David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (22 page)

NEW TERRITORIAL CLAIMS

The biblical stories of David and Achish contain another element of direct concern in the days of King Josiah. Archaeological finds suggest gradual Judahite expansion westward to recover the lost lands of the Shephelah, and it is significant that the authority of Achish is marshaled in the biblical story to justify seventh-century Judahite territorial claims. One of the most characteristic literary devices of the Deuteronomistic History, betraying its seventh-century origins, is the phrase “to this day.” It is used on dozens of occasions, scattered through the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, to point out ancient landmarks or explain unusual situations that could still be observed in the time of the compilation of the text. A typical use of this phrase is the description of David’s lawful acquisition of territory from the hands of the Philistine king Achish:

Ziklag was located in the lower Shephelah, on the southwestern boundary of Judah, facing Philistia, in an area of major concern to the ruling circles of Judah in the late seventh century
BCE
. The biblical stories of David’s time at Ziklag contain some other striking seventh-century anachronisms. After returning from the Philistines’ war council, David finds that Ziklag has been plundered by the desert-dwelling Amalekites, whom he pursues, defeats, and from whom he claims abundant booty—which he subsequently distributes to his fellow Judahites (1 Samuel 30:26–31). Of the places that received the booty, a number were especially prominent in the time of Josiah, notably Bethel (which was apparently annexed by Judah after the withdrawal of Assyria), as well as Aro‘er and Ramath-negeb in the Beer-sheba Valley on the southern border of Judah, facing Edom. Excavations have shown that both Aro‘er and Ramath-negeb flourished only in late monarchic times. And significantly, another one of the places on the list, Jattir—identified with the site of Khirbet Yattir to the south of Hebron—was not even inhabited before the seventh century
BCE
.

All in all, the text reveals an elaboration and expansion of early traditions with a specific seventh-century purpose in mind: to validate Judah’s territorial expansion toward the territory of the Philistine cities. It is the period of Josiah, indeed, that provides a surprising context for the single most famous story of David’s early career.

WHO KILLED GOLIATH?

The mighty Philistine warrior Goliath of Gath is David’s most famous foe. The mention of that long-destroyed city as Goliath’s hometown reflects an early tradition, but at the same time, this timeless story also conceals a surprising chronological clue.

In the Bible, faith fuels the shepherd boy David’s encounter with the Philistine giant, who is described in frightening detail:

While Goliath rages and taunts his puny opponent,

This encounter bears all the marks of a distinctively Deuteronomistic story, including a faith-filled speech from the young David, declaring to the arrogant Goliath as he reaches the field of battle:

The problem is that hidden in an earlier collection of heroic folktales about David’s mighty men is another, quite different version of the death of Goliath, tucked away as an almost forgotten footnote:

Scholars have long speculated that either “David” was a throne name and he was originally called Elhanan, or another man named Elhanan was the real hero of the story, whose glory was stripped from him in the subsequent appropriation of the legend by the supporters of the Davidic dynasty.

Whether Elhanan or David did the killing in the original tale, the detailed description of Goliath’s armor reveals the famous biblical story to be a late-seventh-century
BCE
composition that expresses both the ideology of holy war and the particular enemies faced by Judah in Josiah’s time.

HOMERIC COMBAT AND GREEK MERCENARIES

Goliath’s armor, as described in the Bible, bears little resemblance to the military equipment of the early Philistines as archaeology has revealed it. Instead of wearing bronze helmets the
Peleset
shown on the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III in Upper Egypt wear distinctive feather-topped headdresses. Instead of being heavily armored and carrying a spear, javelin, and sword, they use a single spear and do not wear the metal leg armor known as greaves. Yet the biblical description of Goliath’s armor is not simply a fanciful creation; every single item has clear parallels to archaeologically attested Aegean weapons and armor from the Mycenaean period to classical times. In all periods within this general time frame, one can find metal helmets, metal armor, and metal greaves. Yet until the seventh century
BCE
, these items were relatively rare in the Greek world. It is only with the appearance of the heavily armed Greek hoplites of the seventh through fifth centuries
BCE
that standard equipment comes to resemble Goliath’s. In fact, the standard hoplite’s accouterments were identical to Goliath’s, consisting of a metal helmet, plate armor, metal greaves, two spears, a sword, and a large shield. And this suggests that the author of the biblical story of David and Goliath had an intimate knowledge of Greek hoplites of the late seventh century
BCE
.

What was the connection? Precisely at that time, Greek mercenaries from the coasts of Asia Minor came to play an increasingly important role in Near Eastern warfare. The Greek historian Herodotus reports that Carian and Ionian mercenaries served in the Egyptian army and were stationed in Egyptian border forts in the days of Psammetichus I, who took over the Philistine coast in the late seventh century
BCE
. This testimony is supported by Assyrian sources, which point to Lydia as the source of these troops, and by a wide range of archaeological evidence. Excavations in the Nile Delta revealed the unmistakable presence of seventh-century
BCE
Greek colonies through the evidence of imported Greek pottery and other artifacts. Greek and Carian inscriptions have been found at Abu Simbel; and a seventh-century
BCE
inscription found in the vicinity of Priene in western Asia Minor mentions Psammetichus I in a dedication left by a Greek soldier who served as a mercenary for him.
*
Although scattered units of Greek troops may have been used by the Babylonian kings in their massive armies of specialized fighting units, the Egyptian king Psammetichus I used them as a far more important striking and occupation force. With their heavy armor and aggressive tactics, the Greek hoplites embodied the image of a threatening, arrogant enemy that would have been all too well known to many Judahites of the late seventh century
BCE
.

There is another source of Greek influence in the story. The biblical account of Goliath and his armor has been compared to the Homeric description of Achilles (
Iliad
XVIII. 480, 608–12; XIX.153, 369–85). The
Iliad,
in its epic descriptions of warfare between Greeks and Trojans, provides several additional comparisons to the scenario of the David and Goliath story, especially in contests of champions from the opposing sides. The duel between Paris and Menelaus (
Iliad
III.21ff.) is told in the genre of a single combat that, like the biblical tale, decides the outcome of a war. The duel between Hector and Ajax (
Iliad
VII.206ff.) can be compared to the David and Goliath encounter in both general concept as well as the sequence of the events: a hero is challenged; his people react in horror; the hero accepts the challenge; the arms of the heroes are described; the combatants give speeches; and fight begins. Nestor of Pylos also fights a duel, and his opponent is described as a giant warrior.

Homeric influence on the biblical authors is highly unlikely before the very late eighth century, but it grows increasingly probable during the seventh century, when Greeks became part of the eastern Mediterranean scene. Interactions must have been fairly common. In places such as Ashkelon on the southern coast, and the small late seventh-century
BCE
fort of Mesad Hashavyahu north of Ashdod, Greek pottery testifies to the presence of traders, mercenaries, or immigrants. An ostracon written in Hebrew and found at the fort of Mesad Hashavyahu attests to the presence of Judahites at the site. In addition, a group called
kittim
is mentioned in ostraca, dated to c. 600
BCE
, that were found at the Judahite fort of Arad in the Beer-sheba Valley. If the word
kittim
is understood—as some scholars suggest—to mean Greeks or Cypriots (from the place-name Kition in Cyprus), the ostraca may refer to Greek mercenaries in Egyptian service, guarding the vital trade routes that led to the coast. This would make Arad in particular and the Beer-sheba Valley in general other places of potential contact between Judahites and Greek hoplite mercenaries.
*

There is no reason to deny the possibility that there was an ancient tale of a duel between a Judahite hero (David or Elhanan) and a Philistine warrior. But what message did the Deuteronomistic historian try to convey by dressing Goliath as a Greek hoplite and telling the story in a Homeric genre? In the late seventh century
BCE
two great revival dreams collided: Judah’s fantasy to “reestablish” the united monarchy of David and Solomon and Egypt’s vision of reviving its ancient empire in Asia. But Judah’s dream of recapturing the rich lands of the western Shephelah was threatened by the power of Egypt that now dominated large parts of the Philistine plain. The duel between David and Goliath—dressed as one of the Greek hoplite mercenaries who protected Egypt’s interests and might—symbolized the rising tensions between Josianic Judah and Egypt of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
†
To the Judahites of that era, with their awareness of the threatening Greek presence, the implications of the story were clear and simple: the new David, Josiah, would defeat the elite Greek troops of the Egyptian army in the same way that his famous ancestor overcame the mighty, seemingly invincible Goliath, by fighting “in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel” (1 Samuel 17:45).

THE CONQUEST OF BETHEL

There is a clue in the postscript to the Bible’s David and Solomon story that King Josiah was believed to be the descendant of David who would fully revive the glories of the united monarchy. It is reported that soon after the death of Solomon, at the time of the division of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the renegade northern king Jeroboam set up an altar at the ancient shrine of Bethel—thereby establishing a symbol of north Israelite independence and committing Israel’s original religious sin. We have suggested that the idea of the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple did not predate the reforms of Hezekiah and was certainly not codified before the compilation of the Deuteronomistic History in the late seventh century
BCE
. But what is important in the biblical account is not its lack of historical accuracy, but rather the retrospective prophecy that it makes. An unnamed Judahite prophet reacts to Jeroboam’s heretical declaration of independence from the Jerusalem Temple and the true religion of Israel by uttering the following oracle, in direct address to the idolatrous altar at Bethel: