David And Goliath, A Story Of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping Of 1 Samuel 17

By John A. Beck

[John A. Beck is a consultant with Bible World Seminars and a freelance writer in Germantown, Wis.]

The details that fill the story of David and Goliath are vivid and memorable. Even those less than familiar with the Bible as a whole can typically picture the lightly armed David running towards the weapon-laden Goliath. Given the colorful detail within the narrative, the reader can almost hear the whirling sling, the whistle of the smooth stone as it sails through the air, and the thud that marks the collapsing frame of the gigantic opponent.

While the popular recollection of the story focuses on such details, scholarly interest has been attracted to yet another set of details in the story. These are matters associated with the textual history of the story and apparent inconsistencies that may trouble the readers of 1 Samuel. For example, there is the dramatic difference in length between the Septuagint version (LXXB) of this story and the Hebrew account. The latter is 80 percent longer than the former giving rise to a conversation about the compositional history of the narrative.[1] Then there is the matter of Saul’s acquaintance with David. The introduction of David in 1 Sam 16:21–22 as the armor bearer of Saul, whom Saul knew personally, stands in some tension with 1 Sam 17:55–58 which implies Saul did not know David so well at all.[2] And then there is the question of how to harmonize the story in 1 Sam 17 which celebrates David’s victory over Goliath and 2 Sam 21:19 which apparently attributes this victory to Elhanan.[3] Most of the scholarly attention directed to this narrative is consumed by matters such as these.

But all the scholarly energy expended on such topics has left another dimension of this story virtually unaddressed. That is the tendency of the author to report on the geography of the event in great detail. In the fifty-four verses of this story,[4] the reader meets twenty specific geographical references (not including the geographical allusions found in the reference to “Philistine” and “Philistines” that occur thirty-five times in the story). Given the frequency with which specific geographical detail is deployed, the story of David and Goliath is clearly a story of place. While literary scholars such as Alter, Bar-Efrat, and Miscall have noted the “well-delineated setting” of the story, none has ventured beyond this observation to explain the literary function and interpretive importance of this geography.[5]

This investigation will employ the narrative-geographical method in a bid to fill that scholarly gap. Narrative-geographical inquiry is an interdisciplinary approach that seeks to blend the insights offered by both narrative criticism and the study of geography. It is related to the studies of physical, historical, and human geography but distinct from them. Physical geography investigates the land through the lens of topography, geology, hydrology, climate, forestation, land use, urbanization, and transportation.[6] Historical and human geography examine the role such physical geography plays in the shaping of history and culture.[7] By contrast to these more traditional forms of geography, narrative geography analyzes the literary function of geographical references within a story. It acknowledges that the author may strategically use, reuse, and nuance geography in order to impact the reading experience. Of course, the biblical author’s choice of setting was powerfully influenced by the traditional setting of the reported event. Nevertheless, “these authors controlled the selectivity of detail in the description of settings, requiring the reader to pay close attention to these textual signals.”[8] That is why Bar-Efrat concludes, “Places in the narrative are not merely geographical facts, but are to be regarded as literary elements in which fundamental significance is embodied.”[9] My previous investigations have demonstrated that biblical authors may employ geography as a tool to shape the plot,[10] develop the characterization,[11] offer ironic energy to a story,[12] and provide emphasis that encouraged travel to an ancient worship site.[13]

Following a brief overview of the literary context of the story, this investigation will survey the three portions of the narrative where geographical data collects into units: in the exposition, in the body of the story, and in the conclusion. In each case, we will identify the geographical place names used in the story, discuss their geographical significance, and explore their literary role and how it informs the meaningfulness of the narrative. We will conclude that the author is using geography as a primary element in shaping the conflict of the plot that, in turn, shapes the reader’s perception of Saul and David.

