Goliath's Kidun

[Patrick Waterson]

Anyone know what the Egyptian term for mace was?

Good idea.  As far as I can determine, it was 'hedj' (see the second entry on this page).  This however only seems to cover a stone mace, so not sure what a bronze mace might be.

Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar (online) indicates the earliest maces are designated 'Mnw' and the rounded ones 'Hedj', but there seems to be no other permutation listed.

[Patrick Waterson]

You've convinced me Patrick! Especially in view of the origin of the term kidun as something to crush with, it must have been some sort of mace. Perhaps it had even evolved into a symbol of leadership, perhaps carried in some sort of quiver-like container at times.

Possibly even with its own loop or sling for easy carriage (some Egyptian mace hieroglyphs seem to have this feature).  It was a joint effort, though, Dave: you provided the key clue; I just worked on it.  A small step for man, an infinitesimal one for mankind, but worthwhile nonetheless.

[Gibor]

I received my Slingshot 306 the other day, and was surprised by this discussion, so this is my first post in the Forum.
Firstly, Goliath's armour was made from Copper, but the spearhead from iron.
Secondly, the Hebrew root of kidon is Kaf Dalet Nun, and Klein's Etymological dictionary gives this as "to tie, bind, yoke" (p.271)
For this reason the Artscroll TaNa"Kh (Stone Edition) pp.684-685 translates this in I Samuel 17:6 as "a copper neck-guard between his shoulders".
Hope this helps
Greg

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks for the thought, Greg.

I always thought that nchshth as late as Samuel indicated bronze rather than copper, but the 'neck-guard' interpretation seems hard to justify in view of the fact that in I Samuel 17:45 David is listing Goliath's weapons, and "You come against me with a sword, a spear and a neck-guard" is somehow missing something!

I Samuel 17:5-7 is less enlightening, but still useful:
"And he had a helmet of brass [nchshth = bronze] upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass [bronze].
And he had greaves of bronze upon his legs, and a kidun of bronze between his shoulders [bin kthphiu].
And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam [kmnur], and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron, and one bearing a shield went before him."

Note how Goliath is 'dressed down' in that the description starts with his helmet and moves downward to his greaves.  This details his armour, and then the account turns to his weaponry: the kidun, the spear and the shield (no mention of the sword here, but nobody is perfect).  Given the progress of the description, if the kidun were part of his armour, it would have to be under his feet!

And while the root of kdn may indeed be to bind, the relevant association seems to be with "Strong's 3591, kiydown from the root 3589 kiyd to strike or to crush." 

Job 41:29 is also significant:

    k.qsh nchshbu thuthch u.ishchq l.rosh kidun

    as straw [they] reckon a bludgeon and ridicule the smiting of a kidun

because in Hebrew poetry the second expression is a reflection of the first, which can be an important clue-provider.  Here, again, "the smiting of a neck-guard" just does not wash: it has to be some sort of blow with some sort of blunt weapon.

[Gibor]

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for making most interesting points.

Note though that KYD, and KDN (consonants, the Y is not a vowel) are two different word roots.

KYD+vN = a spear (dimunitive), often translated as 'javelin', but see below.
KDN = a neck-guard

Undoubtedly in Joshua 8:18 God does not tell Joshua to stretch out his hand holding a neck-guard, but a spear, though Strong thinks its a 'javelin'. Why does Strong think so? Perhaps because the suffix Vav+final Nun denotes masculine diminutive, i.e. a small spear, which would be a javelin-like weapon? The word javelin is of course of Celtic origin, and probabaly means a light throwing spear, and not an akontia. But please correct me if I'm wrong because I have rudementary knowledge of Celtic weapons and am not aware if they also used a thong.

That Goliath's armour was Bronze is an assumption and an unwarranted one given that the entire kit was captured after his death, which is probably why such a good description of it is available.
Given the volume of metal described, the added benefit of having it made from Bronze is unwarranted as pure Copper would have sufficed for offering protection.

KDN as a neck-guard seems to me entirely plausible as a significant element of armour from David's perspective (the narrator) given the final manner of victory, decapitation, in fact saying that even the availability of a neck-guard, likely not a common item of equipment, failed to prevent Goliath's demise.

The observation that Goliath was 'dressed down' is an interesting one, but I would suggest that the neck guard is listed last because, by the virtue of being at the back, it was the last item of his equipment noted; Goliath had a rest, and stood up in the final moments before being slain (17:48), and it may be only at this stage the neck-guard was noted because David was much closer, having run forward.

Of course the Greek implement was thrown assisted by a thong, and this is not mentioned in use by Israelites, so I would suggest that they did use 'light' spears rather than what would much later become the akontia (1.5m). I note that Herodotus also uses the diminutive term to describe akontia. If it was to be thrown, it had to be fairly light, and the spears in the Torah may well refer to short, but 'heavy' spears, the diminutive reference to their length rather than weight; there is a considerable separation in space and culture, never mind application for both weapons.

My other observation would be that Goliath was unlikely to be the sort to use a javelin (in the akontia sense) given his role in the Philistine army, the imposing physical build and impairment suggested by Malcolm Gladwell, never mind that retrieving even an akontia-like weapon from the back would have been almost impossible given all that armour! However, I do note that David may in fact have been armed with javelins (in the akontia sense) also, because Goliath observed his coming at himself armed with "sticks" (17:43), and this would be reasonable given David is described as a youth. This may also suggest the origin of the Greek use of the thong since the sling can equally be used for slinging stones and throwing very light wooden weapons not intended to be thrust at all (unless in desperation!). I may be so bold as to suggest that Israelite slingers were dually-armed with thrown weapons, though they may also have been armed with the bow since it was David who is askribed to teaching Israelites in the use of this weapon! However, it is possible that Israelites were quite contemptuous of very light throwing 'spears' as effective weapons, so much so, that they didn't even have a word for it as a weapon. Perhaps this is the origin of such contempt in the latter Greek texts.

