Facedown to the ground

  • Thread starter Deleted member 11889
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 11889

Guest
Pet peeves don't get more trivial than this, but nonetheless it's something I've always wondered about. In 1 Sam. 17, the text appears to indicate that Goliath fell on his face - face down - when struck by David's stone.

"48 And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David, that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.
49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth."


In the bolded portion, the NIV reads "facedown", and the ESV reads "on his face".

So why do visual depictions of this event almost universally have Goliath falling backward? Is there something about the text that I'm missing? Are that many people really that sloppy in noting the finer details of the text? To this day, I've only seen one artist get it right - and this is in a ridiculously simplified 3"x3" board book that we have for our toddler. We have several different series of child-friendly Bible story adaptations in our house, and every other one has Goliath falling backwards.
 
You want us to explain how artists view creative license? That's gonna be tough.
What I'd like to know is why children's books don't have pictures of David holding up Goliath's sawed-off, bloody head with gore dripping from the severed neck.
 
There's a difference between omitting something and overtly inaccurate portrayal.

I'm just curious if there's something about the text that I don't know - like that the Hebrew indicates something different or more ambiguous than what a plain reading of the English text would seem to say.
 
I suspect that most illustrators of children's Bible story books don't actually consult the Bible very carefully, if at all, nor are they wired to think theologically. They probably only read the text given them by the author of the children's book. And those authors themselves often are not trained so well in the Bible, or they revert to simplistic versions of the Bible accounts that focus more on the human characters than on what God is doing, so that many good themes are never brought out.

The fact that Goliath falls on his face to the ground is significant. It probably indicates that he is brought low before the Lord, which fits David's emphasis on how the defeat of Goliath is the Lord's work. The Lord is shown to be greater that the false Philistine gods Goliath invokes in 1 Samuel 17:43, so that the idolater Goliath ends up falling down in worship, as it were, before the Lord. This is a theme in 1 Samuel. Compare in the Hebrew the description of Goliath's fall with the Philistine god Dagon's fall before the ark in 1 Samuel 5:3, and you'll find the language is nearly identical.

Too often, such theological insights and connections to the fuller story of the Bible simply don't make it into children's books. We do our kids a disservice by being too simple and not theological enough. The spiritual significance of what God is doing in the Bible story is hardly considered, and the author and illustrator mostly just see what the human character is doing. David took down Goliath with a sling. Wouldn't the giant naturally fall backwards when hit in the forehead with force from David's mighty blow? Without hardly thinking about it, we draw it that way. We read right past what the Bible says because we aren't even looking for the spiritual significance of what God did.

That's the end of my rant.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between omitting something and overtly inaccurate portrayal.

I'm just curious if there's something about the text that I don't know - like that the Hebrew indicates something different or more ambiguous than what a plain reading of the English text would seem to say.
The Hebrew does say "He fell on his face to the ground". I think the standard artistic portrayals miss this detail and extrapolate from what would be expected of a stone to the forehead, which is normally falling backwards. For that reason, some commentators believe the stone hit him on one of his greaves (see v. 6), causing him to stumble forward and then be unable to rise; the Hebrew would be exactly the same. I'm not sure we can be dogmatic on that, but how he fell is crystal clear - like Dagon before the ark in 1 Samuel 5:3, Goliath lies prostrate before David (just as Jack said while I was writing this post)
 
I have doubts it would be normal to fall backwards from the slings blow. I think it’s a conclusion we jump to much like movies make people fly backwards when struck with a rifle or shotguns blast but this is also false. Additionally if the stone “sunk into his forehead” - his face would have dissipated much of the energy further reducing pushing forces necessary to knock him backwards. It seems to me this is more a question of posture, terrain and balance at the time he was struck and then went unconscious. The greaves/knee theory may also have some credit and make it even simpler to see a forward fall occurring, but my point is more that when people go unconscious it’s tough to say which direction they will fall.

Now, I wonder if there is any difference in depictions going back in time compared to modern renderings.
 
some commentators believe the stone hit him on one of his greaves (see v. 6), causing him to stumble forward and then be unable to rise; the Hebrew would be exactly the same.
Wow, that is a fascinating observation I had not heard before. Looking as a novice at the Hebrew via my Bible app, I can see that the words for forehead and greaves are indeed very similar in that app (you say exactly the same). I imagine there might be applications to make if David, rather than taking down Goliath with a expertly-placed blow to the forehead, conquered him despite a presumably-errant heave that landed below the giant's knees.

