventures lacking God's support. Josephus has no equivalentto the words of 17, 47bb(and he [the Lord] will give you into our hand) which arerepetitious of what David has already affirmed in 17, 46aa(this day the Lord will de-liver you into my hand, cf. 6. 187 God will destroy both thee and all your host by ourhands).

36 In 6. 187 David designates God as our armour (pla), an armour that will effica-ciously protect him in the upcoming battle. By contrast, Goliath's non-divine armouronly impedes him just as David had averred in his concluding words to the giant in6. 187: all other armament and force are unavailing where God is not.

37 In 17, 48b (MT, etc.; > B) it is David who is said to run quickly towards Goliath.Josephus reapplies this running language to the giant himself.

38 The above appended characterization of Goliath as he goes into battle is reminiscentof 6. 186 where Goliath is said to show his scorn (katafrone) upon first seeingDavid. It likewise recalls 6. 180 where David himself recognizes that he is to all appear-ance and in truth no older than a boy (paidv ti tn likan). The opponentsagree then in their estimate of David as a mere boy. They draw, however, differentconclusions from that shared estimate: Goliath infers that he can easily conquer the boyDavid, while David deduces rather that he must put his confidence in the all-powerfulGod.

39 The above theological remark appended by Josephus to the mention of David's ad-

vance of 17, 48b (MT, etc.) echoes and confirms the affirmations of divine support he has


16/20

16 C. BEGG

1 Sam. 17, 49 relates David's felling Goliath with a stone from his

sling. Josephus (6. 189b) embellishes this dramatic moment with addi-tional elements concerning David's preparatory measures and the effectof his shot: Drawing from his wallet one of the stones from thebrook which he had put therein[see 6. 185b // 17, 40],and fitting it tohis sling, he shot it at Goliath, catching him in the forehead, and the mis-sile penetrated to the brain, so that Goliath was instantly stunned andfell upon his face. The source (17, 50-51a, MT etc.; B has no equiva-lent to v. 50) twice mentions David's killing of the fallen giant. Leav-ing aside the first of these mentions (v. 50a), Josephus' rendition like-wise rearranges the components of vv. 50b-51a: Then, running for-

ward, David stood over his prostrate foe and with the other's broad-sword (// v. 51aa), having no sword of his own (// v. 50b), he cut off hishead (// v. 51ab).

7) Aftermath

The Philistines react to the sight of Goliath's death at David's handsby taking flight themselves, v. 51b. Josephus (6. 190a) markedly embel-lishes this sequel to the giant's demise with, e.g., reference to thePhilistines' inner state that precipitates their flight: Goliath's fall

caused the defeat and rout of the Philistines; for, seeing their bestwar-rior laid low and fearing a complete disaster, they resolved to remain nolonger, but sought to save themselves from dangerbyignominious anddisorderlyflight.

Thereafter, 17, 52 recounts the Israelite pursuit of the fugitives. Hereagain, Josephus (6. 191b-192a) elaborates and dramatizes, inserting intohis (LXX-like, see above) text of the source verse, inter alia, explicitmention of Saul's role in the proceedings and precise casualty figuresfor the fleeing Philistines; conversely, he leaves aside the (partial) dupli-cation of the geographical indications of v. 52a in v. 52b. His renderingthus runs: But Saul andthe whole Hebrew army, with shouts of battle,sprang upon them and with great carnage, pursued them to the bordersof Gitta (see LXX) and to the gates of Ascalon (see LXX). Of the

Philistines 30,000 were slain and twice as many were wounded40.

previously attributed to the youth, see 6. 181 (these promises I make in the assurancethat God is with me [tqe nti met'mo]) and 6. 187 (I have God for my ar-mour).

40 Also elsewhere, Josephus supplies precise figures for those involved in militaryengagements where the Bible lacks such. With this procedure Josephus aims to heightenconfidence in himself as a historian who is able to supply such specific details about theevents recounted by him. For additional examples of the phenomenon, see: FELDMAN,Saul, p. 71 and n. 52 and C.T. BEGG,Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy

(AJ 8,212-420), Leuven, 1993, p. 72, n. 246.


17/20


In 17, 53 the Israelites return from their pursuit and proceed to plun-

der (so MT, LXX kateptoun, trample down) the enemy's camp(s).The historian's version (6. 192b), once again, highlights the king's role,while also using alternative terminology for his treatment of the Philis-tine camp: Saul then returning to their camp, destroyed the palisadeand set fire to it41. At this juncture, following the interlude of vv. 51b-53, v. 54 redirects attention to David whose placing of the giant's headin Jerusalem and of his armor in his own tent it records. Josephus (6.192c) reverses David's handling of his two trophies, likewise substi-tuting mention of Goliath's sword for his armor: he carried offthe head of Goliath to his own tent and dedicated his sword to God.