The last problem that remains is to reconsile the listing of a javelin in 17:45, and its apparent omission in the earlier 17:5-7 listing. I note however that equipment in the earlier listing is valued in shekels. I would suggest that perhaps Goliath did carry a thrown weapon (in the akontia sense), but perhaps it did not have a metal point, and presented no metal value, therefore being omitted from the early valued list. Or, at a distance, if held in the same hand as the much larger thrusting spear, it may not have been initially noticed. Or, a less plausible explanation is that in 17:45 it refers to the spear as being as THICK as a loom beam, but also as SHORT as a standard loom's beam of about 1.6m required for weaving a garment of an average man's height of the time. This would make it a short AND heavy spear, or a diminutive spear, but of extraordinary construction, perhaps double the thickness of the standard Israelite short spear.

Yes, Job 41:21 describes a thrown spear via the verb "swish", though probably not a 'javelin' in the akontia sense.

[Patrick Waterson]

Note though that KYD, and KDN (consonants, the Y is not a vowel) are two different word roots.

Yes, and the one Dave and I considered relevant is the 'strike' or 'crush' root.  It seems to fit seamlessly with other considerations.

We did go through the kidun-spear/javelin association (it has this meaning in modern Hebrew, also being used for 'bayonet', as you doubtless know) but it just did not fit.  And anything which does not fit, especially after the best efforts to make it do so, gets dropped and alternatives sought.

That Goliath's armour was Bronze is an assumption and an unwarranted one given that the entire kit was captured after his death, which is probably why such a good description of it is available.
Given the volume of metal described, the added benefit of having it made from Bronze is unwarranted as pure Copper would have sufficed for offering protection.

Hang on a moment, Greg: we are in the Bronze Age when all this is happening, and the Philistines were not backward metallurgists.  Hebrew nchshth is usually rendered as 'bronze' (even as 'brass' in earlier translations), because although the basic meaning is copper, it seems to be used to cover copper with permitted additives, flavouring and colouring because when all is said and done typical bronze is 88% copper.

KDN as a neck-guard seems to me entirely plausible as a significant element of armour from David's perspective (the narrator) given the final manner of victory, decapitation, in fact saying that even the availability of a neck-guard, likely not a common item of equipment, failed to prevent Goliath's demise.

Except that it is not KDN but KID(kaf iod daleth)-vN, at least in 1 Samuel 17:6. [Edit: got my alphabets mixed so straightened them out, sorry.]

The observation that Goliath was 'dressed down' is an interesting one, but I would suggest that the neck guard is listed last because, by the virtue of being at the back, it was the last item of his equipment noted; Goliath had a rest, and stood up in the final moments before being slain (17:48), and it may be only at this stage the neck-guard was noted because David was much closer, having run forward.

But if the account is based on Goliath's captured equipment, the sequence in which it became apparent to David would not be a consideration, surely?

Of course the Greek implement was thrown assisted by a thong, and this is not mentioned in use by Israelites, so I would suggest that they did use 'light' spears rather than what would much later become the akontia (1.5m). I note that Herodotus also uses the diminutive term to describe akontia. If it was to be thrown, it had to be fairly light, and the spears in the Torah may well refer to short, but 'heavy' spears, the diminutive reference to their length rather than weight; there is a considerable separation in space and culture, never mind application for both weapons.

Goliath's chnith/chayinth seems to be the only spear he carried.  I suspect this javelin digression is not relevant, as you surmise below.

My other observation would be that Goliath was unlikely to be the sort to use a javelin (in the akontia sense) given his role in the Philistine army, the imposing physical build and impairment suggested by Malcolm Gladwell, never mind that retrieving even an akontia-like weapon from the back would have been almost impossible given all that armour!

Not to mention that had he been intending to use it in a duel, he would have it in hand or would collect it from his shield-bearer.

However, I do note that David may in fact have been armed with javelins (in the akontia sense) also, because Goliath observed his coming at himself armed with "sticks" (17:43), and this would be reasonable given David is described as a youth.

May I stop you there?  The 'sticks' (mqluth) of I Sam 17:43 appears to be the 'staff' (mql) in David's hand in I Sam 17:40.

"And he took his staff (mql) in his hand ..."

We need no further explanation than this.

Goliath's use of the plural does raise an interesting question: was he being literary, using bad Hebrew, or did he have double vision?  (If the latter, one might expect him to comment on there being two Davids!)

This may also suggest the origin of the Greek use of the thong since the sling can equally be used for slinging stones and throwing very light wooden weapons not intended to be thrust at all (unless in desperation!). I may be so bold as to suggest that Israelite slingers were dually-armed with thrown weapons, though they may also have been armed with the bow since it was David who is askribed to teaching Israelites in the use of this weapon! However, it is possible that Israelites were quite contemptuous of very light throwing 'spears' as effective weapons, so much so, that they didn't even have a word for it as a weapon. Perhaps this is the origin of such contempt in the latter Greek texts.

The Bible suggests they specialised in one weapon, e.g. the left-handed Benjaminite slingers of Judges 20:17 and the frequent notations that so many 'bore the bow' and so many 'bore the sword'.  We might conjecture the addition of javelins or sidearms to the stated weapon, but we may also note than when being armed in I Sam 17:38-39 David gets a helmet, coat of mail (no neckguard) and sword - nothing else, not even a shield, although it is perhaps fair to assume that one would have been added had David not interjected at that point to say he could not fight in what he was wearing.

