Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Goliath and Legend

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The idea of using a jawbone of an ass as a weapon is hardly as ridiculous as it sounds to most modern readers. The Plains Indians in North America as well as the Apache of the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico often utilized clubs made from the jawbone of various large animals including bison, elk and horses. They would usually sharpen the striking edge of the weapon while leaving the teeth inside the jaw bone in place. Such a weapon left nasty often lethal wounds and many weapon historians rate them as being effective though potentially brittle. Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch for one to be used to kill 300 men without breaking but the user could have carried more than one considering their size (warriors carrying multiple handaxes and the like was not unheard of) or might have even finished the battle using an opponent's weapon picked up from the battlefield.

    Here are some images of Native American jawbone war clubs (the first one is a reproduction using a bison jaw and for sale but still gets the point across):

    I think Adrift has the right of it. I don't deny that jawbones would be an effective weapon. I question that a single such weapon could be used to kill 1000 people in one go, especially since we're going a step beyond "often lethal". Though it's true he could have made use of more than one, there's nothing in the text that would indicate this was what happened. I tend to draw a pretty hard line when it comes to adding to the text like that.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      I think Adrift has the right of it. I don't deny that jawbones would be an effective weapon. I question that a single such weapon could be used to kill 1000 people in one go, especially since we're going a step beyond "often lethal". Though it's true he could have made use of more than one, there's nothing in the text that would indicate this was what happened. I tend to draw a pretty hard line when it comes to adding to the text like that.
      More to the point, it came from putrefied donkey that just so happened to be nearby. The Native American weapons were processed with great care.

      Comment


      • If the story has been reduced from 1,000 killings to 300, and now depends on multiple processed donkey jawbones to accomplish the feat rather than just one, I think it's safe to deduce that legendary embellishment has occurred.
        Last edited by whag; 01-16-2015, 01:20 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by whag View Post
          If the story has been reduced from 1,000 killings to 300, and now depends on multiple processed donkey jawbones to accomplish the feat rather than just one, I think it's safe to deduce that legendary embellishment has occurred.
          It's not 'legendary embellishment' if such things (being loose with numbers, exaggeration for rhetorical effect) were considered acceptable and normal practice in story-telling / passing on history at the time of writing.
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            It's not 'legendary embellishment' if such things (being loose with numbers, exaggeration for rhetorical effect) were considered acceptable and normal practice in story-telling / passing on history at the time of writing.
            I thought I was being diplomatic with my phrase. Rhetorical “embellishment” is the same thing as rhetorical exaggeration, even kinder, actually, since embellishment implies an aesthetic consistent with literature, whereas exaggeration has a more negative connotation.

            The Encyclopedia says

            "The cycle of the Samson stories is regarded by most liberal critics, and even by some Jewish interpreters in the Talmudic period (from the 1st century ce), as legendary or epical."

            Some 1st century Jews and most modern liberal critics call it pure legend.

            "More conservative exegetes, while admitting the unlikeliness of the events and the folkloristic style of the text, nevertheless claim to identify a core of historical truth in the saga, albeit embellished by popular imagination and augmented in rabbinical literature. Samson, accordingly, was taken by the editor of Judges as illustrating his general thesis—that, when the Israelites were unfaithful to Yahweh, they were oppressed and, when they appealed to him, they were liberated."

            They're essentially synonymous.

            So even conservatives would probably be okay with the term and prefer it to “exaggeration.” They might be afraid to call it "legendary" because of the connotations, but I’m not sure that's important in the context of this thread. I don't really care about their fear of connotations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              It's not 'legendary embellishment' if such things (being loose with numbers, exaggeration for rhetorical effect) were considered acceptable and normal practice in story-telling / passing on history at the time of writing.
              Whether or not a tale was exaggerated and/or embellished upon is not dependent on how accepted exaggeration and embellishment were in storytelling. The acceptance of the practice is not a prerequisite.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                Whether or not a tale was exaggerated and/or embellished upon is not dependent on how accepted exaggeration and embellishment were in storytelling. The acceptance of the practice is not a prerequisite.
                This is correct. I never said "This is unacceptable" nor did I anachronistically call these embellishments "lies." I just called them legends, perhaps based on kernels of history, perhaps not, but legends nonetheless.

                Comment


                • The point I'm trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make is that just because an account has features that we would nowadays consider 'legendary embellishments' doesn't mean that the core events in the account are unhistorical.

                  For example, differences in event order between the gospels are taken by some to indicate that the events themselves are unhistorical, because present day historians are expected to be pretty scrupulous about dates, sequences and numbers. This takes on a different light when we realise that ancient historical writers felt quite free to organise events around themes rather than by chronological order.

                  Was Goliath really 9ft tall? That seems impossible, so we doubt the entire account.

