Legend, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8084.html

http://www.physorg.com/news8084.html

I honestly believe that Dave was not as innocent as bible shows him. There is simply too much stress on his innocence, the set of events which lead to him being the "king" would be evaluated as simple assasinations to the chair of power. Also the story is very shakey. Goliath being large and david being small has nothing to do with this being the work of god. Loosen up four tiny guys and let one of them face a huge guy and three from behind and stab him to death. I dont believe in the whole story cuz it is bullshit but truely even if there were davids or goliaths it is exaggerated.

Seems a bit on the brief side.

Twitch

I like how "Drude" has constructed his new David verses Goliath story: Four guys, David being one, who stab Goliath, who is not quite that big anyway, in the back! Another case of man trying to rewrite His-story. He's nearly as against the findings as the lady who made the fifty year disclaimer within the story. Anyway, I appreciate the story and the findings of the artifact. I think the greatest find though is in a Book that is several thousand years old that talks in great detail of people and places and is surprisingly accurate. Does anyone else think there just might be something to that Book?

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Has the Biblical Goliath Been Found?

November 10, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Elana Oberlander, O f f i c e of the Spokesman, Bar-Ilan University

Has the Biblical Goliath Been Found?
Bar-Ilan University Archaeologists
Unearth Earliest Philistine Inscription
in Which Names Similar to Goliath Appear

Ramat Gan - A very small ceramic sherd unearthed by Bar-Ilan University
archaeologists digging at Tell es-Safi, the biblical city "Gath of the
Philistines", may hold a very large clue into the history of the well-known
biblical figure Goliath. The sherd, which contains the earliest known
Philistine inscription ever to be discovered, mentions two names that are
remarkably similar to the name "Goliath". Tell es-Safi/Gath is located in
the southern coastal plain of Israel, approximately halfway between Ashkelon
and Jerusalem.

The discovery is of particular importance since the Bible attributes Gath as
the home town of Goliath. "Gath of the Philistines," was one of the major
cities of the Philistines, the well-known arch-enemies of the Israelites in
the biblical text. The archaeological find may also be seen as the first
clear extra-biblical evidence that the well-known biblical story of the
battle between David and Goliath (and, in particular, the very existence of
a figure such as Goliath during the biblical period) may be more than just a
legend, according to Prof. Aren Maeir, Chairman of Bar-Ilan University's
Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, who has
been directing the excavations since they began in 1996. Prof. Maeir will
present his findings next week at the c o n f e r e n c e of the American Schools of
Oriental Research in the U.S. city of Philadelphia.

Other recent findings uncovered at the recent excavations at Tell es-Safi
include a large assortment of objects of various types which are linked to
Philistine culture. Additional remains relating to the siege system
constructed by Hazael, King of Aram Damascus around 800 BCE, were revealed,
along with extensive evidence of the subsequent capture and destruction of
the city by Hazael, as mentioned in Second Kings 12:18. Remains of the
Crusader period fortress, Blanche Garde, built after the first Crusade in
the mid-twelfth century CE, were also discovered.

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."

While the letters are Semitic, the names appearing in the inscription are
Indo-European (the linguistic family of ancient Greek and related
languages). It is assumed by most scholars that the Philistines migrated to
the Levant from somewhere in the Aegean region. On their arrival, they
brought with them assorted Aegean cultural facets. With time, their culture
became more and more effected by the local cultures, slowly incorporating
local elements. This inscription, with Semitic s c r i p t and Indo-European
names, is among the earliest hard evidence showing this process.

The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project is a long-term investigation
aimed at studying the archaeology and history of one of the most important
sites in Israel. Tell es-Safi is one of the largest tells (ancient ruin
mounds) in Israel and was settled almost continuously from the 5th
millennium BCE until modern times.

Continuous excavations of the site are planned for at least the next decade.

AS I recall, and I have an excellent memory, David was in no sense innocent. The old testament says David was a man after God's own heart. Hey! I have never done even half the stuff old King David did and God loved him. It ought to give one hope, don't y'all think? As you folks may be able to tell from my handle, I am no Judeo-Christian type, but I was raised as such and I do respect scripture, whether it be Biblical or Other. No, not ALL scripture. Some "holy books" are obviously fabricated, and I am not naming names. Still, the story of the life and times of David are basically true (in my humble opinion). Why would that offend a single soul? The discovery of these artifacts are very interesting. I would have been an archaeologist but for the fact the only employment available is with (barf) governments or (gag) universities and museums. A pity. Peace y'all!