Do you mind speculating on this? Which is your preferred way to translate the word? Does it make much difference in how we should apply the story, or would we be overthinking things to focus much on David's marksmanship?
 
Wow, that is a fascinating observation I had not heard before. Looking as a novice at the Hebrew via my Bible app, I can see that the words for forehead and greaves are indeed very similar in that app (you say exactly the same). I imagine there might be applications to make if David, rather than taking down Goliath with a expertly-placed blow to the forehead, conquered him despite a presumably-errant heave that landed below the giant's knees.

Do you mind speculating on this? Which is your preferred way to translate the word? Does it make much difference in how we should apply the story, or would we be overthinking things to focus much on David's marksmanship?
Speculating is the right word. The Hebrew word for "greave" and "forehead" are similar, but when you put a 3ms suffix on them, they become identical. And the word for "greave" does occur earlier in the story. The suggestion of "greave" was made in an article in Vetus Testamentum in 1978, and continues to be routinely cited in scholarly circles, though I haven't seen many who prefer it. I think the traditional translation is right, and the point is well-made that a blow to the forehead doesn't necessarily result in someone falling over backward. If they withstand the immediate impact, even if mortally wounded, they could very easily pitch forward, perhaps especially if their heavy armor is largely on their front.

I think we tend to underestimate the potency of David's weaponry; sling shots were considerably more accurate than bows and arrows in antiquity. Perhaps we should envisage the scene from Indiana Jones when Indy is faced with a man with fearsome swordplay and simply pulls out his pistol and shoots him. For all of his fancy armor, Goliath is clearly outmatched by the simple shepherd boy. He doesn't even need more than one of his five stones to take down this wild animal. Of course, ultimately the victory is the Lord's, as the parallel between his prostration before David and that of Dagon underlines.
 
Renaissance art has this department covered! "Hold my beer".
I really appreciate you posting this. All along, I thought David was Middle Eastern, but now I know that he was a Caucasian male of western European heritage. :rofl:
 
I think we tend to underestimate the potency of David's weaponry; sling shots were considerably more accurate than bows and arrows in antiquity. Perhaps we should envisage the scene from Indiana Jones when Indy is faced with a man with fearsome swordplay and simply pulls out his pistol and shoots him. For all of his fancy armor, Goliath is clearly outmatched by the simple shepherd boy. He doesn't even need more than one of his five stones to take down this wild animal. Of course, ultimately the victory is the Lord's, as the parallel between his prostration before David and that of Dagon underlines.

Spot on. Slings were less commonly used because they had less range and because to use them well required quite some skill. The shorter range increased the vulnerability common to all missile troops (though slingers could wear more protection and sometimes even carry a small shield); but where they did show up in ancient warfare they were a dreaded and formidable weapon. The Balearic isles were particularly noted for producing expert slingers - they show up in the Punic Wars as part of the Carthaginian army (going off memory - don't ask me to cite a source!). Rhodes, I believe, was also renowned in this regard.

Goliath made the classic mistake of the technologically superior "professional army" - a mistake famously made by the Romans at Carrhae and by imperial Britain and America: disdain for an irregular shabby-looking enemy. But unlike Crassus or Elphinstone, Goliath made the much more serious mistake of openly blaspheming and defying the holy God of Israel. I wasn't aware of the "greaves" possibility, and it had never occurred to me to connect Goliath's fall with Dagon in 1 Samuel 5; my thanks to Jack and Prof. Duguid for enriching my knowledge of this Bible passage (and also for confirming me in a life-long pet peeve!!).
 
My friend and I built a sling in college for fun one night... we were wildly inaccurate because we had no idea what we were doing but I can attest to the fact that we were launching baseball size stones at great distance and it was kinda scary :oops:.
 
My friend and I built a sling in college for fun one night... we were wildly inaccurate because we had no idea what we were doing but I can attest to the fact that we were launching baseball size stones at great distance and it was kinda scary :oops:.
I'd love to try that sometime, but I would probably hit myself or my friend in the side of the head.
 
I'd love to try that sometime, but I would probably hit myself or my friend in the side of the head.
Yes by inaccuracies I mean stones were going in every direction lol. Middle of a hay field would be a good place to try. Sometimes they did go up when we tried different swings so.. helmet and sunglasses are a good idea too .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top