Don't Go Lieth about Goliath!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Protecting Goliath from the slings and arrows of criticism, our friend Victor has sequestered a curious CNA article in the "Roman Catholic" forum. The lead sentence, which reads ...

Archeologists near Jerusalem have made a significant discovery which lends historical credence to the Old Testament story of David and Goliath.​

... is simply nonsense. The following sentence ...

A piece of pottery was unearthed at the speculated site of Goliath’s house at Tel es-Safi, an area in southern Israel, bearing an inscription with his name.​

... is no less absurd. Does anyone really believe that we've stumbled across the signature of the Goliath in "the speculated site of Goliath’s house"? That the distortion is likely more the result of naivete and sloppy journalism than an intention to deceive makes it, if anything, even more instructive. So, let's see what we have ...

Has the Biblical Goliath Been Found?

Written in archaic "Proto-Canaanite" letters, the inscription found on the sherd, dating to the 10th or early 9th century BCE, contains two non-Semitic names: Alwt and Wlt. Most scholars believe the name Goliath, of non-Semitic origin, is etymologically related to various Indo-European names, such as the Lydian name Aylattes. Following intense examination of the inscription, Prof. Maeir (along with his colleagues Prof. Aaron Demsky, an expert in epigraphy at Bar-Ilan University, and Dr. Stefan Wimmer, of Munich University) has concluded that the two names which appear in the inscription are remarkably similar to the etymological parallels of Goliath.

"It can be suggested that in 10th-9th century Philistine Gath, names quite similar, and possibly identical, to Goliath were in use," says Prof. Maeir. "This chronological context from which the inscription was found is only about 100 years after the time of David according to the standard biblical chronology. Thus, this appears to provide evidence that the biblical story of Goliath is, in fact, based on a clear cultural realia from, more or less, the time which is depicted in the biblical text, and recent attempts to claim that Goliath can only be understood in the context of later phases of the Iron Age are unwarranted."

- see Bar-Ilan University

In other words, what we've now determined is that a couple of inscriptions in a known Philistine community, dating to the time of Goliath narrative, "are remarkably similar to the etymological parallels of Goliath." Therefore, minimalist suggestions "that Goliath can only be understood in the context of later phases of the Iron Age are unwarranted". In other words, there is no epigraphic or philological reason to insist that the Goliath legend is the product of a much more recent period.

That's it - that's all it says and that's all it means.

 

[BUDDY]

Still, it warants considerstion when the evidence found does nothing to disprove the Goliath legend. In fact, it point to a name, also found in the Bible story, and that has to mean something. What, I am not sure, it certainly does not prove the Bible story of course, but the evidence is interesting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Still, it warants considerstion when the evidence found does nothing to disprove the Goliath legend.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of all evidence ever accumulated by anyone on the planet

• does nothing to disprove the Goliath legend
• does nothing to disprove the Tooth Faerie legend
• does nothing to disprove the Santa Clause legend
• does nothing to disprove the Unicorn legend
• does nothing to disprove the Bigfoot legend
• does nothing to disprove the Loch Ness legend
• does nothing to disprove the Mermaid legend
• does nothing to disprove the Alien Abduction legend

That you would think that any of this "warants considerstion [sic]" is, in my opinion, pathetic.

 

[joeboonda]

I don't know about the Goliath deal, however, archeology has backed up Biblical history with every new finding, they have found cities that people thought were myths, but were actual real cities recoreded in the Bible. Say, ya know why David picked up FIVE smooth stones? For Goliath's other 4 brothers

 

[Quiddity]

Protecting Goliath from the slings and arrows of criticism,

If I wanted to do that I wouldn't have put it in RF. The perfect place for criticism, don't you think?

Same peachy personality different day.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know about the Goliath deal, however, archeology has backed up Biblical history with every new finding, ...

Nice fantasy. Please keep on topic.

 

[Bennettresearch]

If I wanted to do that I wouldn't have put it in RF. The perfect place for criticism, don't you think?

Same peachy personality different day.

~Victor

Hey Victor,

I agree with you that he must work on his delivery some more. It seems like there is an air of hostility in there.

Deut, I can quite agree with scepticism about this but I think you are missing one point. The Legend probably came from some kind of factual information. We have many instances of gigantism that is well documented. They are also vulnerable because of their inordinate height and weight. There really could have been a person that the bible story is based on. I must agree though that speculation built on scant evidence is not proof of anything. Since there is only a mention of the house of David on one (maybe two) inscription on a fragment, there is still debate about the veracity of the story of David. Therefore I would say that one could keep an open mind towards piecing together the true events that legends are based upon. I don't believe that one can dismiss these stories as pure fantasy dreamed up around a camp fire.


