HistoricalChristian.Faith

Was Elhanan the original slayer of Goliath, the deed later transferred to David?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — 2 Samuel 21:19 is the harder, prior text and 1 Chronicles 20:5 the Chronicler's harmonization (near-consensus in critical scholarship); but the further historical claim that Elhanan really slew Goliath and the deed was only later credited to David is a redaction-critical inference, coherent and influential yet not compelled by any manuscript — the reverse of the brother-of-Goliath reconstruction, and evenly matched with it · advanced by P. Kyle McCarter (strong form), Wellhausen, Driver, H. P. Smith, and Baruch Halpern

Related arguments: the direction of the corruption — see also David keeps the kill (2 Samuel 21:19 is corrupt, its original naming Goliath's brother), the mirror-image reading.

The claim

"Deeds of obscure heroes tend to attach themselves to famous heroes, and there is no doubt that the tradition attributing the slaying of Goliath to Elhanan is older than that which credits the deed to David. The contradiction in the tradition was eliminated in the targumic and midrashic literature by identifying David with Elhanan…"

— P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; Doubleday, 1984), p. 450. The reading this serves is the reverse of the harmonizers': 2 Samuel 21:19 preserves the original tradition — Elhanan the Bethlehemite was the historical slayer of the giant Goliath — and the David-and-Goliath story of 1 Samuel 17 is a later literary development that transferred the feat to the famous king, whose champion was on this account originally left anonymous. 1 Chronicles 20:5's "Lahmi the brother of Goliath" is then not an older, pristine reading but the Chronicler's deliberate harmonizing repair of the seam.

Who advances it

The line runs from the nineteenth-century critics who reversed the older harmonizers' verdict. Julius Wellhausen (1871) isolated the mechanical fault in Samuel's patronymic yet warned against simply importing the Chronicler's smoother text "given his tendency to avoid archaisms"; S. R. Driver (1890) argued it "scarcely credible" that a scribe with 1 Samuel 17 before him would have altered a Chronicles-like text into the harder "Elhanan… slew Goliath of Gath," whereas "a motive for the correction of the text of Samuel by the Chronicler… is obvious"; and Henry Preserved Smith (1899) declared "the harmonistic purpose of the Chronicler… evident," adding that Elhanan's deed "would weigh somewhat against the present form of" 1 Samuel 17.¹ P. Kyle McCarter's Anchor Bible commentary (1984) carries the line to its strongest form — not merely that Samuel's text is prior but that the historical slayer was Elhanan, the David attribution a later growth.² Baruch Halpern (David's Secret Demons, 2001) presses the same case onto a named figure: "the only other Elhanan and the only other Bethlehemite in the lists of David's heroes is 'Elhanan ben-Dodo from Bethlehem' (2 Sam 23:24) … probably originally listed as Goliath's killer."³

The evidence for

Two supports do real work. First, the textual observation is near-consensus in critical scholarship, and it is genuinely strong: the harder reading is normally the prior one, and Samuel's flat "Elhanan… struck down Goliath the Gittite" is by far the harder of the two — a scribe copying Chronicles' tidy "Lahmi the brother of Goliath," and knowing 1 Samuel 17 as every copyist did, had no motive to manufacture a contradiction, whereas the Chronicler plainly had a motive to remove one. On this axis the direction of change runs from Samuel to Chronicles, and Chronicles' "brother of Goliath" is the secondary, harmonizing text.¹ Second, the transfer of a feat from an obscure warrior to a famous one is a well-attested pattern in how heroic tradition grows, and there is a concrete candidate to receive the credit: an Elhanan "of Bethlehem" — David's own town — stands independently in the roster of the Thirty (2 Samuel 23:24), so the older notice need not be a free-floating name but a real member of David's circle whose exploit was later absorbed into the king's legend.⁴ That "most scholars dismiss the later 1 Chronicles 20:5 material as 'an obvious harmonization'" reflects how widely the textual half of the case is held.⁵

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The textual claim is the strong part and should be granted its due: on the canons of the discipline, Samuel's harder reading is likely prior and Chronicles' "brother of Goliath" is a harmonization, not an untouched witness — the exact reverse of the popular "correct Samuel from the pristine Chronicles" move flagged as overreach on the sibling page. The identification of the slayer with Elhanan ben Dodo of Bethlehem is a natural, economical reading of the two Samuel notices together, and the general observation that famous heroes accrete the deeds of obscure ones is sound folklore.

What is inference, not evidence. The historical conclusion — Elhanan really killed Goliath, David never did — outruns what the texts can bear, and three gaps separate it from proof. (1) No manuscript witnesses it. There is no surviving text that reads "Elhanan killed Goliath (not his brother)" as a settled tradition set over against David; the case is a redaction-critical reconstruction, and the one place a variant Vorlage might have surfaced — the Dead Sea Samuel scroll — has a gap at exactly this verse, so it neither confirms nor refutes.⁶ (2) It presupposes a late-legend view of 1 Samuel 17 — that the champion there was originally anonymous and "Goliath" was drawn in from Elhanan's notice — which is itself a disputed literary hypothesis, not a datum. (3) The same textual data are fully accounted for by a rival reconstruction that does not require the transfer thesis: that both surviving texts descend from an original in which Elhanan slew the unnamed brother of Goliath, Samuel then losing "brother of" and Chronicles minting "Lahmi" — the reading weighed on the sibling page, on which there is no contradiction to transfer in the first place.⁷ Even the proponents supply the internal frictions: Radak already noticed that the two killings happen in different places (Elhanan's at Gob, David's at the Valley of Elah), which strains the bare "Elhanan = the Goliath of 1 Samuel 17" equation; and Halpern concedes the awkward question that if a redactor set out to give David the kill, it is odd he did not simply delete the embarrassing Elhanan notice altogether.³

Assessment

Contested. Two claims must be kept apart. The textual claim — Samuel prior, Chronicles a harmonization — is well-grounded and widely held; taken alone it would rate higher. But the historical-transfer claim that rides on it — Elhanan the real slayer, David's victory a later attribution — is an inference beyond the evidence: no manuscript attests it, it presupposes a contested reading of 1 Samuel 17, and the same textual facts are equally explained by the brother-of-Goliath reconstruction, which leaves the traditional narrative intact. The two readings are mirror images turning on the direction of a corruption everyone concedes; neither commands the field, and the honest verdict is a measured uncertainty. The interpretation is influential and coherent — venturesome as history where it is strong as textual criticism — but not compelled, and should not be presented as the assured result its boldest proponents imply.

Sources