Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?

Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?

1. David did (1 Samuel 17:50) - "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand."

2. Elhanan did (2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

Objection: While 2 Sam 21:19 says Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. The words "the brother of" do not appear in the Hebrew Text.

Answer: The mostly likely clarification lies in 1 Ch 20:5:

"Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." (1Ch 20:5)

The apparent contradiction between 1 Ch 20:5 and 2 Sam 21:19 is likely a transcription error. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

1. The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.

2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).

3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense.

Objection: If David found favor in Saul’s sight, how could Saul not know whom he had just sent out to fight with Goliath? Saul would have known who he was because David was already a favorite in the royal court.

And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. (1 Sam. 16:21-22.)

Whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is. (1 Sam. 17:55.)

Answer:

a. Saul does not ask who David is, but who David's father is.

b. He does, after all, promise that David's father's household will be exempt from paying taxes (see 17:25).

c. Jesse was an old man during the days of Saul, it is unlikely that they had any personal contact. (17:12)

d. Why would we assume that Saul remembers who David's father is?

e. Previous contact had been through messengers and servants.

Objection: After David killed Goliath, the text says that he brought the head to Jerusalem, but during Saul’s reign Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. It didn’t come into Israelite hands, according to the bible, until after David became king. This suggests that in the original story David was already king when Goliath died.

Answer: This is most likely a flash forward since a few verses later he is said to have taken the head to Saul:

And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his armor in his tent. (1Sa 17:54)

Then, as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. (1Sa 17:57)

Conclusion:For Elhanan to have killed Goliath it would have to discount the entire story of David and Goliath. When a single verse is weighed against an entire chapter the conclusion should be clear,  David killed Goliath. Incidentally David picked up five smooth stones from the brook, Goliath plus the four giants mentioned in first Chronicles make five. One stone for each giant.

Part of the confusion arises because many verses in 1 Samuel 17-19 appears contradictory and out of chronological order. The Masoretic Text (MT) appears to be juxtaposition of two separate accounts of the event. Both accounts cover the same event but with differing details. As a result, when the two versions were joined, the combined text displayed a certain amount of redundancy and inconsistency. Much of the inconsistencies can be resolved by reading the Septuagint (LXX) account which is over 1,000 years older than the MT and 44% smaller.