David and Goliath

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a interesting TED video talk about David and Goliath. An interesting reason as to why Goliath could have been vulnerable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziGD7vQOwl8

Cheers.

Sriram

[Anchorman]

Hi everyone,

Here is a interesting TED video talk about David and Goliath. An interesting reason as to why Goliath could have been vulnerable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziGD7vQOwl8

Cheers.

Sriram

   
Being a geek, I'm more interested in the organisation of the Philistine 'kingdom' and the speed at which it was established following Ramessses III's expulsion of the 'plstn' or 'Palestinu' = 'Sea Peoples'

[Gordon]

Of course the David vs Goliath story probably isn't true anyway:

Elhanan and Goliath

2 Samuel 21:19 tells how Goliath the Gittite was killed by "Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite." Scholars believe that the original killer of Goliath was Elhanan and that the authors of the Deutoronomic history changed the text to credit the victory to the more famous character, David.[3] The fourth-century BC 1 Chronicle 20:5 explains the second Goliath by saying that Elhanan "slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath", constructing the name Lahmi from the last portion of the word "Bethlehemite" ("beit-ha’lahmi"), and the King James Bible adopted this into 2 Samuel 21:18–19, but the Hebrew text at Goliath's name makes no mention of the word "brother".[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

Maybe instead of a 15 minute talk all the guy needed to say was that old cliché - 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'.

[jeremyp]

Of course the David vs Goliath story probably isn't true anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

Maybe instead of a 15 minute talk all the guy

Malcolm Gladwell

needed to say was that old cliché - 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'.

The talk actually tries to turn the story around. Traditionally, it is about an underdog taking on and beating a superior foe. Gladwell points out that David had superior weaponry for the situation once you realise he didn't have to play by Goliath's rules i.e. he didn't have to engage in hand to hand combat. Also, he claims that the narrative fits Goliath having a particular form of giantism which is also associated with problems with his vision.

I haven't yet looked at the Bible passage to check Gladwell's claims (athough the first one i obviously true), but if they are true, it means Goliath must be based on a real person.

[Gordon]

Malcolm GladwellThe talk actually tries to turn the story around. Traditionally, it is about an underdog taking on and beating a superior foe. Gladwell points out that David had superior weaponry for the situation once you realise he didn't have to play by Goliath's rules i.e. he didn't have to engage in hand to hand combat. Also, he claims that the narrative fits Goliath having a particular form of giantism which is also associated with problems with his vision.

I haven't yet looked at the Bible passage to check Gladwell's claims (athough the first one i obviously true), but if they are true, it means Goliath must be based on a real person.

It may well be that Goliath was a real person, and maybe he did have something along the lines of a pituitary disorder (not that anyone back then would know about hormonal disorders): the doubt though is it wasn't David that killed him, but this chap Elhanan, son of Jair. 

[jeremyp]

It may well be that Goliath was a real person, and maybe he did have something along the lines of a pituitary disorder (not that anyone back then would know about hormonal disorders): the doubt though is it wasn't David that killed him, but this chap Elhanan, son of Jair.

I was sort of taking it as read that such details as who killed Goliath (if the story is based in fact) were probably made up.

[Anchorman]

I was sort of taking it as read that such details as who killed Goliath (if the story is based in fact) were probably made up.

     


Probably the numbers were made up; the battle was probably genuine; the two tribal factions were battling in what was essentially a power vacume; the small tribal territories had allied themselves with either the Egyptians, Hittites or Mitanni as the main superpowers in the area.
The former two were in turmoil - the latter, the Hittites, in terminal decline, and Mitanni was being absorbed by the nascent Assyrian kingdom.
Land was up for grabs, and there was no 'peacekeeping' power to quell the strife.
The various skirmishes mentioned in Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, whilst being exaggerated, bear witness to the mess in the area at that time (1200-950 BC)

[ProfessorDavey]

It may well be that Goliath was a real person, and maybe he did have something along the lines of a pituitary disorder (not that anyone back then would know about hormonal disorders): the doubt though is it wasn't David that killed him, but this chap Elhanan, son of Jair.

I think it is perfectly possible that a particularly large person may have had a medical issue.

However the most interesting part of the talk for me (I'm a fan of Malcom Gladwell) is his view on who is, and is not, the underdog in the fight. When you actually think about it a skilled slingshot operator is likely to win in a fight with someone who relies on hand to hand conflict, provide he can keep the other person some distance away. That, as seems to be implies, David would have used the slingshot to keep wolves and other predators away from sheep, suggests this weapon was pretty effective.

It kind of reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where Jones is faced with this adversary who is wielding a sword - he takes out his gun and shoots him. The person with a gun and skilled in its use isn't the underdog, and therefore the person with a slingshot and skilled in its use isn't the underdog regardless of how large and how many swords etc the adversary has.

[Gordon]

I get the point that what might at first glance appear as a mismatch - big guy with armour, shield and sword etc versus wee guy with slingshot - was anything but, in that the wee guy could engage without going close enough to the big guy for the big guy to do his thing.

For me though, and even assuming the bit about Goliath being killed is true, is that the attribution of the killing to David might well be propaganda is an example of why some of the details in the Bible should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. 

[Spud]

   
Being a geek, I'm more interested in the organisation of the Philistine 'kingdom' and the speed at which it was established following Ramessses III's expulsion of the 'plstn' or 'Palestinu' = 'Sea Peoples'

The historical setting was interesting, but he definitely made the rest up. Goliath was more likely to have been using hyperbole when he said "sticks" than seeing double.