I. The Literary Context of 1 Samuel 17

1. National Security

As the reader enters the first verses of ch. 17, he or she does so with a growing uneasiness. The nascent Kingdom of Israel has two problems that loom like foreboding shadows over the verses of ch. 17. There is the problem with the Philistines, and there is the uncertainty about just who is running the country. The close of the period of the Judges and the rise of the monarchy in Israel was closely attended by the Philistine presence. This is evident in the fact that 1 Samuel mentions the Philistines more than any other book in the Bible,[14] casting the Philistine presence over nearly every narrative as the Israelites wrestle with their identity and security.[15] The Ark Narratives in chs. 4–6 detail the Philistine victory that brought the Ark of the Covenant into the hands of the Philistine Pentapolis for a time. And although the Ark was subsequently returned to Israel, the destruction of the worship center at Shiloh, unmentioned in 1 Sam 4, endures as a painful memory to the time of Jeremiah ( Jer 7:12).[16] And despite subsequent victories by Samuel and Saul (1 Sam 7 and 14), the power of this rival on the coastal plain remained the chief national security issue for the Israelites residing in the central mountains.[17]

2. Leadership

The Philistine threat to national security was compounded by questions surrounding leadership in Israel. As sitting king, Saul was responsible for national security. When the people requested a king to lead them, they were very specific about wanting a king who would go out before them and fight their battles (1 Sam 8:20). The threat of the Philistines was surely on their minds. But by the close of ch. 15, the reader receives word that Saul has been rejected by God. This notice of rejection is followed by David’s anointing in ch. 16, creating a tension that carries the reader into the very first verses of ch. 17 seeking an answer to one question: Who is the real leader of Israel, the sitting king or the anointed king?

The answer to that question is delivered throughout the rest of the book,[18] but in particular is addressed for the reader in ch. 17. Thus the Philistine threat joins with the question surrounding the leadership of Israel to push the reader into 1 Sam 17 looking for resolution.

3. Geography

The exposition of the story begins with a barrage of place names:

Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Socoh in Judah. They pitched their camp at Ephes Dammim, between Socoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites the other, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. (1 Sam 17:1–4 NIV)

Within the first four verses of this story, we meet seven specific geographical references and another six geographical allusions. We will begin by examining the physical location and realities associated with this geography and then discuss the literary value of their use.

Cities. Three cities are named in the exposition of this story, and we are confident of the location of all three. Socoh has been identified with Khirbet Abad within the Elah Valley.[19] Just three miles from this site lying 384 feet above the Elah Valley is Azekah, Tell Zakariya.[20] And while the identification of Gath has been linked to a variety of sites, today there is a firm consensus that this Philistine city is the current Tell es-Safi (Tel Zafit). This site rises 328 feet above the western end of the Elah Valley, just beyond a ridge that blocks direct access to the valley.[21] By carefully drawing a map with words, the author of the story places the Philistine army in Ephes Dammim, an S-shaped valley that lies between Socoh and Azekah.

The Elah Valley. All of the cities mentioned so far have a direct link to the Elah Valley (also called the Valley of the Terebinth).[22] Gath is the Philistine city that guards the western entrance. Azekah lies in the interior of the valley, with Socoh east of both.[23] Given the precise location of the Philistine camp in Ephes Dammim, this means that Saul and his forces are packed into the eastern portion of the Elah Valley near Socoh. These details allow the reader to form a very precise picture, one that would send shivers down the spine of every Israelite living in the hill country, that is, if the reader fully comprehends the critical importance of this terrain.

The importance of the Elah Valley is difficult to overestimate both in terms of its natural resources and military value. The Elah Valley is part of the Judean Shephelah that extends from the Aijalon Valley south for thirty miles. The Shephelah is a transition zone (from six to ten miles in width) between the relatively flat Mediterranean coast and the central mountains of Judah. It consists of foothills rising from three hundred to twelve hundred feet (humble hills, as the Hebrew name Shephelah implies). These hills are arranged in east-west ridges with wide, U-shaped valleys extending westward from the central mountains towards the Mediterranean Sea.[24] Control of these ridges and valleys has both economic and security implications that the reader of 1 Sam 17 cannot miss.

