Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

I would disagree that the fact that Goliath was not carrying his own shield 
was an act of contempt for the Israelites.  If he were truly contemptuous he 
would have left his shield and shield-bearer behind.

I think the point is that to have a shield-bearer is a honor accorded only a 
few, kings, generals, and heroes.  Common solders carried their own shields.  
Kings and Generals were not actually expected to join the fray so the shield 
bearer (and armor bearer) was more of a ceremonial position.  Obviously in 
this case it was not.  In this case the shield bearer would advance ahead of 
the hero to protect him from missiles of various sorts or he could hand the 
shield to the hero if the hero so chose.

In 1st Sam 17, Goliath advances ahead of the Philistines lines with his 
shield bearer, expecting a ?real fight? and then sees that David is just a 
?pretty boy? with a staff.  Goliath curses him, and then seems to return to 
the his own lines, shield bearer in tow.  I say this because in 17:48 it says 
that the ?Philistine rose? when David continued his challenge, indicating he 
was sitting or laying down.  This is not a position for a warrior ready for 
individual combat.

Evidently Goliath decided he would fight David anyway.  During this second 
sortie from the Philistine lines, Goliath was not accompanied by his shield 
bearer both because David had no spear or sword so he did not seem a threat 
and because if he had had his shield bearer, David could not have killed him 
with his sling.

> 
> From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> Date: 2004/07/01 Thu AM 05:00:41 GMT
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shield-bearer 1 Samuel 17:41
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel