1 Samuel 17 credits David with killing Goliath of Gath. 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim killed Goliath the Gittite, identifying Goliath specifically by the same weapon-description ("the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam") used for Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:7. The Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 20:5 "fixes" the problem by inserting "the brother of" before Goliath's name — a transparent harmonization.
Proposed answers
People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.
49David put his hand in his bag, took a stone, and slung it, and struck the Philistine in his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.50So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
51Then David ran, stood over the Philistine, took his sword, drew it out of its sheath, killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.
8David said to Ahimelech, “Isn’t there here under your hand spear or sword? For I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste.”9The priest said, “Behold, the sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the valley of Elah, is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you would like to take that, take it; for there is no other except that here.” David said, “There is none like that. Give it to me.”
19There was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite’s brother, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Notes on manuscript readings that bear on this passage — where the surviving witnesses differ over what the text says. Presented for transparency as the textual critic’s description, not as GEBible’s conclusion about the tension.
Manuscript variants
2 Sam 21:19 (MT) credits Elhanan with killing Goliath; 1 Chron 20:5 reads 'Lahmi the brother of Goliath,' a harmonizing reparse of the same consonants (beit-hallachmi / et-lachmi achi).
McCarter, II Samuel, AB 9 (Doubleday, 1984), 449-450; Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia, 408-409.
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement— a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Widely regarded as a genuine contradiction
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
The Hebrew of 2 Samuel 21:19 states without ambiguity that "Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite" (*et-golyat hag-gitti*), and it describes the giant's weapon with the identical phrase used of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:7 — "the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The parallel verse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads instead, "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." The relationship between the two Hebrew texts is mechanically visible. The Chronicler's *et-Lahmi achi* ("Lahmi the brother of") corresponds graphically to 2 Samuel's *beit ha-Lachmi* ("the Bethlehemite"): the same consonants, reparsed. Several scholars further note the loss or transposition of *oregim* ("weavers," likely a dittograph drawn down from the "weaver's beam" simile) and the simplification of the patronymic. Whatever the exact stemma, 1 Chronicles 20:5 is a smoother text in which David's signature feat is preserved and the rival claim neutralized by inserting a brother named Lahmi.
The apologetic response, taken by Archer, by the NIV Study Bible note, and by Tsumura in his NICOT volume on 2 Samuel, is that 2 Samuel 21:19 is scribally corrupt and 1 Chronicles 20:5 preserves the original: a copyist garbled "Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath" into "Elhanan slew Goliath the Bethlehemite," generating a phantom clash with the David story. Stated at its strongest, this is a genuine text-critical argument — the consonantal overlaps are real, and corruption in proper names and patronymics is common in Samuel, a book whose Masoretic text is notoriously damaged.
The difficulty is that the proposed direction of change runs against the governing principle, *lectio difficilior potior*: the harder reading is more likely original because scribes harmonize toward coherence, not away from it. "Elhanan killed Goliath" is the theologically awkward reading — it competes with the most celebrated single combat in Israel's tradition — and is exactly the sort of claim no later editor would invent. "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath" is the convenient reading, precisely what a harmonizer protecting the David tradition would produce. McCarter, A. A. Anderson in the Word commentary, and Graeme Auld in the OTL volume all therefore judge 2 Samuel 21:19 the earlier text and 1 Chronicles 20:5 the deliberate smoothing; Ralph Klein and Sara Japhet read the Chronicles parallel the same way from the Chronicler's side. The apologetic case has to suppose that the Chronicler — or his Vorlage — uniquely preserved a correct reading that every other witness lost, and that the loss happened to fall on the one verse whose original form would embarrass the national epic.
The wider data reinforce the critical reconstruction. Second Samuel 23:24 lists among David's elite warriors "Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem" — an Elhanan from Bethlehem, the very town later attached to David — which several scholars (McCarter, McKenzie) take as a clue that an authentic Goliath-slaying by a Bethlehemite hero named Elhanan stood at the root of the tradition and was subsequently transferred to David as the David legend grew. On that reconstruction the David-and-Goliath narrative of 1 Samuel 17 is a secondary literary development that absorbed an older exploit, the Chronicler later detected the collision, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the editorial repair that betrays awareness of the problem it solves.
The "scribal corruption" defense is not unreasonable on its face, but it inverts the text-critical principle it invokes and requires a uniquely convenient transmission accident. The simpler, more powerful explanation is that Elhanan slew Goliath in the older tradition, the feat was reassigned to David, and the Chronicler harmonized.
