I agree with you on the implications of Goliath's falling onto his face in terms of what that implies to the reader and the connection to Dagon. Falling onto the face is also complete capitulation and defeat. In terms of the mechanics and physics involved, there is an alternative view which understands David to have targeted and hit Goliath in one of his greaves (shin armor) instead of the forehead. The evidence cited is negative (existing depictions of Philistine military headgear from Pritchard's ANEP, Egyptian tombs and other sources show helmets which cover the forehead and down to the bridge of the nose) and positive (an alternative pointing of the term rendered 'forehead' gives a term meaning 'shins' or 'greaves' which would account for some plural endings and confusion over what to call unknown foreign arms and armor). A stone hitting the top joint of a greave where the knee is and sinking in would end any mobility and would result in a top-heavy armored warrior without a leg to stand on plunging headlong to the ground. All the particulars are in a Vetus Testamentum note (V. 28 # 3, July 1978, pp. 349-351) but I think I have seen it pop up elsewhere too. Accordingly, Goliath dies when his head is chopped off by David (I always wondered why it said David killed him by cutting off his head if he had already been killed by the stone to the head).
I don't know if this is the way to go, repointing is not necessarily my cup of tea but it is better than subbing a new word entirely and apparently there is support from some ancient versions. The point of the story remains the same either way, and Goliath's position re: Yahweh and David has the same implication, so I guess it is an interesting option to consider.
Josh
Josh,
That could also put an end to all of the speculation about gigantism being a malady that also resulted in Goliath's forehead being weakened, thus allowing for the stone to actually sink in to his forehead.
Brian,
I had not previously heard that one - I like it!
Login to add comments