Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Explore the historical accuracy of the David and Goliath account in the Bible. From Goliath’s unusual height to the verifiable geography of the Valley of Elah, we delve into archaeological and textual evidence that supports the veracity of this famous story. But first, let’s look at the historicity of King David.

The Historicity of King David: Archaeological and Historical Evidences

The historicity of King David has long been a subject of academic scrutiny, with skeptics questioning the extent of his empire and even the very existence of the monarch. However, in recent years, archaeological discoveries and textual analysis of ancient inscriptions have increasingly supported the historical credibility of King David as described in the Scriptures.

The Tel Dan Stele

One of the most groundbreaking pieces of evidence is the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed monument found in the northern Israeli site of Tel Dan. This Aramaic inscription from the 9th century B.C.E. explicitly mentions the “House of David.” The stele commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over the Israelites, providing independent evidence for the existence of a Davidic dynasty. Prior to this discovery, there were no extra-biblical references to David, leading some to claim he was a mythological figure. The Tel Dan Stele changed that perception dramatically.

The Moabite Stone

Another inscription that indirectly supports David’s existence is the Moabite Stone, also known as the Mesha Stele. Although the text does not mention David by name, it speaks of an Israelite oppression over Moab that aligns well with Scriptural accounts of David’s conquests (2 Samuel 8:2, 11-12).

The stone not only mentions the name of King Omri of Israel but also, in the 18th line, contains God’s name in the form of the Tetragrammaton. Om’ri. (pupil of Jehovah). 1. Originally, “captain of the host,” to Elah, was afterward, himself, king of Israel, and founder of the third dynasty. (B.C. 926). Omri was engaged in the siege of Gibbethon situated in the tribe of Dan, which had been occupied by the Philistines. As soon as the army heard of Elah’s death, they proclaimed Omri, king. Thereupon, he broke up the siege of Gibbethon and attacked Tirzah, where Zimri was holding his court as king of Israel. The city was taken, and Zimri perished in the flames of the palace, after a reign of seven days. Omri, however, was not allowed to establish his dynasty, without a struggle against Tibni, whom “half the people,” 1Ki_16:21, desired to raise to the throne. The civil war lasted four years. Compare 1Ki_16:15 with 1Ki_16:23. After the defeat and death of Tibni, Omri reigned for six years in Tirzah. At Samaria, Omri reigned for six years more. He seems to have been a vigorous and unscrupulous ruler, anxious to strengthen his dynasty, by intercourse and alliances with foreign states.

Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa

A site of particular interest is Khirbet Qeiyafa, located near the Valley of Elah, where David fought Goliath. The fortified city has been dated to the late 11th to early 10th centuries B.C.E., which aligns with the biblical timeline for David’s reign. Among the findings are a city gate and a governmental building, suggesting centralized rule and military strategy—both characteristics attributed to David’s leadership.

The inscriptions found at Khirbet Qeiyafa also indicate a society with religious practices that are markedly monotheistic and aniconic (without graven images), which aligns with the Israelite identity described in the Bible during David’s time.

Carbon Dating and Stratigraphy

Archaeological dating techniques, such as carbon-14 dating and stratigraphy, have also been instrumental in establishing the timelines for these findings. For instance, the pottery shards found at Khirbet Qeiyafa were subjected to carbon-14 dating, and the results were consistent with the biblical timeline.

City of David Excavations

In Jerusalem, the City of David excavations have unearthed structures and artifacts that support the biblical narrative. Finds include a large stone structure identified as a palace or fortress, which could very well have belonged to David. The discovery of the Siloam Pool and the tunnel constructed to channel water into the city also corroborate Scriptural accounts of infrastructure development during David’s reign.

The Biblical City of David in the period of Herod’s Temple, from the Holyland Model of Jerusalem. The southern wall of the Temple Mount appears at top.

Records in Other Ancient Cultures

While direct references are scant, it’s worth noting that ancient Near Eastern texts often speak of kingdoms and rulers that correspond well with biblical descriptions. Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian records detail diplomatic or military interactions with Israel, which, when analyzed, are consistent with the time and geopolitical setting of David’s rule.

Comparative Literary Analysis

When weighing the historicity of King David, it’s important to recognize that ancient history often relies on texts that are far less substantiated than the Scriptures. The Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation allows us to consider the text of the Old Testament as a reliable historical source, especially when supported by external evidences like inscriptions and archaeological finds.