The Elah Valley, like the other valleys of the Shephelah, produced very valuable forest and agricultural products.[25] The low ridges of the Elah Valley were covered with trees in this period, particularly the sycamore and the terebinth. Sycamores were so abundant that the biblical writers made special mention of them (1 Kgs 10:27; 2 Chron 1:15; 9:27), and King David actually appointed an overseer to make sure that this natural resource was protected (1 Chron 27:28). The sycamore produced a fig, but because its quality and taste were inferior to the true fig, the fruit of the sycamore was not its claim to fame.[26] The great economic value of this tree was its wood. Since the porous structure of the wood kept the weight of the limb to a minimum while at the same time providing the limb with considerable strength, it was harvested for use as roof beams in the construction of homes and public buildings.[27] In a land where construction-grade lumber was rare, the sycamore was a prized possession.

The name of the valley, “Elah,” recalls another tree that covered the low ridges of this region. That was the terebinth. While the sycamore had prime value as a source of timber, the terebinth produced turpentine. This brownish-yellow resin was collected and used for caulking, shellacking wall paintings, and in the mummification process.[28]

Turning from the ridges to the wide floor of the Elah Valley, we give our attention to field crops and livestock. Blessed with sufficient rainfall and soil rich in nutrients, the Elah Valley yielded strong grain fields and well-fed livestock.[29] These large open valleys were particularly important to the Israelites who were living in the mountains of Judah where large tracts of land suitable for field crops and for grazing were virtually non-existent.

While the economic value of the Elah made its control highly desirable, its value for the national security of those living in the mountains made its control an absolute necessity.[30] The mountains of Judah rising to over thirty-three hundred feet offered their residents security from the better-equipped and better-organized Philistines living on the coastal plain.[31] But the east-west valleys of the Judean Shephelah were the weak link in the Judeans’ chain of defense, offering invaders attack routes leading to the interior of the hill country. To feel fully secure, the residents of the mountains needed to control the Shephelah valleys. While the portion of the Shephelah called the Aijalon Valley was considered to be the most critical valley in this regard, the Elah Valley was a close second.[32] Thus the Elah became an essential buffer zone lying between the heartland of Judah and the heartland of Philistia, guarded in subsequent generations by forts such as Gath, Socoh, and Azekah (2 Chron 11:5–10; Jer 34:7) which sought to preserve national interests, either of those living on the coastal plain or of those living in the Judean Highlands.[33] It is no wonder that the Elah frequently became a battleground not only during OT times but also during the Maccabean wars with the Syrians as well as during the conflicts between Saladin and the Crusaders.[34]

4. Literary Implications of the Geography

Now that we have a sense of the geographical setting, we turn to the literary use of these geographical references. Perhaps it strikes the reader that the amount of geographical detail we find in the first four verses of this story far exceeds what would be necessary to establish the setting of the story.[35] Certainly we would concur that this geographical detail communicates a sense of lively realism.[36] But, as we have noted above, geography can also play a key role in contributing to the structure and meaning of the story.[37] All the geographical details in the exposition slow the reading process and draw the informed reader to the conclusion that this battle is over an absolutely critical piece of land with overwhelming economic and security implications. Thus, control of this valley is a key goal of both the Israelites and the Philistines.[38]

Since the victory of Samuel at Mizpah (1 Sam 7:14), the reader has assumed that the Elah Valley lay in the hands of the Israelites. While Saul was engaged in a skirmish with the Philistines north of the Elah Valley (1 Sam 14), Israelite control of the Shephelah seemed to be intact (1 Sam 14:47). However, the geographical details provided in the very first verses of this story make it clear that things have changed. The Philistine military has penetrated the Elah Valley and is encamped in Ephes Dammim between Socoh and Azekah. This geographical detail strategically informs the reader that the Elah Valley is not only threatened but occupied by the enemy. Thus, the economic benefits of this valley are lost and the security of those in the hill country is in jeopardy. This becomes the key crisis requiring resolution in the plot of this narrative.

