Goliath and Legend

[whag]

You are automatically excluding the potential that God had enabled Samson (and the jawbone) for this event. If you take God out of the picture, then there is no message behind the event. Samson's power was attributed to the enabling by God. My gut tells me that the story is essentially factual albeit the number may be non-specific, i.e. there wasn't someone making an exact count.

So what do the scholars say about the Samson account?

Once you have divine enablement, the feat isn't amazing. A Jedi hand wave could've done the trick.

Scholars generally regard Jewish legend in the same way they regard all cultural legend, as embellished through oral tradition. Exaggeration is a feature of ancient storytelling.

[JonathanL]

That doesn't say "all Scripture points to Jesus." It says that the Scriptures in which eternal life can be found testify to Jesus. This does not imply that eternal life can be found in all Scripture.

I'm just pointing out what Scrawly is probably referring to when he said that Jesus claimed all Scriptures point to Him. But Jesus' words certainly seem general enough to encompass the entirety of the Old Testament. I.e I think He was telling His listeners that the Scriptures (i.e the Old Testament) that they were studying in hopes of gaining eternal life were pointing to him. He might not have meant that every single part of the Old Testament was specifically talking about Him or foreshadowing Him in some way, but it does seem like he thought the Old Testament in general was written to point the way to Himself. Atleast it seems to me like that is the case when I read the passage. Even if there are other ways (and they might even be valid) to interpret the passage it seems to me that this is the most straightforward interpretation, and I see no good reason as to why I should prefer a more non-intuitive interpretation to this one.

[Carrikature]

You are automatically excluding the potential that God had enabled Samson (and the jawbone) for this event. If you take God out of the picture, then there is no message behind the event. Samson's power was attributed to the enabling by God. My gut tells me that the story is essentially factual albeit the number may be non-specific, i.e. there wasn't someone making an exact count.

So what do the scholars say about the Samson account?

So, while you hold to the belief that it could have happened as portrayed, you recognize that 1,000 is a suitably generic number that could easily stand for "a lot of people". That's pretty much legend in a nutshell. We could say the same thing about Goliath's height. He could be "really tall and imposing" in a land of little people. It would fit the general concept without requiring a 9'+ guy to exist.

[whag]

So, while you hold to the belief that it could have happened as portrayed, you recognize that 1,000 is a suitably generic number that could easily stand for "a lot of people". That's pretty much legend in a nutshell. We could say the same thing about Goliath's height. He could be "really tall and imposing" in a land of little people. It would fit the general concept without requiring a 9'+ guy to exist.

Have we ever discovered a 9-foot human fossil who was not disfigured in some way?

[Carrikature]

Does faith complement skill by sharpening David's aim and augmenting the velocity of the stone throw?

I don't understand why a common skill--defending herds against apex predators--would make Saul enlist David. Nothing about that really makes sense, and it has little if anything to do with supernature. Like bad movies, legends often have unbelievable plot points to get to the critical action.

I think your ignorance of slings is showing. It's more likely that slingers were a regular addition to the army. They're perfectly capable of being very lethal at range.

[Carrikature]

Have we ever discovered a 9-foot human fossil who was not disfigured in some way?

I haven't a clue.

[mikewhitney]

So, while you hold to the belief that it could have happened as portrayed, you recognize that 1,000 is a suitably generic number that could easily stand for "a lot of people". That's pretty much legend in a nutshell. We could say the same thing about Goliath's height. He could be "really tall and imposing" in a land of little people. It would fit the general concept without requiring a 9'+ guy to exist.

Ok. If is were 900 or 1001, the number is still fine. If it were 500 would it be less of a miracle? I can accept the idea that they spoke, for example, in orders of magnitude. Plus there might be some errors when transcribing numbers without there being a misrepresentation of the essential account. Like I said before, there probably wouldn't be someone getting an exact count. People today will say there were 2000 people in a crowd. Such counts are not exact.

The estimate of 9' would be easier to recount. He could have been taller too. I'm also not sure how much the cubit had varied.

An assumption that things were simply exaggerated is merely an assumption. It would have been an incoherent account if Goliath was 5' 2"

[Carrikature]

I think your ignorance of slings is showing. It's more likely that slingers were a regular addition to the army. They're perfectly capable of being very lethal at range.

This sounded ruder than I had intended it. Sorry about that. I've done very little reading on slings, but what I little I know indicates that there's no real problem with the story from a "could David have killed Goliath" perspective. Whether or not the event happened as described (champion combat vs a giant) is some else altogether. We do know that single combat, and more rarely champion combat, isn't unheard of in earlier times. I'm not sure how likely it is that a nation would give up if their champion was slain. On the other hand, if the strongest guy on your team is capable of ripping through most of my team, I'm going to be a lot more likely to run away if your guy is unopposed. Being offered the chance to live in slavery instead of (probably) dying in battle is something one might reasonably consider. Double that if you believe your deity might even want the other guys to win (as in, we've been evil and need to be punished).

[whag]

I think your ignorance of slings is showing. It's more likely that slingers were a regular addition to the army. They're perfectly capable of being very lethal at range.