Where the critical reading lands: genuine contradiction reflecting a transferred legend, with 1 Chronicles 20:5 a transparent later harmonization rather than a preserved original.
Sources for this reading
P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; Doubleday, 1984) pp. 449-450on the priority of 2 Samuel 21:192 Samuel 21:19
A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Westminster John Knox, 2011) pp. 568-571on Elhanan as Goliath's slayer
A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary 11; Word, 1989) pp. 254-255on 2 Samuel 21:19 and its Chronicles parallel2 Samuel 21:19
Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Fortress, 2006) pp. 408-409on the Chronicler's smoothing of the Elhanan tradition
Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Westminster John Knox, 1993) pp. 369-371on the reworking of 2 Samuel 21:192 Samuel 21:19
Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 76-79on the legendary transfer of Goliath's defeat to David
David Toshio Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel (NICOT; Eerdmans, 2019) pp. 309-313[apologetic harmonization], defending the scribal-corruption reading
Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982) pp. 178-179[apologetic foil], on who killed Goliath
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Widely regarded as a genuine contradiction
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
The Hebrew of 2 Samuel 21:19 states without ambiguity that "Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite" (*et-golyat hag-gitti*), and it describes the giant's weapon with the identical phrase used of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:7 — "the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The parallel verse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads instead, "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." The relationship between the two Hebrew texts is mechanically visible. The Chronicler's *et-Lahmi achi* ("Lahmi the brother of") corresponds graphically to 2 Samuel's *beit ha-Lachmi* ("the Bethlehemite"): the same consonants, reparsed. Several scholars further note the loss or transposition of *oregim* ("weavers," likely a dittograph drawn down from the "weaver's beam" simile) and the simplification of the patronymic. Whatever the exact stemma, 1 Chronicles 20:5 is a smoother text in which David's signature feat is preserved and the rival claim neutralized by inserting a brother named Lahmi.
The apologetic response, taken by Archer, by the NIV Study Bible note, and by Tsumura in his NICOT volume on 2 Samuel, is that 2 Samuel 21:19 is scribally corrupt and 1 Chronicles 20:5 preserves the original: a copyist garbled "Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath" into "Elhanan slew Goliath the Bethlehemite," generating a phantom clash with the David story. Stated at its strongest, this is a genuine text-critical argument — the consonantal overlaps are real, and corruption in proper names and patronymics is common in Samuel, a book whose Masoretic text is notoriously damaged.
The difficulty is that the proposed direction of change runs against the governing principle, *lectio difficilior potior*: the harder reading is more likely original because scribes harmonize toward coherence, not away from it. "Elhanan killed Goliath" is the theologically awkward reading — it competes with the most celebrated single combat in Israel's tradition — and is exactly the sort of claim no later editor would invent. "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath" is the convenient reading, precisely what a harmonizer protecting the David tradition would produce. McCarter, A. A. Anderson in the Word commentary, and Graeme Auld in the OTL volume all therefore judge 2 Samuel 21:19 the earlier text and 1 Chronicles 20:5 the deliberate smoothing; Ralph Klein and Sara Japhet read the Chronicles parallel the same way from the Chronicler's side. The apologetic case has to suppose that the Chronicler — or his Vorlage — uniquely preserved a correct reading that every other witness lost, and that the loss happened to fall on the one verse whose original form would embarrass the national epic.
The wider data reinforce the critical reconstruction. Second Samuel 23:24 lists among David's elite warriors "Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem" — an Elhanan from Bethlehem, the very town later attached to David — which several scholars (McCarter, McKenzie) take as a clue that an authentic Goliath-slaying by a Bethlehemite hero named Elhanan stood at the root of the tradition and was subsequently transferred to David as the David legend grew. On that reconstruction the David-and-Goliath narrative of 1 Samuel 17 is a secondary literary development that absorbed an older exploit, the Chronicler later detected the collision, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the editorial repair that betrays awareness of the problem it solves.
The "scribal corruption" defense is not unreasonable on its face, but it inverts the text-critical principle it invokes and requires a uniquely convenient transmission accident. The simpler, more powerful explanation is that Elhanan slew Goliath in the older tradition, the feat was reassigned to David, and the Chronicler harmonized.
Where the critical reading lands: genuine contradiction reflecting a transferred legend, with 1 Chronicles 20:5 a transparent later harmonization rather than a preserved original.
Sources for this reading