The last problem that remains is to reconsile the listing of a javelin in 17:45, and its apparent omission in the earlier 17:5-7 listing. I note however that equipment in the earlier listing is valued in shekels. I would suggest that perhaps Goliath did carry a thrown weapon (in the akontia sense), but perhaps it did not have a metal point, and presented no metal value, therefore being omitted from the early valued list. Or, at a distance, if held in the same hand as the much larger thrusting spear, it may not have been initially noticed. Or, a less plausible explanation is that in 17:45 it refers to the spear as being as THICK as a loom beam, but also as SHORT as a standard loom's beam of about 1.6m required for weaving a garment of an average man's height of the time. This would make it a short AND heavy spear, or a diminutive spear, but of extraordinary construction, perhaps double the thickness of the standard Israelite short spear.

I would not worry too much about this, given that kidun does not mean 'javelin'.  Goliath's spear has also been interpreted as being shaped like a weaver's shuttle(!) - I think one can get too tied down by finer points of etymology that mean more to us than to the actual users.

Incidentally, it looks as if the shekel numbers represent the weight, not the value of the equipment.  Anyone can up the value of what they are wearing by adding a bit of gold here and there, but a weight of 5,000 shekels would be the sort of thing to impress audiences with the size and power of the giant - about 125 pounds of metal for the armour alone!

I should point out that 'shql' (shekel) itself originally meant 'weight', and that there were and still are a number of 'shql' values floating around.  The 11.42 gram value (used above) is the Oxford Biblical Studies version.

Yes, Job 41:21 describes a thrown spear via the verb "swish", though probably not a 'javelin' in the akontia sense.

It may be worth noting at this point that the verses of the book of Job can be numbered in two ways: Job 41:21 (41.13) deals with a fire-breathing entity ('behemoth', to be precise), while Job 41:29 (41.21) reads:

k.qsh nchshbu thuthch u.ischuq l.rosh kidun

"As straw they are reckoned bludgeon and he is ridiculing the smiting of the kidun".  As previously pointed out, Hebrew poetry convention dictates that the second part of a verse is essentially a restatement of the first, differently flavoured.  This in itself excludes any form of javelinry from consideration here.

[Gibor]

Hi Patrick,

I hope I will not have stuffed up the quoting, but here goes, and I thank you for your patience in advance.

Note though that KYD, and KDN (consonants, the Y is not a vowel) are two different word roots.

Yes, and the one Dave and I considered relevant is the 'strike' or 'crush' root.  It seems to fit seamlessly with other considerations.

We did go through the kidun-spear/javelin association (it has this meaning in modern Hebrew, also being used for 'bayonet', as you doubtless know) but it just did not fit.  And anything which does not fit, especially after the best efforts to make it do so, gets dropped and alternatives sought.

It seems to me this is not a good approach because you are basing your expected meaning of the word on the assumption of what you think the object ought to be. The Torah is however very precise, and always uses the right word. There is no need to guess what the "strike or crush" behind the back 'thing' may be.

However, I now better understand the confusion.
The root of kidun in 1 Samuel 17:6 is Kaf Dalet Nun (final). The Yud and Vav are consonantal vowels inserted to indicate pronunciation before the introduction of the pointed vowels to help in learning correct pronunciation. KDN can only mean "to bind" or "to yoke". The New Hebrew meaning of a 'bayonet' refers to the socket bayonet, which in fact 'binds' onto the barrel.

That Goliath's armour was Bronze is an assumption and an unwarranted one given that the entire kit was captured after his death, which is probably why such a good description of it is available.
Given the volume of metal described, the added benefit of having it made from Bronze is unwarranted as pure Copper would have sufficed for offering protection.

Hang on a moment, Greg: we are in the Bronze Age when all this is happening, and the Philistines were not backward metallurgists.  Hebrew nchshth is usually rendered as 'bronze' (even as 'brass' in earlier translations), because although the basic meaning is copper, it seems to be used to cover copper with permitted additives, flavouring and colouring because when all is said and done typical bronze is 88% copper.

We are not in the 'Bronze Age'. This 'age' was invented in the 19th century by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (29 December 1788 – 21 May 1865) was a Danish antiquarian who developed early archaeological techniques and methods.(Wikipedia), but the word Bronze itself is traced to 1721, "alloy of copper and tin," from French bronze, from Italian bronzo, from Medieval Latin bronzium. It is therefore dated much later than events in the Torah. IMHO bronze is not mentioned anywhere in the TaNaKh, though I think "copper and tin" are. You are correct of course that the Philistines had an upper hand in the matter of metallurgy. So yes, to be technically (in engineering terms) correct, we are in the Copper Alloy Age in this discussion

KDN as a neck-guard seems to me entirely plausible as a significant element of armour from David's perspective (the narrator) given the final manner of victory, decapitation, in fact saying that even the availability of a neck-guard, likely not a common item of equipment, failed to prevent Goliath's demise.

Except that it is not KDN but KID(kappa iota daleth)-N, at least in 1 Samuel 17:6.

See above re consonantal vowels. kappa and iota are from the Greek alphabeta not the Hebrew AlephBet.

The observation that Goliath was 'dressed down' is an interesting one, but I would suggest that the neck guard is listed last because, by the virtue of being at the back, it was the last item of his equipment noted; Goliath had a rest, and stood up in the final moments before being slain (17:48), and it may be only at this stage the neck-guard was noted because David was much closer, having run forward.

But if the account is based on Goliath's captured equipment, the sequence in which it became apparent to David would not be a consideration, surely?

It is well known that events in the TaNaKh are not always sequential.
In this case the logic is simple, for how could a value of the items be given without it being weighted first.

Of course the Greek implement was thrown assisted by a thong, and this is not mentioned in use by Israelites, so I would suggest that they did use 'light' spears rather than what would much later become the akontia (1.5m). I note that Herodotus also uses the diminutive term to describe akontia. If it was to be thrown, it had to be fairly light, and the spears in the Torah may well refer to short, but 'heavy' spears, the diminutive reference to their length rather than weight; there is a considerable separation in space and culture, never mind application for both weapons.

