Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

How much do we actually know about such practices in warfare in that time and 
place?  If the shield bearer was going in front of Goliath, that hardly seems 
an act of disdain; I wonder if it was to protect him from arrows or something 
like that while he engaged in more direct battle?  Again, it depends on what 
we actually know about the role of a shield bearer in that culture.  I notice 
it specifically says "shield bearer" rather than "armor bearer" as in the 
case of the story about king Saul's demise.

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 22:10, Yigal Levin wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
> While the NIV is certainly not a very literal translation, it does keep the
> meaning intact. "The Philistine went and drew closer to David, and the man
> carrying the shield before him."  There are definately two men, the
> Philistine (Goliath) and his shield-bearer. That's what the verse says.
>
> As far as WHY Goliath would not have been carrying his own shield into
> battle - well, he'd already been doing this for some time now - marching
> towards the Israelite camp, and finding that the Israelites were afraid to
> challange him. So why should he be worried? I think that the writer
> emphasizes that he was not carrying his shield, just to show us how much he
> much he disdained the Israelites, since pride goeth before a fall.
>
> Yigal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian & Laureen Powell" <PowellBrian AT omf.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:51 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Shield-bearer 1 Samuel 17:41
>
> > Hi all.
> > I'm translating in I Samuel 17 at present, and am unclear why verse 41
> > is translated as it is.
> >
> > My interlinear for the verse reads 'And-he-came the-Philistine coming
> > and-closer to David and-the-man bearing the-shield in-front-of-him'.
> >
> > This is rendered in the NIV as 'Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his
> > shield-bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David.'
> >
> > My confusion is based on how it could have worked that two of them would
> > be approaching David. I understand the idea of an armour-bearer to carry
> > weapons etc. for a warrior, but surely when he is actually going to
> > battle the armour-bearer then gives the armour to the warrior.
> >
> > My question is whether the Hebrew necessarily implies two different
> > people or whether 'the Philistine' in the first clause and 'the man' in
> > the second clause could not be one and the same person. This would lead
> > to a translation such as 'The Philistine kept coming closer to David
> > bearing his shield before him.'
> >
> > Thanks
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Brian Powell
> >
> > Bible Translator
> > Philippines
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.