                  Perhaps there's a combination of: our uncertainty about what exactly ancient measurement units mean in modern units; ancient writer's imprecision about numbers; and exaggeration for effect. The point of the account is not exactly how big Goliath was, the point is that he was significantly bigger than any Israelite, very well armed and armoured, and most likely a professional soldier/duel champion. Yet God's power enabled David to take him out, easily.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    The point I'm trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make is that just because an account has features that we would nowadays consider 'legendary embellishments' doesn't mean that the core events in the account are unhistorical.
                    Agreed.


                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    For example, differences in event order between the gospels are taken by some to indicate that the events themselves are unhistorical, because present day historians are expected to be pretty scrupulous about dates, sequences and numbers. This takes on a different light when we realise that ancient historical writers felt quite free to organise events around themes rather than by chronological order.
                    This is not the same thing. For one, I haven't seen people contend that the event order is a reason for disbelief. Rather, it is the differing versions of events that provide reason for doubt. When we take into consideration that the authors took freedoms to portray specific themes, we're left wondering why we should accept any version as true. An author who favors themes over accuracy is not one in which we should place our trust.


                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Was Goliath really 9ft tall? That seems impossible, so we doubt the entire account.
                    It's increasingly looking like the 9' tall version is a single (mis)translation that is taken as the sole version by everyone who retells the tale. We already addressed that within this thread, concluding that his actual height was actually recorded at 6' 6".


                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Perhaps there's a combination of: our uncertainty about what exactly ancient measurement units mean in modern units; ancient writer's imprecision about numbers; and exaggeration for effect. The point of the account is not exactly how big Goliath was, the point is that he was significantly bigger than any Israelite, very well armed and armoured, and most likely a professional soldier/duel champion. Yet God's power enabled David to take him out, easily.
                    I think you've got it right all the way up to the last sentence. A 6' 6" man, even in good armor, is still vulnerable to a proficient slinger. The tale isn't quite as amazing as it's generally portrayed. We can look in amazement at the recorded distance of certain sniper kills, but each one is still within the realm of human ability.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • I'm confused why a 9 foot human is impossible. The tallest man recorded in our history was 8' 11.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        Agreed.




                        This is not the same thing. For one, I haven't seen people contend that the event order is a reason for disbelief. Rather, it is the differing versions of events that provide reason for doubt. When we take into consideration that the authors took freedoms to portray specific themes, we're left wondering why we should accept any version as true. An author who favors themes over accuracy is not one in which we should place our trust.

                        It was a (loosely) related example to illustrate the point: ancient writers operated under different writing conventions and priorities, and rejecting their accounts solely because they didn't write according to our conventions and priorities is fallacious.

                        Your last sentence means you're going to have to throw out pretty much all ancient biography and most history, AFAIK.


                        Originally posted by Carrikature
                        It's increasingly looking like the 9' tall version is a single (mis)translation that is taken as the sole version by everyone who retells the tale. We already addressed that within this thread, concluding that his actual height was actually recorded at 6' 6".

                        That's plenty big enough to be very intimidating. I've played casual basketball against someone 6'5". I'm 5'8", and play with people who are my height or not much taller. Him simply changing hands on his dribble made him pretty much unguardable, and he could block shots, without even jumping, that I can get off easily against others.



                        Originally posted by Carrikature
                        I think you've got it right all the way up to the last sentence. A 6' 6" man, even in good armor, is still vulnerable to a proficient slinger. The tale isn't quite as amazing as it's generally portrayed. We can look in amazement at the recorded distance of certain sniper kills, but each one is still within the realm of human ability.


                        What I think people often miss about miracles is context (and/or timing). Something that is within the realm of the 'normally possible' - like a slinger killing an armoured soldier with one shot - but happens just at a particular time, or in a particular context... ...well that seems unusually unlikely.
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          I'm confused why a 9 foot human is impossible. The tallest man recorded in our history was 8' 11.
                          See? The tallest possible man is 8'11, NOT 9 foot.



                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            I'm confused why a 9 foot human is impossible. The tallest man recorded in our history was 8' 11.
                            Because gigantism is a handicap not a benefit. It's not that it's impossible to grow to that height but that giants don't make good soldiers. The storytellers who did the embellishing didn't know that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by whag View Post
                              Because gigantism is a handicap not a benefit. It's not that it's impossible to grow to that height but that giants don't make good soldiers.

                              Source?


                              I'm thinking that I would hate to go up against someone like Shaq, or David Robinson, or Steven Adams in a one-on-one HTH fight,especially if they were a trained soldier.


                              Originally posted by whag
                              The storytellers who did the embellishing didn't know that.
                              Kind of assuming your conclusion, aren't you?
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                Source?


                                I'm thinking that I would hate to go up against someone like Shaq, or David Robinson, or Steven Adams in a one-on-one HTH fight,especially if they were a trained soldier.




                                Kind of assuming your conclusion, aren't you?
                                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism

                                There are currently a handful of men pushing 9 feet in the world, and none of them would have the agility to glide down a basketball court, even in their youth. Soldiering is much more intensive.

                                And yes I'm assuming the ancient Israelites weren't aware of medical literature.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X