Goliath's chnith/chayinth seems to be the only spear he carried.  I suspect this javelin digression is not relevant, as you surmise below.

spear = hanit.
a very light throwing spear not suitable for thrusting may not have been considered worthy of the name.

My other observation would be that Goliath was unlikely to be the sort to use a javelin (in the akontia sense) given his role in the Philistine army, the imposing physical build and impairment suggested by Malcolm Gladwell, never mind that retrieving even an akontia-like weapon from the back would have been almost impossible given all that armour!

Not to mention that had he been intending to use it in a duel, he would have it in hand or would collect it from his shield-bearer.

Curiously the shield supposedly carried by the shield-bearer is not given a value! Perhaps that individual chose to depart without dropping it, thus it was never captured.

However, I do note that David may in fact have been armed with javelins (in the akontia sense) also, because Goliath observed his coming at himself armed with "sticks" (17:43), and this would be reasonable given David is described as a youth.

May I stop you there?  The 'sticks' (mqluth) of I Sam 17:43 appears to be the 'staff' (mql) in David's hand in I Sam 17:40.

"And he took his staff (mql) in his hand ..."

We need no further explanation than this.

Goliath's use of the plural does raise an interesting question: was he being literary, using bad Hebrew, or did he have double vision?  (If the latter, one might expect him to comment on there being two Davids!)

Well, Gladwell seems to assert that Goliath's condition included double vision, but he didn't see two Davids as you say. David also would have had a shepherd's staff, and I remember someone telling me that it is useful to have something like that for balance and aim when using a sling, though I don't know the truth of it. For now I'm not sure of the interpretation behind the "sticks".

This may also suggest the origin of the Greek use of the thong since the sling can equally be used for slinging stones and throwing very light wooden weapons not intended to be thrust at all (unless in desperation!). I may be so bold as to suggest that Israelite slingers were dually-armed with thrown weapons, though they may also have been armed with the bow since it was David who is ascribed to teaching Israelites in the use of this weapon! However, it is possible that Israelites were quite contemptuous of very light throwing 'spears' as effective weapons, so much so, that they didn't even have a word for it as a weapon. Perhaps this is the origin of such contempt in the latter Greek texts.

The Bible suggests they specialised in one weapon, e.g. the left-handed Benjaminite slingers of Judges 20:17 and the frequent notations that so many 'bore the bow' and so many 'bore the sword'.  We might conjecture the addition of javelins or sidearms to the stated weapon, but we may also note than when being armed in I Sam 17:38-39 David gets a helmet, coat of mail (no neckguard) and sword - nothing else, not even a shield, although it is perhaps fair to assume that one would have been added had David not interjected at that point to say he could not fight in what he was wearing.

One should not assume that what is true for one tribe, was also true for another. Moreover, David was a youth, joining the army for the first time, and not even in a combat role, but as a delivery boy! I think it would be an assumption to think he was armed like a mature warrior. I do not discount that he may have carried a simple very light throwing spear without so much as a metal point, if only because it would distinguish him from other underage boys who didn't. I'm not suggesting that Israelites regularly used slings and light throwing weapons, though I wouldn't discount it either. Clearly any javelin-like weapon was not going to be effective against Goliath.

The last problem that remains is to reconcile the listing of a javelin in 17:45, and its apparent omission in the earlier 17:5-7 listing. I note however that equipment in the earlier listing is valued in shekels. I would suggest that perhaps Goliath did carry a thrown weapon (in the akontia sense), but perhaps it did not have a metal point, and presented no metal value, therefore being omitted from the early valued list. Or, at a distance, if held in the same hand as the much larger thrusting spear, it may not have been initially noticed. Or, a less plausible explanation is that in 17:45 it refers to the spear as being as THICK as a loom beam, but also as SHORT as a standard loom's beam of about 1.6m required for weaving a garment of an average man's height of the time. This would make it a short AND heavy spear, or a diminutive spear, but of extraordinary construction, perhaps double the thickness of the standard Israelite short spear.

I would not worry too much about this, given that kidun does not mean 'javelin'.  Goliath's spear has also been interpreted as being shaped like a weaver's shuttle (!) - I think one can get too tied down by finer points of etymology that mean more to us than to the actual users.

Incidentally, it looks as if the shekel numbers represent the weight, not the value of the equipment.  Anyone can up the value of what they are wearing by adding a bit of gold here and there, but a weight of 5,000 shekels would be the sort of thing to impress audiences with the size and power of the giant - about 125 pounds of metal for the armour alone!

I should point out that 'shql' (shekel) itself originally meant 'weight', and that there were and still are a number of 'shql' values floating around.  The 11.42 gram value (used above) is the Oxford Biblical Studies version.

Yes, I realise this. The text gives both copper and iron shekels, but of course shekels were in use in all six metals.

Yes, Job 41:21 describes a thrown spear via the verb "swish", though probably not a 'javelin' in the akontia sense.

It may be worth noting at this point that the verses of the book of Job can be numbered in two ways: Job 41:21 (41.13) deals with a fire-breathing entity ('behemoth', to be precise), while Job 41:29 (41.21) reads:

k.qsh nchshbu thuthch u.ischuq l.rosh kidun

"As straw they are reckoned bludgeon and he is ridiculing the smiting of the kidun".  As previously pointed out, Hebrew poetry convention dictates that the second part of a verse is essentially a restatement of the first, differently flavoured.  This in itself excludes any form of javelinry from consideration here.

