426 GREGORY T.K. WONG automatically associate jxm with its more common meaning “forehead” rather than the rare and more technical “greave”. Therefore, contrary to the common assumption that it was the Philistine’s forehead that was hit, Deem contends that in reality, the stone sank into the open space in one of Goliath’s greaves designed to allow the bending of the knees, thus restricting his mobility and causing him to stumble and fall. Subsequent to its publication, Deem’s proposal has found an able advocate in Fokkelman, who further buttresses the theory’s credibility with careful observations from the text. Among these, Fokkelman points out in particular that had David’s stone struck Goliath on the forehead, the force of impact from the projectile would surely cause the Philistine to fall backwards and not with his face to the ground as v. 49 clearly indicates 4. From a literary and theological standpoint, Fokkelman further argues that understanding David’s stone as having struck Goliath’s greaves rather than his forehead would make for a much more effective and telling denouement since it would result in the formidable irony that the source of Goliath’s downfall is then placed at the exact spot where his strength would have been: the massive armour that seemingly rendered him invincible before had turned against him in the end 5. Unfortunately, in spite of the arguments put forth by Deem and Fokkelman, the reading they championed has not gained wide acceptance. Scholars have commonly cited two main objections. The first concerns the matter of plausibility. In rejecting Deem’s reading, Tsumura, for example, opines that a stone sinking into the Philistine’s greave “probably would not have knocked a giant down, certainly would not have left him helpless when David came and took his sword ” 6. Similarly, Klein wonders if a hit above the opening at the tip of the greaves that allows knee movement would be sufficient to knock a giant down 7. But against these objections, it must be remembered that not only was Goliath wearing a heavy metallic armour that weighed approximately 126 pounds exclusive of the bronze helmet and greaves, he was also carrying a spear the tip of which alone weighed another 15 pounds 8. In addition, he also had a scimitar slung over his shoulders and was apparently also carrying a sword with a sheath (cf. v. 51). For J.P. FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Assen 4 1986) II, 186; ID., Reading Biblical Narrative. An Introductory Guide (Louisville, KY 1999) 32. FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 186; ID., Reading, 33. 5 D.T. TSUMURA, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT ; Grand Rapids, MI 6 2007) 465. R.W. KLEIN 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Dallas, TX 1983) 180. 7 Taking a shekel to be about 0.403 ounces, KLEIN, Samuel, 175, estimates 8