That's why I acknowledged that the skill to kill large predators wasn't an extraordinary skill for shepherds or warriors, hence Saul's being impressed by it rather odd.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Atleast it seems to me like that is the case when I read the passage. Even if there are other ways (and they might even be valid) to interpret the passage it seems to me that this is the most straightforward interpretation, and I see no good reason as to why I should prefer a more non-intuitive interpretation to this one.

I would say precisely the same thing about the interpretation which I gave. A straightforward reading of the Greek seems to say that the Scriptures in which eternal life can be found testify to Jesus. There is no implication, in the Greek, that this is intended to apply to all-- nor even to most-- of the Old Testament. It seems completely counter-intuitive, to me, to attempt to extend this statement to all the writings of the OT.

[whag]

This sounded ruder than I had intended it. Sorry about that. I've done very little reading on slings, but what I little I know indicates that there's no real problem with the story from a "could David have killed Goliath" perspective. Whether or not the event happened as described (champion combat vs a giant) is some else altogether. We do know that single combat, and more rarely champion combat, isn't unheard of in earlier times. I'm not sure how likely it is that a nation would give up if their champion was slain. On the other hand, if the strongest guy on your team is capable of ripping through most of my team, I'm going to be a lot more likely to run away if your guy is unopposed. Being offered the chance to live in slavery instead of (probably) dying in battle is something one might reasonably consider. Double that if you believe your deity might even want the other guys to win (as in, we've been evil and need to be punished).

I think the honor challenge is not likely to have scared a capable king. Obviously, neither side would agree to complete subjugation to the winner of the challenge.

Legends typically have large contrast. The unbelievable plot points are meant to get us to the confrontation between a puny scantily clad David and a shekel-covered giant.

[mikewhitney]

Once you have divine enablement, the feat isn't amazing. A Jedi hand wave could've done the trick.

Scholars generally regard Jewish legend in the same way they regard all cultural legend, as embellished through oral tradition. Exaggeration is a feature of ancient storytelling.

I was interested in more specific scholars. Scholars are making generalizations and are not likely to be able to determine what exactly has happened in specific texts. There is nothing absolutely implausible about some fighter being 9' tall (and what is the range of variance in the cubit? -- if he was as tall as a modern pro basketball player would that be a big issue?). We would find it atypical though. As I posted elsewhere, if Goliath was 5' 2" then we likely wouldn't have had an account made of the event.

The scriptures are written, not left to oral traditions. The question behind this is whether the OT is more accurate than general storytelling that you speak of. The problem of your Jedi is that there is no historical context where Jedi were found to exist.

[whag]

I was interested in more specific scholars. Scholars are making generalizations and are not likely to be able to determine what exactly has happened in specific texts. There is nothing absolutely implausible about some fighter being 9' tall (and what is the range of variance in the cubit? -- if he was as tall as a modern pro basketball player would that be a big issue?). We would find it atypical though. As I posted elsewhere, if Goliath was 5' 2" then we likely wouldn't have had an account made of the event.

The scriptures are written, not left to oral traditions. The question behind this is whether the OT is more accurate than general storytelling that you speak of. The problem of your Jedi is that there is no historical context where Jedi were found to exist.

Re: cubits, I believe the height was specified to emphasize great enormity and the fear it caused. Someone Shaq's height wouldn't do.

Re: oral tradition, I don't get your point. These stories developed through oral storytelling then transcribed later.

Re: Jedis, they weren't necessary to make my point about the feat being not so amazing if it was solely powered by God or magic hair or whatever.

[mikewhitney]

I think the honor challenge is not likely to have scared a capable king. Obviously, neither side would agree to complete subjugation to the winner of the challenge.

Legends typically have large contrast. The unbelievable plot points are meant to get us to the confrontation between a puny scantily clad David and a shekel-covered giant.

It is funny to note that the losers still went to battle instead of accepting slavery.

We often think how great this account is which focuses on a little guy going up against a big warrior. The point we miss is that the Hebrews were willing to record an account (and preserve) an account which showed themselves as a fearful people with a king who could not even muster up a challenger to Goliath. Is such weakness of a people common material for making legends? I've never tested the theory but would expect that legendary writings would show one's own people as the powerful rulers and warriors.

[mikewhitney]

Re: cubits, I believe the height was specified to emphasize great enormity and the fear it caused. Someone Shaq's height wouldn't do.

Re: oral tradition, I don't get your point. These stories developed through oral storytelling then transcribed later.

Re: Jedis, they weren't necessary to make my point about the feat being not so amazing if it was solely powered by God or magic hair or whatever.

What exactly was the lag time between the supposed oral time frame and the writing of the account? I guess you haven't provided enough detail here.

I guess your Jedi analogy doesn't convey any useful point then. This wasn't even described as a magic feat. David is shown to act on the confidence that God's name would be honored. However we see David's confidence in God reflected here. The actions of David within that confidence were actions within the range of ability we might see among men.

Also note that if I had to face someone the height of Shaq and the build of a defensive back, I wouldn't be especially excited to volunteer to fight against him.