Question about David and Goliath

[Harel13]

Rather than "the fact that Goliath was larger," I would have preferred "the fact that Goliath was depicted as larger."

Well, to each his own.

It might have been more accurate to say that commentators and scholars disagree on what "exact height" was originally depicted due to textual considerations.

Traditional commentators accept the Masoretic "שש אמות וזרת", as do many modern scholars. You are correct that not all. There are those who favor editing every tip of a Yod (קוצו של יוד) or less. However, as I wrote, there is a disagreement on the exact length of the Tanachic cubit and the Tanachic zeret (span).

There is also the matter of Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim, so it appears the commentators and scholars are not exactly clear on who killed the big guy.

Well-known, but there are a number of traditional explanations which I'm sure you're already familiar with, which don't necessitate textual emendations.

Or, they were depicted as much stronger ...

Archeology suggests that the Philistine metal industry was more advanced than the Israelite one around this time. So that's something, at least. Also, there is evidence for the spread of the Philistine material culture far into the Shephelah and even Samaria.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Archeology suggests that the Philistine metal industry was more advanced than the Israelite one around this time. So that's something, at least. Also, there is evidence for the spread of the Philistine material culture far into the Shephelah and even Samaria.

Sorry - I misinterpreted what you meant by "much stronger."

 

[Harel13]

Sorry - I misinterpreted what you meant by "much stronger."

As in physically each individual was stronger?

 

[Stevicus]

That would be like the United States getting ready to go to war with Sweden. The USA spends billions on their military, US Soldiers spend years training for combat, then at the last minute when the two sides meet, for some reason they decide the toughest fist fighter in the USA and the toughest from Sweden should settle the fate of the entire country in the Cage. The USA has (UFC champion) Jon Jones and the Swedish has (UFC fighter) Alexander Gustafsson, and in the end Gustafsson wins! Do you really think the entire US military is going to turn away and run like cowards because Jon Jones lost? Wars aren’t settled this way. Do you think perhaps this might be just a fiction tale like Jayhawker Soule suggested? Or do you believe these are actual historical events.

I think wars fought in ancient times were conducted a bit differently. At their core, wars are essentially a test of power. It would seem that one side wins when their enemy believes they are weaker or less powerful - however that may be accomplished. My understanding of the story was that it was David's faith in God which made him prevail. It wasn't so much a test of the quality of the armies, but a story of faith. Or maybe it was a case of "our god is better than your god." If the enemy really believes that your god is more powerful, then it doesn't matter how big or how well-equipped they are. If their soldiers really believed that they were up against a more powerful god, then that might convince them to give up the fight.

I don't know if that would really apply to any wars in modern times, particularly in wars where countries of the same religion fight each other and have the same god. It was no longer a case of fighting over whose god was more powerful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As in physically each individual was stronger?

Yep. It was a bit silly of me, but I was led astray by the David & Goliath context.

 

[Kfox]

I think the point of the story was that being God's people changes the possibilities. What would otherwise have been considered impossible can become possible, with God's favor.

Do you believe it was a fiction story used to make a point? Or a story based on actual events.

 

[PureX]

Do you believe it was a fiction story used to make a point? Or a story based on actual events.

All stories are being told to make a point. Whether they're historically accurate or not. The point being that it doesn't matter to what degree the story is historically accurate. It's being told and retold to make a ideological point. It's the ideological point that matters. In this case it's a point that matters to a specific religion. So it may not matter much to the rest of us. And that OK. Not every story is for everyone.

 

[Kfox]

All stories are being told to make a point. Whether they're historically accurate or not. The point being that it doesn't matter to what degree the story is historically accurate. It's being told and retold to make a ideological point. It's the ideological point that matters. In this case it's a point that matters to a specific religion. So it may not matter much to the rest of us. And that OK. Not every story is for everyone.

If a story is told to make a point, it should not be told as if it were based on actual events. Did the fight between David and Goliah actually happen? Were Adam and Eve actual people? Was the story of Noah's Ark based on actual events? Or were they stories of fiction designed to make a point. I think this should be made clear by the person telling the story

 

[PureX]

If a story is told to make a point, it should not be told as if it were based on actual events.

Why not? What does "actuality" have to do with anything? The intent of telling the story is to make an ideological point, not recount history.

Did the fight between David and Goliah actually happen? Were Adam and Eve actual people? Was the story of Noah's Ark based on actual events? Or were they stories of fiction designed to make a point.

It makes no difference to the function and purpose of the story.

I think this should be made clear by the person telling the story

Why? Because you don't agree with the ideological point of the story?

 

[Kfox]

Why not? What does "actuality" have to do with anything? The intent of telling the story is to make an ideological point, not recount history.

It makes no difference to the function and purpose of the story.

Why? Because you don't agree with the ideological point of the story?

The reason it matters is because a lot of people who repeat these stories repeat them as truth. So when they "spread the Gospel" under the pretext that the stories are actual events, and once those who hear the gospel learn the stories are not actual events, they reject the entire gospel as falsehood. However had the people spreading the gospel made it clear these stories are strictly allegory, and explain the message they bring, those hearing the message can accept it in a way it is supposed to be accepted.

 

[PureX]

The reason it matters is because a lot of people who repeat these stories repeat them as truth.

That's because they accept the truth of the ideological ideal that they perceive the story is being used to convey and they confuse the truth of that ideal with the historicity of the story. But now so are you.

The solution is to help people understand that our stories are intended to be mechanisms for conveying our idealizations of truth, not for conveying actual truth.

So when they "spread the Gospel" under the pretext that the stories are actual events, and once those who hear the gospel learn the stories are not actual events, they reject the entire gospel as falsehood.

Such confusion and dishonesty is almost always going to end up being counter-productive for we humans. And completely unnecessary in our trying to convey an idealized truth. We don't have to insist that Shakespeare was documenting history to learn many idealized truths from his stories. Nor will telling anyone that he was NOT writing historical documentaries inhibit anyone from recognizing those idealized truths. So that in the end, the whole insistence of historicity from either side of the exchange is silly and unnecessary.

However had the people spreading the gospel made it clear these stories are strictly allegory, and explain the message they bring, those hearing the message can accept it in a way it is supposed to be accepted.

Idealized truth is a difficult "message" to explain or convey. It's why we humans engage in artifice in the first place. The truth is infinitely complex and dynamic. And each human accesses it in their own way and on their own terms (from their own ideological perspective). Artifice allows for a far broader range of access than any collection of specific facts or explanation could. It's why art is such an important human endeavor. It's a kind of special language of it's own. Sort of like mathematics is.