Several factors appear to be operative in Josephus' noteworthy rework-ing of the source text at this point. In his presentation it is, first of all, themore desirable trophy (Goliath's weaponry) which David dedicates toGod rather than the one of lesser worth (the giant's head), as in the Bi-ble; thereby he accentuates David's piety. In leaving open where it isDavid makes his dedication of the sword Josephus further takesinto account the fact that Jerusalem (so 17, 54) was not yet in Israelitehands as well as the Bible's own subsequent mention of Goliath'ssword being housed at a different site, i.e. Nob, see 1 Sam. 21, 10 (//

Ant. 6. 244, here with an explicit Rckverweisto 6. 192).

As noted in our text-critical section, Josephus, like B, ends his Goliathstory with 17, 54 (David's disposal of Goliath's remains). On the suppo-sition that he did, however, know the MT etc. plus of 17, 55-58 asupposition rendered likely by the fact that he does clearly make use ofthe longer MT plus 17, 12-31 his non-utilization of the segment isreadily understandable given its seeming lack of coherence with whatprecedes, see above.

Conclusion on Josephus' Rewriting

Josephus' version of 1 Sam. 17 in Ant. 6. 170-192 evidences, as theforegoing discussion has shown, a range of re-writing techniques. Par-ticularly in the case of the segments 17, 1-3 (compare 6. 170-171: thearmies positioning themselves), 12-30 (compare 6. 175-178: David inthe camp) and 55-58 (MT, no Josephan parallel: the identification ofDavid) he, overall, significantly compresses the Biblical account, evento the point of eliminating the last of these passages entirely. On the

41 On the possible inspirations for Josephus' reference to burning here, see n. 9.


18/20

18 C. BEGG

other hand, Josephus notably elaborates on such source elements as

David's return to Bethlehem (17, 15; compare 6. 175), his initial wordto Saul (17, 32; compare 6. 180), Saul's reaction thereto (17, 33; com-pare 6. 180), the king's prayer for David (17, 37b; compare 6. 184); theyouth's statement to Saul about the equipment that has been placed uponhim (17, 39; compare 6. 185); the wording of the David-Goliath ex-change (17, 42-47; compare 6. 186-187); the opponents' subsequent ap-proach to each other (17, 48; compare 6. 188-189a), and the Philistines'flight and Israel's pursuit (17, 51b-52; compare 6. 191-192a).

The historian also re-arranges the source's sequence, see, e.g., his an-ticipation of 17, 16 (Goliath's forty-day challenge) and 21 (the armies'

drawing up for battle) in 6. 174; David's citing the divine aid given himalready at the start of his speech to Saul in 6. 181b-183 rather than onlyat the end of it (so 17, 34-37a); mention of a sword as the second of theweapons donned by David (6. 184; compare 17, 38-39a where this ap-pears as the last item in the list of David's equipment); and reversal ofthe birds-beasts sequence of 17, 44 in 6. 186. A final such rewritingtechnique displayed byAnt. 6. 170-192 involves various sorts of modifi-cation/adaptation of source items. Under this head, the following in-stances might be recalled: Goliath is followed by many armor-carriers(6. 171) rather than preceded by a (single) shield-bearer (17, 7b);

Goliath's opening rhetorical questions (17, 8) are replaced by alternativelanguage (6. 172); David returns to Bethlehem at Saul's direction (6.175), instead of at his own volition (so, apparently, 17, 15); hearingGoliath's challenge David addresses himself to his brothers with an af-firmation about his readiness to take the giant on (so 6. 177) rather thanto the men of Israel with a question about the reward awaiting the onewho does this (so 17, 26); Eliab's rebuke of David is less harsh and thelatter's response thereto more respectful in 6. 178 than in 17, 28-29;David does not commence his exchange with Saul (so 17, 32), but waitsfor the king to speak first (6. 179); David's account of his killing of the

lion is dramatized (6. 182; compare 17, 35); the potentially offensivequalification of Goliath as this uncircumcised Philistine (17, 36)yields to the unexceptional designation this enemy (6. 183); Goliath'sreference to the stick(s) with which David comes against him (17, 43)is generalized (weapons, 6. 186), just as a substitution is made (i.e.breastplate, 6. 187) for David's own allusion to Goliath's javelin(17, 45b); the separate indications on the upcoming fate of Goliath andthe Philistines and the lessons all the earth and all this assemblywill learn therefrom (17, 48-49) are conflated into a single notice onwhat will be done to Goliath and the realization all men will draw


19/20


from this (6. 187); in 6. 192b Saul returns from the pursuit and burns

the Philistine palisade, as opposed to 17, 53 where the Israelites comeback and plunder (so MT) the enemies' camp; finally, 6. 192c hasDavid dedicating Goliath's sword and putting his head in his tent,whereas 17, 54 represents him retaining the Philistine's armor andtaking the head to Jerusalem.

