Daniel McClellan on Goliath’s Armor

In his usual insightful way, Daniel McClellan just posted on the question of Goliath’s armor. He justly takes issue with the argument made by Azzan Yadin that a Philistine origin of Goliath’s helmet can be rejected based on Egyptian bas reliefs from three or four generations earlier in which the head dress of Pilishtu warriors is quite different. He also claims, without yet providing evidence, that “Goliath’s armor should be interpreted as reflecting Neo-Assyrian battle armor (not Homeric).” Here’s hoping that Daniel will go on to make his case. In the mean time, a few words about the discussion among scholars to date.

The main players in the debate, so far as I know, have been Yigael Yadin, Israel Finkelstein, Azzan Yadin, Graham Philip, and V. Philips Long. Based on his research, Yigael Yadin (1963:265) concluded that the biblical description of the get-up of Goliath is compatible with a date at the onset of the Davidic period. Israel Finkelstein (2002) does not contest this conclusion. He likewise avers that “every single item in the description of Goliath’s armament can be compared to Aegean weapons and armour from the Mycenaean period to Classical times.” But he goes on to note that the aggregate of Goliath’s armor was not standard issue until the 7^th cent. bce. Okay, but that is a very weak argument against the notion that a piran h̬uyanza (the Hittite term [Hoffner 1968]), a איש הבינים “man between the two [formations]” (the Hebrew term), who would promachizein “go out in front to fight” (the Greek expression) might well have been so dressed for the purposes of one-on-one combat.

As V. Philips Long (2009) points out, Saul offers David the use of his bronze helmet in 1 Sam 18:38, but that cannot be construed as prima facie evidence that anyone other than Saul among the Israelites had a bronze helmet with which to fight. One has to allow for a degree of singularity in the way show-off champions dressed. The same logical fallacy plagues Graham Philip (2003) insofar as he suggests that “both the javelin and the greaves are unusual for Syro-Palestinian warriors”; this may “hint at [Goliath’s] foreign connections.” Okay, but maybe a javelin and greaves were not unusual equipment for Syro-Palestinian warrior-champions, even if the an ordinary G.I. wouldn't dream of it.  

McClellan quotes Azzan Yadin (2000) as follows:

The head gear is unlike the distinctive feathered helmets of the Egyptian reliefs at Medinet Habu; Goliath’s chain mail (שריון קשקשים) is Mesopotamian-Syrian; and the great shield, requiring a shield bearer, is unlike the small round shields of the Philistines portrayed in Egyptian reliefs.

McClellan discounts Yadin’s head gear argument, as already noted, but thinks the second argument carries weight, and seems to believe that great shields and shield bearers are anachronistic in Iron Age I. But I wonder.

LXX 1 Sam 17:5 references a coat of mail (for a discussion, see the comments by Albert Pietersma), but 1 Sam 17:5 in the original more likely references a scale corslet of the kind known from the Mycenaean period (Catling 1970; Chadwick 1976: 160-163; Schofield and Parkinson 1994).

As for great shields, shield bearers, and body armor, didn’t Hector have his Deiphobus who carried his white shield? Didn’t Diomedes, the youngest of the Greek champions, the favorite of Athena, wear a full suit of bronze armor? Yes, I know when the Iliad was written. It contains anachronisms of various kinds (Castleden 2005: 119-120 suggests a few). But do we know that these features are anachronisms?

Let me re-pose the question: after researching descriptions and representations of the get-up of challengers in one-on-one combat in literary, epigraphic, and anepigraphic sources, what would one suggest as the conceivable chronological range for a get-up like the one Goliath is given in 1 Sam 17?

Intended and unintended anachronisms are staples of history-writing. Biblical history-writing contains its fair share. But are there any obvious ones in MT 1 Sam 17:5? Not that I know of.

Bibliography

Hector William Catling, “A Bronze Plate from a Scale-Corslet Found at Mycenae,” AA (1970) 441-449; Rodney Castleden, “Metalwork and Armour,” in Mycenaeans (Peoples of the Ancient World; London, Routledge, 2005) 118-125; John Chadwick, “Weapons and War,” in The Mycenaean World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 159-179; Israel Finkelstein, “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective,” JSOT 27 (2002) 131-167; Harry A. Hoffner Jr., “A Hittite Analouge to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions,” CBQ 30 (1968) 220-25; V. Philips Long, “David Kills Goliath (17:1-58),” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 2. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. 1 and 2 Samuel (John H. Walton, ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 345-352; Graham Philip, “Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Syria-Palestine,” in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader (Suzanne Richard, ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 184-192; Louise Schofield and Richard B. Parkinson, “Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian Representation of Mycenaean Warriors on a Papyrus from El-Amarna,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 89 (1994) 157-170; Roland de Vaux, “Single Combat in the Old Testament,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1972) 122-35; Azzan Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,” VT 54 (2000) 373-95; Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, in the Light of Archaeological Study (2 vols.; M. Pearlman, tr.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963) 1:265.

From the Manga Bible:

 

Comments

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Thanks for the mention John. I'd like to dig a little deeper into the scholarship here, but I don't think this term is going to allow much of it. The artwork is nice, too. Takes me back to my days as a comic book artist.

By way of clarification, I don't necessarily think great shields and bearers are anachronistic in Iron I. I intended to say as much in my post, but I evidently forgot (it was a late night post with my one year old crawling all over me). Yadin's evidence for the head gear and shields is based exclusively off the Medinet Habu reliefs, which I find problematic. He is there quoting K. Galling, “Goliath und seine Rüstung,” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1966): 150-69, and he just accepts it without comment and then moves on:

"In light of this evidence, Galling concludes that the author of the episode does not provide a historically accurate portrayal of Philistine battlegear, rather represents an electric [eclectic?] combination of offensive and defensive gear drawn from various types of armor."

I am intrigued by the Aegean connection. Perhaps that has a closer connection to the μονομαχια practice. I'd like to look into that more, and maybe in March when I have some time I can do some reading and prepare something a little more substantial on my preference for Neo-Assyria as the best context.

[JohnFH]

It's a great topic, Daniel, and you are well-qualified to explore it. If you spend a few days with the subject matter, and ask a few pointed questions to classicists within your reach, you might easily advance the discussion in a helpful way for everyone.

You are right to reference the Galling article. That is essential bibliography that needs to be revisited. The de Vaux and Hoffner articles are also worth looking at.

[Gene]

I came to the same conclusion as the insight above suggested. Relativity plays a part not only in math sciences, but social and psychological.

Example: One would scoff at the idea that Elvis Presley, while in the U.S. Army, wore a 'gold plated' first class uniform. The standard, American GI in the 1950's wore no such thing and the same remains to this day. However, the fact remains that he DID in fact have a gold buttoned uniform. Elvis, while in the army, was the biggest star in the world. The U.S army knew that all eyes and CAMERAS would be on him and they wanted to give the world a good impression of an American soldier. Hence, they allowed Elvis to purchase a gold buttoned suit.

Goliath, being a STAR and a hand to hand combat solider, probably and more than likely received preferential treatment. Not necessarily for glitter and glam, but for his type of battle. My only question would be: Was the type of armored material described in the Bible even known to be in existence TO THE Philistines?

[JohnFH]

Gene,

Thanks for a helpful comment. An article by Jeffrey Zorn hot of the press also comes down in favor of the historical plausibility of Goliath's get-up:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/01/the-search-for-the-historical-goliath.html