In light of these multiple lines of evidence, the existence and reign of King David are increasingly seen as historically plausible and archaeologically supported. These findings not only serve to validate the Scriptural account but also provide a fuller understanding of the cultural and historical context in which David lived. While skeptics may continue to question, the weight of evidence makes it reasonable to affirm the historicity of King David.

David Versus Goliath—Fact or Fiction?

The story of David and Goliath is one of the most iconic narratives in the Bible, but its historical accuracy has often been called into question. If you have doubts about the veracity of this account, consider the answers to the following questions:

1 | Is a Height of Nine and a Half Feet Scientifically Plausible?

The Bible states that Goliath’s “height was six cubits and a span” (1 Samuel 17:4). Using the ancient cubit length of 17.5 inches and a span of 8.75 inches, this equates to around nine feet six inches. Critics argue that such a height is implausible. However, modern records document individuals reaching heights just shy of nine feet. The tallest recorded person in contemporary times stood at over 8 feet 11 inches. Add to this that Goliath was a Rephaite, a people group known for their exceptional height. A 13th-century B.C.E. Egyptian document even states that certain warriors in Canaan exceeded eight feet. Therefore, Goliath’s height, while extraordinary, isn’t outside the realm of possibility.

2 | Was David an Actual Historical Figure?

Previously, many scholars dismissed King David as a mythological figure. However, archaeological findings have shifted this view. An inscription referring to the “house of David” corroborates his existence. Moreover, Jesus Christ referred to David as a genuine historical individual (Matthew 12:3; 22:43-45). Additionally, the New Testament provides two extensive genealogies tracing Jesus’ lineage back to David (Matthew 1:6-16; Luke 3:23-31). Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that David was a real person.

3 | Is the Geographical Setting of the Story Verifiable?

The Bible specifies that the battle took place in the Valley of Elah, situated between the towns of Socoh and Azekah. Are these authentic geographical locations? A contemporary visitor to this region described standing on a hill overlooking the Valley of Elah. They were shown the ruins of Socoh to the left and Azekah to the right—exactly where the Bible places them. This visitor recounted, “We may be standing where the Israelites camped.” They even crossed a mostly dry streambed filled with stones, reminiscent of where David might have collected the stones used against Goliath.

The geographical details in the Bible are impressively accurate, supporting the account’s authenticity.

Conclusion

Doubting the veracity of the David and Goliath account seems unfounded when considering these factors. The story features real people, plausible physiological features, and authentic geographical settings. Above all, the account is a part of God’s inspired Word, emanating from a source that “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 3:16).

Note on Heights for Context

Average soldier: 5 ft 8 in
Goliath: 9 ft 6 in

Resolving the Elhanan Enigma: A Close Examination of 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5

The apparent contradiction between 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5 has been the subject of much discussion among Bible scholars. Both passages describe a person named Elhanan who struck down a significant Philistine warrior, but the specific details vary between the two accounts.

The Variance in Names: Jaare-oregim vs. Jair

The name “Jaare-oregim” appears only in the 2 Samuel account, while 1 Chronicles mentions “Jair.” Given the Hebrew manuscripts’ intricacies, it is not unreasonable to think that a scribal error may have contributed to this discrepancy. In Hebrew, the names “Jaare” and “Jair” are quite similar. The term “oregim,” which means “weavers” or “loom workers,” appears to describe the spear’s shaft in both accounts. This term could have been copied inadvertently from another line, possibly leading to the term “Jaare-oregim.”

Lahmi vs. Goliath

The difference in the names of the Philistine warriors—Lahmi in 1 Chronicles and Goliath in 2 Samuel—is also noteworthy. A possibility here is that a scribal error led to “Lahmi” (ʼeth-lach·miʹ) being misread as “Bethlehemite” (behth hal·lach·miʹ) in the 2 Samuel account.

However, an alternative explanation considers the possibility of two distinct Philistine warriors. The term “Goliath” could have been a title or designation for a champion in the Philistine army, similar to how “Pharaoh” was a title for Egyptian rulers. Therefore, David could have slain one Goliath, while Elhanan struck down another individual, possibly his brother, known as Lahmi. This approach doesn’t necessarily contradict the Hebrew text but rather provides a way to harmonize the accounts.

Methodological Considerations

Given the conservative, historical-grammatical method of interpretation, it is essential to focus on the text as it stands and consider its original language, culture, and context. While scribal errors might account for some differences, it’s also possible that the ancient audience understood these titles and descriptions differently than we do.

Thus, the discrepancies between the accounts could be attributed to either a scribal error or the existence of two distinct Philistine warriors. In either case, these accounts do not necessarily contradict each other but may provide complementary details about Israel’s military history against the Philistines.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).