The foregoing rewriting techniques generate a Josephan version of theDavid-Goliath story with a variety of distinctive features. The historian,first of all, streamlines the Biblical account to some extent, leaving asideminor details like the list of provisions Jesse directs David to take to thecamp (17, 17-18a). He likewise eliminates source elements which are

either repetitious of (e.g., the presentation of David's family, 17, 12-14,the duplicate geographical indication in v. 52) or do not seem to harmo-nize with the proximate or wider context (e.g., the MT sequence con-cerning David's identity, 17, 55-58). Source difficulties (e.g., theunclarity with regard to the movement of the two armies [17, 1-3] orGoliath's reason for despising David [17, 42] are resolved in oneway or another. The psychological dimensions of the episode are accen-tuated via, e.g., inserted references to David's indignation (6. 177),Goliath's anger (6. 186) and the Philistines' fear of complete disas-ter (6. 191). Both David's report of his subduing the lion (6. 182; com-

pare 17, 35) and the Philistines' flight (6. 191) take on a more dramaticcharacter in his presentation. With regard to the story's main characters,Josephus highlights the role and authority of King Saul, who, e.g.,leads out his army at the start (6. 170; compare 17, 2), participates inthe pursuit of the Philistines (6. 191b; compare 17, 52), and then returnsto burn the Philistine encampment himself (6. 192b; compare 17, 53).Israel's antagonist Goliath as portrayed by Josephus comes across ini-tially as more rational and concerned with persuasion (see 6. 172b-173;compare 17, 8-10), but than as even more hubristic (see 6. 188; compare17, 48a) as compared with his Biblical counterpart. The narrative's hero,

David, appears in a still more positive light in Josephus' rendition whichunderscores, e.g., his deference to his elders (i.e. Eliab [6. 178; compare17, 28-29] and Saul [6. 179; compare 17, 32; 6. 185; compare 17, 39]),piety and sense of dependence on God (see 6. 181; compare 17, 34-37a;6. 192c; compare 17, 54); lack of self-interest in offering to fightGoliath (see 6. 177; compare 17, 24-28.30); courage and strength inconfronting the lion (6. 182; compare 17, 35), and the good impressionmade by him on Saul (see 6. 181; compare 17, 33 and 6. 184; compare17, 37b). At the same time, Josephus, somewhat uncharacteristically,goes beyond the Bible in emphasizing the Deity's own involvement in


20/20

20 C. BEGG

David's triumph (see, e.g., the inserted reference to the unseen ally

who accompanies David as he advances against Goliath in 6.189)42.Already in its Biblical form, the David-Goliath story would certainly

have appeared congenial to Josephus, telling, as it does, of a spectacularJewish victory over a seemingly invincible foreign opponent43. The pre-ceding discussion has, however, I hope made clear that the historian ex-pended considerable care and attention on retelling the story in such away as to make it a still more suitable vehicle for his many and variedaims in composingAnt.

The Catholic University of America Christopher BEGG

Department of TheologyWashington, D.C. 20064U.S.A.

42 This accentuation of God's role in Josephus' version of1 Sam. 17 stands in contrastto the de-theologizing tendency observable elsewhere in Ant. On the point seeFELDMAN,David, pp. 161-164,172-174, who ascribes Josephus' uncharacteristic under-

scoring of the divine element in his David story to the historian's concern not to provokeRoman suspicions by unduly building up the figure of one who was known as the ances-tor of the Messiah, the Jews' hoped-for liberator from their current oppressors.

43 As such the story would, e.g., serve to instruct Gentile rulers by answering contem-porary claims about the Jews' lack of military distinction, on which see F ELDMAN,David,p. 141 and n. 30. At the same time, the Biblical story would also intimate a hope for hisJewish readers, i.e. God, their ally (6. 189) could do to their contemporary oppressors,the Romans, what he had done to mighty Goliath and the Philistines of old. On Josephus'double intended audience for his retelling of Biblical history in hisAnt. (Gentiles first, butalso fellow Jews), see L.H. FELDMAN, Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writ-ings of Josephus, in M.J. MULDERand H. SYLSING(eds.),Mikra: Text, Translation, Read-ing, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,Assen, 1988, pp. 455-518, esp. pp. 470-471.

begg david goliath

Documents