I refer to the Artscroll edition which is the rabbinic version.
"A catapult is considered like straw, he laughs at the swish of a javelin". Quite a difference if wargaming is considered, wouldn't you say?
Here the second part of the sentence is a diminishing restatement of the former, likening catapult's ammunition to a javelin-like weapon.
In case you are wondering, the Dalet here has a different sound, and this gives a clue to the Vav+Nun (final) being the diminutive suffix (not part of the root) that renders it a javelin-like 'diminutive spear' weapon.
Actually the more correct word would be 'crumbler', not catapult, because in Hebrew the emphasis is on the effect rather than the mechanics. Here the first tav is a prefix, and the root is Tav Het, though in the word 'to crumble' a second Het is added for emphasis.  One of the meanings of the letter Het itself is "to miss the mark", so its removal here suggests a crushing without missing :-) May all my catapults always perform in this way in all my games :-)

[Patrick Waterson]

Hello Greg,

I really respect your grounding in Hebrew scholarship (and might wish to pick your brains in future), though it may be creating problems for itself here.

We did go through the kidun-spear/javelin association (it has this meaning in modern Hebrew, also being used for 'bayonet', as you doubtless know) but it just did not fit.  And anything which does not fit, especially after the best efforts to make it do so, gets dropped and alternatives sought.

It seems to me this is not a good approach because you are basing your expected meaning of the word on the assumption of what you think the object ought to be. The Torah is however very precise, and always uses the right word. There is no need to guess what the "strike or crush" behind the back 'thing' may be.

Actually it did not happen that way at all: the meaning was quite unexpected (take a look through the thread to see what I expected, which turned out to be a complete blind alley).

And are we not already well out of the Torah proper by the time we get to Samuel?

However, I now better understand the confusion.
The root of kidun in 1 Samuel 17:6 is Kaf Dalet Nun (final). The Yud and Vav are consonantal vowels inserted to indicate pronunciation before the introduction of the pointed vowels to help in learning correct pronunciation. KDN can only mean "to bind" or "to yoke". The New Hebrew meaning of a 'bayonet' refers to the socket bayonet, which in fact 'binds' onto the barrel.

In which case Houston, we have a problem: Joshua is waving his bindings in Joshua 8:18.

Well, Gladwell seems to assert that Goliath's condition included double vision, but he didn't see two Davids as you say. David also would have had a shepherd's staff, and I remember someone telling me that it is useful to have something like that for balance and aim when using a sling, though I don't know the truth of it. For now I'm not sure of the interpretation behind the "sticks".

An interesting comment, although the vast majority of slingers seem to have done quite well without.

One should not assume that what is true for one tribe, was also true for another.

Although the single-weapon emphasis seems common to all in II Samuel 23:9:

"... and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword, and the men of Judah five hundred thousand ...."

I am not sure how literally we should take this, but tribes are clearly not differentiated here, perhaps because the kingdom is already centralised.

Moreover, David was a youth, joining the army for the first time, and not even in a combat role, but as a delivery boy! I think it would be an assumption to think he was armed like a mature warrior. I do not discount that he may have carried a simple very light throwing spear without so much as a metal point, if only because it would distinguish him from other underage boys who didn't. I'm not suggesting that Israelites regularly used slings and light throwing weapons, though I wouldn't discount it either. Clearly any javelin-like weapon was not going to be effective against Goliath.

Again, if Goliath had a vision problem he might not be able to distinguish a light throwing spear.  For a shepherd boy delivering lunch to his brothers, a staff for travelling and a sling with a few pebbles to make carnivores think twice makes sense.  We may also note that David took the trouble to select some specialised ammunition (large smooth stones) before going to encounter Goliath: it would seem unlikely that he had brought a sling without ammunition, so since accepting the challenge he had evidently been thinking about what he would need to do, and how.

"As straw they are reckoned bludgeon and he is ridiculing the smiting of the kidun".  As previously pointed out, Hebrew poetry convention dictates that the second part of a verse is essentially a restatement of the first, differently flavoured.  This in itself excludes any form of javelinry from consideration here.

I refer to the Artscroll edition which is the rabbinic version.
"A catapult is considered like straw, he laughs at the swish of a javelin". Quite a difference if wargaming is considered, wouldn't you say?

I think we need to be a bit careful with rabbinic versions, especially if they bring in a 'catapult', which would seem a slightly anachronistic weapons system for Job or indeed anyone else in the Old Testament.

How would you evaluate Strong's 3591, kiydown from the root 3589 kiyd to strike or to crush?

Actually the more correct word would be 'crumbler', not catapult, because in Hebrew the emphasis is on the effect rather than the mechanics. Here the first tav is a prefix, and the root is Tav Het, though in the word 'to crumble' a second Het is added for emphasis.  One of the meanings of the letter Het itself is "to miss the mark", so its removal here suggests a crushing without missing :-) May all my catapults always perform in this way in all my games :-)

That would be a happier rendering, though we still have Joshua left holding his bindings instead of his mace.

[Gibor]

Hello Patrick,

I'll mostly dispense with quoting if you don't mind.

And are we not already well out of the Torah proper by the time we get to Samuel? - No, not really. Although Christians, Muslims and academics think the Torah comprises the so called 'five books of Moses', within the Jewish culture the entire set of written and orally transmitted texts to about 500 current era are considered Torah because all have cultural/legal impacts on practice. Even the 'books of Moses' are not so known because they were completed by Joshua.

In which case Houston, we have a problem: Joshua is waving his bindings in Joshua 8:18. - No, because in Joshua the word root is different. I can have a look for where else the word for 'binding/yoke' are used, if you need me to do so.

An interesting comment, although the vast majority of slingers seem to have done quite well without. - I was speaking of someone who is a modern reenactor. Sometimes practical experience is more valid than ancient artistic representation where much of the evidence comes from, though I wouldn't of course insist on one man's word being a definitive statement on the issue.