But the crisis also casts its shadow over the characterization in this story. If ever there was a time to act, a time for valor and faith to come forward, this is it. Surely the king who came to power under the mandate that he go before the people and fight their battles (1 Sam 8:20), the king who had an obligation to manage the Philistine problem, would make his presence felt.[39] But conspicuous by their absence are the voice, the valor, and the inspiration of the king. The battle lines have been drawn up for forty days (17:16). The insults of Goliath have stung the ears of the Israelites for over a month. But Saul’s soldiers are arrayed for a battle they are unwilling to join.[40] As Goliath blusters and impugns the name of the living God, the soldiers of Israel tremble with fear (1 Sam 17:11, 24). “The spirit of God had departed from their leader and his followers seemed to share in the depression which this consciousness brought.”[41] Thus the geographical detail in the exposition plays a critical role in developing the conflict within the plot. As readers are led to appreciate the grave nature of this national security crisis, they are also persuaded to reflect negatively upon the character of Saul as a leader who fails to address this crisis in a meaningful way.

II. The Body of the Narrative

The rush of geographical data fed to the reader within the first verses of the story looms as large as Goliath over all the words and actions that follow, allowing the formal use of geography to subside through the body of the narrative itself. We will briefly visit three places where geography appears in the heart of this story and discuss their literary role.

As David is introduced to the reader in vv. 12–15, we learn that David is from Bethlehem (v. 12) and that he was in the habit of going and returning between the Israelite camp and Bethlehem (v. 15). This small village where David was born lies in the Judean hills that rise immediately above the Elah Valley. Twice in David’s brief introduction the eyes of the reader are lifted from the Elah Valley to Bethlehem in the hills, and the reader gasps. An enemy moving up the Elah Valley would be able to climb the Husan ridge and arrive in Bethlehem in less than one day. This double mention of Bethlehem brackets David’s introduction and places him personally within the geographical context of the crisis.

A second and third formal use of geography in the body of the story follow in vv. 19 and 23. First, as Jesse gives David directions for visiting his brothers, the author has Jesse remind the reader that Saul and all the men of Israel are “in the Elah Valley fighting with the Philistines” (v. 19). Then, as David arrives at the front and gets his first glimpse of Goliath, the narrator reintroduces Goliath as the Philistine from Gath, recalling his earlier introduction in v. 4.

After the first four verses of this story, the detailed use of geography is set aside, presumably having done its job of establishing the critical nature of the conflict. The reader now is permitted to focus more on the words and actions of Saul and David against that backdrop. But while the author pulls back from the extensive use of geography in these verses, small reminders are planted here and there in the narrative. We further note that the direction of the geographical details in the body of the narrative moves from east to west, from Bethlehem to the Elah Valley to Gath. From the Israelite perspective, this sweep of the landscape says it all. The Israelites in the hill country are looking down from the mountains on the Elah Valley at an enemy in that valley who comes from the coastal plain.

III. The Conclusion of the Narrative

The next place that we find geographical data clustering is in v. 52. After the Philistine champion lies headless and defeated in the dirt of the valley, the Philistine army turns in headlong flight. Finding their courage in the words and actions of David, the Israelite army pursues the retreating Philistines. As the narrator reports on this portion of the day, geography again comes to the foreground: “Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron” (1 Sam 17:52 NIV).

Again there is no doubt as to the location of the two cities mentioned within this verse. Gath is located at the site of Tell es-Safi (Tel Zafit). Ekron is located at Tel Miqne.[42] The details offered in the story suggest that many of the Philistine soldiers were unable to flee effectively down the Elah Valley, resorting instead to a less direct route using a valley east of Azekah called the Shaaraim Road.[43] But what is absolutely critical to note for what follows is that both Gath and Ekron lie outside the Elah Valley.