Craig

 

[Quiddity]

Craig, I wasn't taking the story as literal but Deut. decided to have fun with it. In the article I provided it reads..

Bar-Ilan University and the excavation‘s director said, "What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath…It shows us that David and Goliath's story reflects the cultural reality of the time."

Deut. decided to make more out of it.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with you that he must work on his delivery some more.

Sorry ...

It seems like there is an air of hostility in there.

Not in the least. I thought it rather funny that an article on archaeology would find itself safely nested in the Catholic forum, that's all.

The Legend probably came from some kind of factual information.

That is typical of most if not all folklore. But I'm sure you'll agree that there is a significant difference between recognizing the possible roots of a legend and suggesting that the legend has "historical credance", while talk about "the speculated site of Goliath’s house" is too ludicrous to take seriously.

We have many instances of gigantism that is well documented.

You might wish to compare Goliath lore with the LXX and DSS variant before speculating about "gigantism".

Since there is only a mention of the house of David on one (maybe two) inscription on a fragment, there is still debate about the veracity of the story of David.

I think it highly likely that there existed a "House of David" as suggested by the Tel Dan inscription.

Therefore I would say that one could keep an open mind towards piecing together the true events that legends are based upon.

Which is precisely what the Ctholic article failed to do.

I don't believe that one can dismiss these stories as pure fantasy dreamed up around a camp fire.

I completely agree. But legend can serve as a marker for some historical core only to the extent that it is properly evaluated. The CNA article failed miserably in that regard, and Victor proved himself ready, willing, and able to uncritically promote that failure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath…It shows us that David and Goliath's story reflects the cultural reality of the time."

Not "cultural reality", but "cultural realia". So, victor, what do you suspect that means?

 

[Quiddity]

Not "cultural reality", but "cultural realia". So, victor, what do you suspect that means?

Why the distinction? How about you just tell me since you made the distinction. I see the first, not the second.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why the distinction? How about you just tell me since you made the distinction. I see the first, not the second.

No thank you. The phrase used in the Bar Ilan University quote was realia. If you're interested in the topic, you're old enough to look it up.

 

[Quiddity]

No thank you. The phrase used in the Bar Ilan University quote was realia. If you're interested in the topic, you're old enough to look it up.

No thanks. I was already content with my understanding of it.
You made the claim, you provide it.

~Victor

 

[BUDDY]

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of all evidence ever accumulated by anyone on the planet

• does nothing to disprove the Goliath legend
• does nothing to disprove the Tooth Faerie legend
• does nothing to disprove the Santa Clause legend
• does nothing to disprove the Unicorn legend
• does nothing to disprove the Bigfoot legend
• does nothing to disprove the Loch Ness legend
• does nothing to disprove the Mermaid legend
• does nothing to disprove the Alien Abduction legend

That you would think that any of this "warants considerstion [sic]" is, in my opinion, pathetic.

Yes, I do realize this, but that is not the point. If the legend were based on some factual incident, then there should certainly be evidence pointing to this incident. MAybe this is evidence of it, maybe not, but it is worth considering and searching for more evidence, is it not? That was all I was saying. Basically, I should have said, "Interesting....doesn't prove whether the Bible account actually happened or not, but....interesting."

 

[Katzpur]

I thought it rather funny that an article on archaeology would find itself safely nested in the Catholic forum, that's all.

:biglaugh: That's pretty good, alright! :biglaugh: Perhaps it should be moved? Your wish is my command.

Actually, I've seen more conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than this!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No thanks. I was already content with my understanding of it

But you've already demonstrated an absence of understanding. That you're content with this ignorance is hardly surprising, but the fact remains that the person was misquoted and the find misreprensented and you continue to be blind to both facts.

 

[Quiddity]

:biglaugh: That's pretty good, alright! :biglaugh: Perhaps it should be moved? Your wish is my command.

Actually, I've seen more conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than this!

I'm guessing you didn't read my past post. Oh well.....

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

But you've already demonstrated an absence of understanding. That you're content with this ignorance is hardly surprising, but the fact remains that the person was misquoted and the find misreprensented and you continue to be blind to both facts.

I was willing to be corrected but you just came in with the "your wrong statement" and then when I asked you didn't provide. All you had to do was explain relia to me. You have gotten your glory and now run with it.

``Victor