"... and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword, and the men of Judah five hundred thousand ...." - yes, so 300,000 were either not armed with a sword, or not considered proficient to worth the name, i.e. new recruits. The latter seems a better explanation since any military force is likely to be composed of new recruits, seasoned warriors (400,000?), and those awaiting retirement (100,000) to become veterans.

I am not sure how literally we should take this, but tribes are clearly not differentiated here, perhaps because the kingdom is already centralised. - not here, but elsewhere. Each tribe had a unique trait in contributing to the whole, in part described by their earlier 'blessings'. Naftali were known for their runners, and Zebulun for sailing, etc.

Again, if Goliath had a vision problem he might not be able to distinguish a light throwing spear.  For a shepherd boy delivering lunch to his brothers, a staff for travelling and a sling with a few pebbles to make carnivores think twice makes sense.  We may also note that David took the trouble to select some specialised ammunition (large smooth stones) before going to encounter Goliath: it would seem unlikely that he had brought a sling without ammunition, so since accepting the challenge he had evidently been thinking about what he would need to do, and how.

David was not "delivering lunch", but bringing provisions; each family catered to their own, but I understand this was shared within the clan and tribe. David had no instructions from his father to return, so he was to remain with the army. Since he was underage, this in itself is interesting. I think David came without sling ammunition given the load he was already handling (at 13 yo), so had to pick it up there and then. That he was selective in his choice of stones I think is supposed to say something about his focused mindset, which I think you recognise at the end of your sentence :-)

I think we need to be a bit careful with rabbinic versions, especially if they bring in a 'catapult', which would seem a slightly anachronistic weapons system for Job or indeed anyone else in the Old Testament. - Well, the Torah is a rabbinic and culturally Jewish text :-)
I appreciate that the most common answer to 'who invented the catapult' is Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse, but as I recall from reading on the history of artillery, he was a tyrant, and gathered various clever people to help identify new methods of warfare, which is not to say that one of these 'consultants' didn't come from the kingdom of Judea which had at this time gained a significant degree of autonomy form the Persians. Of course technology is often borrowed by the peripheral regions from the core region, and West Asia (eastern Mediterranean) was the core region (aka Mesopotamia) for much of the period described by Hebrew texts, including the 4th-3rd centuries before common era when Syracuse had certain Carthaginian troubles.

How would you evaluate Strong's 3591, kiydown from the root 3589 kiyd to strike or to crush? - Strong's doesn't offer Hebrew root because it is referenced to either the KJV or the Greek Septuagint. What you get in English is a transliteration, from the transliterated version of the KJV (it seems, correct?). So its kind of a reverse-engineered Hebrew Bible :-)
I might note that the Septuagint (Greek) was a rabbinic translation; only a literal translation from Hebrew to Greek (or any language) is possible, but Hebrew is not a culturally-literal language :-) Moreover, within the culture there are 'levels' of interpretation, with some parts not at all subject to literal interpretation (according to the Talmud), although the Catholic Church doctrine has been to interpret everything literally. It does use the Vulgate, which Jerome produced in Bethlehem with rabbis available for advice before Christian-Jewish relations really soured, and before the Islamic expansion. Much of the Torah within the culture is interpreted in a literary fashion and it seems to me the same approach is evident by some of the Slingshot contributors in interpreting other cultural texts. This requires a greater appreciation of the textual and cultural context during interpretation, but as the saying goes, 'context is everything'.

cheers

[Patrick Waterson]

Although Christians, Muslims and academics think the Torah comprises the so called 'five books of Moses', within the Jewish culture the entire set of written and orally transmitted texts to about 500 current era are considered Torah because all have cultural/legal impacts on practice. Even the 'books of Moses' are not so known because they were completed by Joshua.

OK, so we are talking about a whole tradition Torah not a Pentateuch Torah.

I can have a look for where else the word for 'binding/yoke' are used, if you need me to do so.

What might be more enlightening would be if you could look up anyone in the Torah who uses a mace.

"... and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword, and the men of Judah five hundred thousand ...." - yes, so 300,000 were either not armed with a sword, or not considered proficient to worth the name, i.e. new recruits. The latter seems a better explanation since any military force is likely to be composed of new recruits, seasoned warriors (400,000?), and those awaiting retirement (100,000) to become veterans.

Actually, it looks to me as if the writer is saying: the ten tribes field 800,000 sword-armed warriors while the two-and-a-half tribes field their own 500,000 of similar ilk.  Total 1,300,000 if you can get them together in one place and supply them - quite likely a necessary step if someone like Shishak turns up with 1,200 chariots, 60,000 cavalry and countless infantry.  Quality is another matter: when David musters the chosen men (bchur) of the kingdom in II Samuel 5:1, he has only 30,000.

I am not sure how literally we should take this, but tribes are clearly not differentiated here, perhaps because the kingdom is already centralised. - not here, but elsewhere. Each tribe had a unique trait in contributing to the whole, in part described by their earlier 'blessings'. Naftali were known for their runners, and Zebulun for sailing, etc.

Indeed, although this was before the kingdom came into existence under Saul, and the point of having a kingdom was centralisation - see I Sam 8:11 et seq.  The consistency with which the sword is referred to as the national armament of the kingdom under Saul is remarkable, e.g. in I Sam 25:13 David says to his followers: "Gird ye on every man his sword" (chgru aish ath-chrb.u).  In I Sam 13:19 the Philistines forbid smiths throughout Israel "lest the Hebrews make swords or spears" (phn ioshu i.Obrim chrb au chnith), so the Hebrews go to war with only Saul and Jonathan possessing these weapons.  In I Sam 15:8 Saul, now with a better-equipped army, destroys the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword" (l.phi chrb).  All this, plus the sword provided for David to fight Goliath, suggests to me that Saul standardised Hebrew weaponry.  (This arrangement worked well for Saul in I Samuel and for Cyrus in the Cyropaedia, but after Mount Gilboa David spotted the glaring deficiency and subsequently reintroduced archery in a major way, II Sam 1:18.)