The literary importance of the geography in this verse stands in concert with the way the geography was used in the first four verses of this narrative. Since the very first verses when the scene of battle was introduced, the reader has been acutely aware that the Philistines have invaded and are holding a critical valley. So as to prevent the reader from forgetting about this enemy presence, the writer has mentioned, re-mentioned, and mentioned again the Philistine presence. The word “Philistine” or “Philistines” has occurred thirty-three times since the first verse of the story. And within the twelve verses leading up to v. 52, the Philistine presence is alluded to eighteen times in twelve verses. Again and again we hear about the Philistines, knowing all the while that from the Israelite perspective they are in the wrong place. The situation changes, however, when we reach v. 52 because now the repetition of Gath and Ekron signals to the reader that the Philistines have been removed from the Elah Valley. While there may be dead bodies lying along the Shaaraim road, there are no living Philistines in the territory so highly prized by the Israelites.

What naturally follows is praise for the one who has brought about this turn of events. The reader entered the story feeling the tension of knowing that within Israel two leaders were functioning, a sitting king and an anointed king. The use of geography in the story has established the conflict and detailed the resolution. But en route, the geography has also contributed to the positive characterization of David. At the end of this day it is clear that “while Saul was nominally king, David was already Israel’s leader.”[44]

IV. Conclusion

While the geographical data has received meager attention from interpreters of this famous story, it clearly has something to offer the geographically informed reader who engages the text. The story of David and Goliath is clearly a story of place. By using an interdisciplinary approach called narrative-geographical analysis, we have been able to uncover the deeper connotations of the geographical references used by the author and see how they function both to raise the level of conflict found in the plot and lead to resolution. And more importantly, we have been able to see that the geographical setting allows the reader to draw an unmistakable contrast between the characters of David and Saul. The economic and national security issues associated with an invasion of the Elah Valley by the Philistines opened the door to greatness, and it was David rather than Saul who walked through that door.

