Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#10 – The Mysterious Disappearance of Swords in Israel?
A perplexing biblical contradiction emerges in the account of weaponry among the Israelites. In 1 Samuel 13:19-22, we are told that during Saul’s reign, there was not a single sword or spear among the Israelites, except for those belonging to Saul and his son Jonathan. However, this claim is difficult to reconcile with other passages. In the period of the judges, only a generation or so earlier, swords appear to have been commonplace. Judges 8:10 describes Gideon defeating 120,000 enemy swordsmen, and Judges 20:2,15,17 detail a vast Israelite army equipped for battle, implying they were well-armed.
How Does Ehrman Err?
Bart Ehrman’s observation highlights an apparent tension between the scarcity of swords in Israel during Saul’s reign (1 Samuel 13:19–22) and earlier accounts in Judges that mention swords and large armies. Let’s examine the relevant passages and context, then address the supposed contradiction.
Understanding the Context and Language
1. The Passages in Question
1 Samuel 13:19–22 (ESV):
“Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.’ But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle, and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. So on the day of the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them.”
Judges 8:10 (ESV):
“Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor with their army, about 15,000 men, all who were left of all the army of the people of the East, for there had fallen 120,000 men who drew the sword.”
Judges 20:2, 15, 17 (ESV):
“And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 men on foot that drew the sword. … And the people of Benjamin mustered out of their cities on that day 26,000 men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who mustered 700 chosen men. … And the men of Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered 400,000 men who drew the sword; all these were men of war.”
Addressing the Apparent Contradiction
1. Historical Context and Shifting Circumstances
The period of the Judges and the early monarchy (Saul’s reign) are separated by several decades, and the political and military situation in Israel changed dramatically during that time. During the Judges, Israel experienced cycles of oppression and deliverance, and there were times when they were able to arm themselves effectively, often by taking weapons from defeated enemies (Judges 7:22; 8:10).
By Saul’s time, however, the Philistines had established technological and economic dominance over Israel, especially in ironworking. 1 Samuel 13:19–22 specifically notes that the Philistines had imposed a monopoly on blacksmithing, preventing the Israelites from manufacturing or repairing swords and spears. This was a deliberate act of oppression to keep Israel militarily weak.
Key Point:
The text in 1 Samuel is not saying that swords never existed in Israel, but that at that particular moment, due to Philistine oppression, the Israelites had been systematically deprived of weapons.
2. “Men Who Drew the Sword” as a Figure of Speech
The phrase “men who drew the sword” in Judges is a common ancient Near Eastern idiom for “soldiers” or “warriors.” It does not necessarily mean that every single soldier had a sword; it is a way of describing fighting men in general. Many may have fought with other weapons (spears, slings, bows, clubs, etc.), as was common in ancient armies.
3. Loss and Recovery of Weapons
It is plausible that after major battles, especially those described in Judges, Israel would have acquired weapons from their enemies. However, over time, especially under Philistine domination, these weapons could have been confiscated, lost, or rendered unusable due to lack of blacksmiths. The Philistine strategy was to prevent Israel from rearming after such victories.
4. No Contradiction, but a Reflection of Changing Circumstances
Therefore, the situation described in 1 Samuel 13 reflects a specific historical moment of extreme deprivation, not a general statement about all of Israel’s history. The earlier passages in Judges reflect times when Israel had more access to weapons, often through victory in battle and the spoils that followed.
Biblical Synthesis and Principle
This is an example of the “synthesis principle” in biblical interpretation: when we read Scripture together, apparent contradictions often resolve when we consider context, genre, and the flow of redemptive history. As one Apologetics Canada podcast puts it:
“It’s this synthesis principle where when you read scripture together, you start to see, oh, this makes sense…”
(Source: “It’s Literally a Metaphor”: How to Take the Bible Seriously)
Supporting Verses
- Historical Change and Oppression:
- “Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.’” (1 Samuel 13:19, ESV)
- Previous Access to Weapons:
- “…for there had fallen 120,000 men who drew the sword.” (Judges 8:10, ESV)
- God’s Sovereignty Over History:
- “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” (Daniel 2:21, ESV)
Conclusion
There is no contradiction here, but rather a reflection of the changing historical circumstances of Israel. The Bible accurately records both times of military strength and times of oppression and weakness. This honesty about Israel’s history is actually a mark of the Bible’s reliability, not its inconsistency.