I think David came without sling ammunition given the load he was already handling (at 13 yo), so had to pick it up there and then. That he was selective in his choice of stones I think is supposed to say something about his focused mindset, which I think you recognise at the end of your sentence :-)

Hmmm ... if you were travelling alone through possible wolf or lion country, would take a sling without ammo?  Anyway, the important point is that he thought carefully and accurately about the kind of ammunition he would need to take down an armoured man of significantly-greater-than-average size.  Of interest is that he was subsequently able not only to wield Goliath's sword for decapitation but also bring it and the head with him.  I think the lad was stronger than he looked.

I appreciate that the most common answer to 'who invented the catapult' is Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse, but as I recall from reading on the history of artillery, he was a tyrant, and gathered various clever people to help identify new methods of warfare, which is not to say that one of these 'consultants' didn't come from the kingdom of Judea which had at this time gained a significant degree of autonomy form the Persians.

The earliest Biblical reference to anything of this nature is Uzziah's chshbnuth mchshbth chushb of II Chronicles 26:15, which shoot "arrows and great stones," so yes, it is possible for Dionysius to have derived something from this source, but I still have my doubts that Job could have done so.

I might note that the Septuagint (Greek) was a rabbinic translation; only a literal translation from Hebrew to Greek (or any language) is possible, but Hebrew is not a culturally-literal language :-) Moreover, within the culture there are 'levels' of interpretation, with some parts not at all subject to literal interpretation (according to the Talmud), although the Catholic Church doctrine has been to interpret everything literally. It does use the Vulgate, which Jerome produced in Bethlehem with rabbis available for advice before Christian-Jewish relations really soured, and before the Islamic expansion. Much of the Torah within the culture is interpreted in a literary fashion and it seems to me the same approach is evident by some of the Slingshot contributors in interpreting other cultural texts. This requires a greater appreciation of the textual and cultural context during interpretation, but as the saying goes, 'context is everything'.

And, to tell the truth, context is what led me to conclude that Goliath was carrying a mace between his shoulders ...

[Gibor]

Although Christians, Muslims and academics think the Torah comprises the so called 'five books of Moses', within the Jewish culture the entire set of written and orally transmitted texts to about 500 current era are considered Torah because all have cultural/legal impacts on practice. Even the 'books of Moses' are not so known because they were completed by Joshua.

OK, so we are talking about a whole tradition Torah not a Pentateuch Torah.

'Pentateuch' is a Greek invention. In the scrolls written by Moses there is a clear statement that oral transmission was included as part of the Torah, and within all the other scrolls there are references to the scrolls of Moses which cannot be understood without the orally transmitted data. This has significant implications for interpreting later text contexts in a single continuum. Traditions are of course discontinuous.

I can have a look for where else the word for 'binding/yoke' are used, if you need me to do so.

What might be more enlightening would be if you could look up anyone in the Torah who uses a mace.

Almost everyone since the sharvit can mean also a rod, staff, or a sceptre.

"... and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword, and the men of Judah five hundred thousand ...." - yes, so 300,000 were either not armed with a sword, or not considered proficient to worth the name, i.e. new recruits. The latter seems a better explanation since any military force is likely to be composed of new recruits, seasoned warriors (400,000?), and those awaiting retirement (100,000) to become veterans.

Actually, it looks to me as if the writer is saying: the ten tribes field 800,000 sword-armed warriors while the two-and-a-half tribes field their own 500,000 of similar ilk.  Total 1,300,000 if you can get them together in one place and supply them - quite likely a necessary step if someone like Shishak turns up with 1,200 chariots, 60,000 cavalry and countless infantry.  Quality is another matter: when David musters the chosen men (bchur) of the kingdom in II Samuel 5:1, he has only 30,000.

Neither the Federation nor the Kingdom of Israel were expansionist, the king requiring approval of the judicial assembly (later Sanhedrin) and that of the High Priest, before going to an external war, and even that not for the purpose of conquest, but only enrichment. The tribes therefore had a force structure dependent on rapid mobilisation and very short internal lines of communication, using local terrain knowledge and ambush tactics. This approach to warfare worked well for a long time.

I am not sure how literally we should take this, but tribes are clearly not differentiated here, perhaps because the kingdom is already centralised. - not here, but elsewhere. Each tribe had a unique trait in contributing to the whole, in part described by their earlier 'blessings'. Naftali were known for their runners, and Zebulun for sailing, etc.

Indeed, although this was before the kingdom came into existence under Saul, and the point of having a kingdom was centralisation - see I Sam 8:11 et seq.  The consistency with which the sword is referred to as the national armament of the kingdom under Saul is remarkable, e.g. in I Sam 25:13 David says to his followers: "Gird ye on every man his sword" (chgru aish ath-chrb.u).  In I Sam 13:19 the Philistines forbid smiths throughout Israel "lest the Hebrews make swords or spears" (phn ioshu i.Obrim chrb au chnith), so the Hebrews go to war with only Saul and Jonathan possessing these weapons.  In I Sam 15:8 Saul, now with a better-equipped army, destroys the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword" (l.phi chrb).  All this, plus the sword provided for David to fight Goliath, suggests to me that Saul standardised Hebrew weaponry.  (This arrangement worked well for Saul in I Samuel and for Cyrus in the Cyropaedia, but after Mount Gilboa David spotted the glaring deficiency and subsequently reintroduced archery in a major way, II Sam 1:18.)