Notes

1. In particular, see the essays in The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (ed. Dominique Barthe´lemy et al.; OBO 73; Fribourg/Göttingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). See also Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco: Word, 1983), 173–74; Stanley Isser, The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature (SBLStBL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 29–34; Simon J. de Vries, “David’s Victory over the Philistine as Saga and as Legend,” JBL 92 (1973): 23-36; Emanuel Tov, “The David and Goliath Saga: How a Biblical Editor Combined Two Versions,” BRev 11 (Winter 1986): 34-41; A. Graeme Auld and Craig Y. S. Ho, “The Making of David and Goliath,” JSOT 56 (1992): 19-39.
2. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 147–48; Robert F. Youngblood, “1-2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 703.
3. Klein, 1 Samuel, 175; Hans Wilhelm Hurtzburg, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 146.
4. T. A. Boogaart rightly sees a natural break in the story unit occurring at v. 54 (“History and Drama in the Story of David and Goliath,” RefR 38 [1985]: 204).
5. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 151; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible ( JSOTSup 70; Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 35; Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 115.
6. Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Bible Atlas of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 25–69.
7. Ibid., xv.
8. Tremper Longman III, “Biblical Narrative,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 75.
9. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 194. See also John A. Beck, “The Storyteller and Narrative Geography,” in Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Translation Technique (Studies in Biblical Literature 25; New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 165–96.
10. John A. Beck, “Geography and the Narrative Shape of Numbers 13, ” BSac 157 (2000): 271-80.
11. John A. Beck, “Faith in the Face of Famine: The Narrative-Geographical Function of Famine in Genesis,” The Journal of Biblical Storytelling 11 (2001): 58-66; Beck, “Why Did Moses Strike Out? The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of Moses’ Disqualification (Num 20:1–13),” WTJ 65 (2003): 135-41; Beck, “Why Do Joshua’s Readers Keep Crossing the River? The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of Joshua 3–4, ” JETS 48 (2005): 689-99.
12. John A. Beck, “Geography as Irony: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of Elijah’s Duel with the Prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18),” SJOT 17 (2003): 291-302.
13. John A. Beck, “Mizpah and the Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1 Samuel 7:5–13, ” BSac 162 (2005): 299-309.
14. David Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998), 212.
15. Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (trans. A. F. Rainey; 2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 275.
16. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 83.
17. John Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 189.
18. Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 119; Antony F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 167; V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 169; Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 152–53; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 296.
19. Joe D. Seger, “Azekah,” OEANE 1:243.
20. Ibid. See also J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959), 318; and Ephraim Stern, “Azekah,” NEAEHL 1:123.
21. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 271; Ephraim Stern, “Zafit, Tel,” NEAEHL 4:1522; Seger, OEANE 1:243.
22. Also called the Wadi es-Sant, the Acacia Valley; Simons, Geographical and Topographical Texts, 90.
23. David A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 189–90; Harold Brodsky, “The Shephelah: Guardian of Judea,” BR (Winter 1987): 50.
24. Carl G. Rasmussen, NIV Atlas of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 47.
25. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 25.
26. Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 68.
27. Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich, The Architecture of Ancient Israel ( Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992), 7. The persistence and regenerative powers of this tree made it possible to manipulate the tree into producing even more timber than it would naturally. If a single limb is cut from the tree, it will restore itself by producing multiple limbs at the same spot. In an ancient form of timber management, ancient forestry practice dictated that a mature sycamore tree be cut down. From the stump, numerous limbs would grow and be ready for harvest and use as roof beams within six years. Nogah Hareuveni, Tree and Shrub in Our Biblical Heritage (Lod, Israel: Neot Kedumim, 1984), 87–89.
28. Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 109.
29. Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4.
30. Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel (3d ed.; Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973), 65.
31. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 273.
32. William M. Schniedewind, “The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath,” BASOR 309 (1998): 74. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 25, calls it “a most valued part of the kingdom.”
33. George A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1907), 209; Anson F. Rainey, “The Biblical Shephelah of Judah,” BASOR 251 (1983): 3; Denis Baly, The Geography of the Bible (London: Lutterworth Press, 1957), 144. While some have dated the remains of the fortress at Azekah to the time of the Judges, the scholarly consensus now identifies those ruins with the eighth century B.C.; Stern, “Azekah,” NEAEHL 1:124. Scarabs of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II mention this city; Seger, OEANE 1:243; David A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, 190. Azekah is mentioned in the Lachish letters as a key fortification designed to protect access to Jerusalem; Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 459.
34. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 201.
35. Given the detail, it is somewhat shocking that early Christian visitors to the region identified the contest between David and Goliath with a variety of other locations. In the sixth century, Theodosius placed the battle scene near Mount Gilboa. In the fourteenth century, Sigoli placed the battle just outside Bethlehem. In the nineteenth century, Condor portrayed David selecting stones from the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem. John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades ( Jerusalem: Ariel, 1977), 105; B. Basggati, ed., Visit to the Holy Places of Egypt, Sinai, Palestine, and Syria in 1384 by Frescobaldi, Gucci, and Sigoli (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 6; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1948), 200; C. R. Condor, “The City of Jerusalem,” in Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society (London, 1897; repr., New York: AMS Press, 1971), 2:39.
36. Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 118.
37. Longman, “Biblical Narrative,” 74.
38. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 306.
39. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 127.
40. Barbara Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel ( JSOTSup 365; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 287.
41. Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament (1876–1887; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 87.
42. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 98; Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 308; Ephraim Stern, “Miqne, Tel (Ekron),” NEAEHL 3:1051.
43. Rasmussen, NIV Atlas of the Bible, 113.
44. Klein, 1 Samuel, 183.