I think David came without sling ammunition given the load he was already handling (at 13 yo), so had to pick it up there and then. That he was selective in his choice of stones I think is supposed to say something about his focused mindset, which I think you recognise at the end of your sentence :-)

Hmmm ... if you were travelling alone through possible wolf or lion country, would take a sling without ammo?  Anyway, the important point is that he thought carefully and accurately about the kind of ammunition he would need to take down an armoured man of significantly-greater-than-average size.  Of interest is that he was subsequently able not only to wield Goliath's sword for decapitation but also bring it and the head with him.  I think the lad was stronger than he looked.

That David was travelling alone through a possible wolf or lion country is an assumption. If he was delivering food to his family, likely others were doing the same. Lions were on the eastern border of the federation, not western where the conflict was taking place. Wolves were mostly found in the northern part of Israel. Bears were a problem, and here the experience of engaging a bear reared up on hind legs was useful. Decapitation is not as simple as it sounds, particularly with a bronze weapon. It isn't however much different from decapitating a slaughtered sheep, something David likely would have witnessed many times before.
I think I forgot to point out that a 'sword' cherev, is not just a weapon in the Torah, but a tool required for slaughtering meat animals if they are to be fit for consumption. Every family therefore had to have these, or at least the person responsible for slaughter within the household, which was usually the extended one of several generations. So the act of preventing Israelites from acquiring iron blades that offered better durability and edge retention by the Philistines went beyond warfare to a cultural impact. During the domination by the Islam and while living in the Christian diaspora authorities in both required Jews to use what amounted to short swords, but made without points.

I appreciate that the most common answer to 'who invented the catapult' is Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse, but as I recall from reading on the history of artillery, he was a tyrant, and gathered various clever people to help identify new methods of warfare, which is not to say that one of these 'consultants' didn't come from the kingdom of Judea which had at this time gained a significant degree of autonomy form the Persians.

The earliest Biblical reference to anything of this nature is Uzziah's chshbnuth mchshbth chushb of II Chronicles 26:15, which shoot "arrows and great stones," so yes, it is possible for Dionysius to have derived something from this source, but I still have my doubts that Job could have done so.

Job?

I might note that the Septuagint (Greek) was a rabbinic translation; only a literal translation from Hebrew to Greek (or any language) is possible, but Hebrew is not a culturally-literal language :-) Moreover, within the culture there are 'levels' of interpretation, with some parts not at all subject to literal interpretation (according to the Talmud), although the Catholic Church doctrine has been to interpret everything literally. It does use the Vulgate, which Jerome produced in Bethlehem with rabbis available for advice before Christian-Jewish relations really soured, and before the Islamic expansion. Much of the Torah within the culture is interpreted in a literary fashion and it seems to me the same approach is evident by some of the Slingshot contributors in interpreting other cultural texts. This requires a greater appreciation of the textual and cultural context during interpretation, but as the saying goes, 'context is everything'.

And, to tell the truth, context is what led me to conclude that Goliath was carrying a mace between his shoulders ...

What context is there to allow this assumption? The weapon is not mentioned in the valued list. You seem to expect to find a mace as part of Goliath's equipment, but there is no evidence for it.

[Patrick Waterson]

Looking at Goliath's kidun in context:

1) It is listed with Goliath's other weapons, which makes it highly likely to be a weapon and not, for example, a piece of protective armour.
2) It is made wholly or substantially of bronze.
3) It is carried 'between the shoulders', which suggests it is slung.
4) As Goliath already has a spear, sword and shield it is unlikely to be any of these.

The main question seems to be about the root: to crush or to bind.  While I appreciate that a root including Masoretic insertions may or may not be the correct root of the root, so to speak, we can tell a great deal from how a kidun is carried and used.

• Joshua raises one in his hand (Joshua 8:18)
• Joshua holds one up until the inhabitants of Ai are destroyed (Joshua 8:26)

This seems a funny thing to do with a neckguard or similar: a kidun here must be some form of official weapon.

In I Samuel 17:6 and 17:45 we have David and Goliath.  Thereafter:

• A quiver, spear and kidun rattle (thrne) against a horse in Job 39:23
• The leviathan scorns thuthch (bludgeon or 'crumbler') and kidun alike in Job 41:29 (also read as 41:21), indicating the two implements are related.
• Jeremiah laments the coming of a people from the north country bearing bow and kidun (Jeremiah 6:23).
• These same bow and kidun-holders ride against Babylon (Jeremiah 50:42).

Judging by the above, the kidun has to be a weapon, and it looks like a crushing weapon from its association in Job 41:29 (or 41:21 depending upon which organisation of the text one uses).  It does not appear to be a club (shbt), but a mace fits several contextual criteria:

1) It was a symbol of rank in countries like Egypt (whence the fathers of the Hebrews under Joshua had emerged), and hence a suitable weapon for a commander (e.g. Joshua) to bear.
2) It is a credible third weapon for someone already armed with spear and sword and carrying, or at least having a bearer to carry, a shield.
3) It is a credible sidearm for a horse archer in a later (Jeremiah) period.
4) Some depictions of Egyptian maces appear to show a thong for carriage; we do not know whether 'between the shoulders' would have been the norm for a mace, but it would have been safer for one's knees and thighs than carriage at the belt.
5) In I Samuel 17:6 it is made of metal, or substantially of metal, which fits at least the business end of a mace.

On the peripheral subject of David's ammunition pouch and whether he would travel with it empty, I feel he would err on the side of caution and keep it filled, especially as (for example) the lion Samson had tackled in Timnah (Judges 14:5) seems to have been well outside the haunts assigned to the species by modern scholarship.  Lions and tigers* and bears, oh my!

*Wolves, really, but why pass up a good saying?

[Mick Hession]

Any chance we could move/rename this thread? Been a while since I read the Bible but am pretty sure Goliath and Herod are in different testaments.

Cheers
Mick

who is interested in Herodian armies; esoteric Hebrew nomenclature from centuries earlier, not so much. Or at all.

[Patrick Waterson]

Done.