No intention to offend the religious, but frankly this has been building up down in me for long and I wanted to say it, so I am gonna hide under the umberella of freedom of speech. Plz dont lynch me.

They all are. A bunch of fabricated, political bullshit made to control the masses. Truely the "opium of the masses." The question is , if these masses such as these dumb believers lack the intelligence to distingiush a hoax from reality, why shouldnt we (the ppl with brain) use it against them? We can send them to wars, we can convince them to give up their land, their wives, and their honor for us. And they would still die happy for nationalism , religion, or "honor" or to execute the word of god lol ...Perfect

I got this from 101 myths of the bible.

The Myth: And the Philistine [i.e., Goliath] came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. (1 Sam. 17:41-51.)

The Reality: The real killer of Goliath was Elhanan, who belonged to “The Thirty,” King David’s elite fighting cadre.

The story of how young David armed with only a slingshot and stones defeated a well-armored giant Philistine warrior named Goliath has become one of the most famous tales in all the bible. The slain enemy’s name has become a synonym for “huge” and the phrase “David and Goliath” has become a literary cliché for a confrontation between opponents of unequal strength. Unfortunately, David didn’t kill Goliath, and he wasn’t a youth when Goliath died.

According to the King James translation of 2 Sam. 21:19,

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Although this translation says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, the words “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew text. The actual wording of the passage says that Elhanan slew Goliath, not his brother.

The addition of these words in the English translation came about for two reasons. One, the translators didn’t want to contradict the earlier story attributing the act to David, especially since David is so dramatically linked to Christ in Christian tradition. (Christ’s credentials as Messiah, according to biblical prophesies, depend upon his descent from David.) Two, the author of 1 Chr. 20:5, written centuries after the verse in 2 Sam 21:17 and faced with the same contradiction, wrote,

Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.
The English translators, relying on 1 Chr. 20:5, inserted the words “the brother of” into 2 Sam. 21:19.

Several clues indicate that later redactors gave David credit for what had originally been attributed to Elhanan.

In the version crediting David, after Goliath is slain, Saul says,

Whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is. (1 Sam. 17:55.)

If David were the killer, Saul would have known who he was because David was already a favorite in the royal court.

And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. (1 Sam. 16:21-22.)

If David found favor in Saul’s sight, how could Saul not know whom he had just sent out to fight with Goliath?

After David killed Goliath, the text says that he brought the head to Jerusalem, but during Saul’s reign Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. It didn’t come into Israelite hands, according to the bible, until after David became king. This suggests that in the original story David was already king when Goliath died.

Coincidentally, in the version crediting Elhanan with killing Goliath, David is already king, and Elhanan is a member of David’ elite fighting group known as “The Thirty.”

The Elhanan version also retains some of the original mythical flavor of the contest. It is one of a sequence of four short stories about individual members of “The Thirty” killing four different giants. Interestingly, in the introductory verse to these four stories about Elhanan and the others, we are told that “David waxed faint,” had grown tired.

Although Elhanan’s father is called Jaareoregim in the verses about Elhanan’s victory over Goliath, the listing of the members of David’s “Thirty” calls the father Dodo. Since the other three giant killers also belong to “The Thirty,” this is the clearly same Elhanan. The connection between Elhanan and Dodo may have been the inspiration for crediting David with Elhanan’s triumph. In Hebrew, the name Dodo is spelled DWDW and David is spelled DWD. The two names are virtually identical and stem from the same root, meaning “beloved.” Dodo and David are also both called Bethlehemites, adding another reason why there may have been confusion over the killer’s identity.

Another indication that the pro-David version of the story borrowed from the Elhanan source comes from the contextual appearance of Goliath’s name. Throughout the David story, the name Goliath only appears twice. The several other references to this warrior simply describe him as “the Philistine” or “the Philistine of Gath.” The manner in which Goliath’s name appears suggests that it was a later insert into the story. For example, in 1 Sam. 17:23, the text reads,

And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.

Since the bible had already given Goliath’s name earlier in the story and had already described his great prowess, the phrase “Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name” the addition of the words “by name” sounds artificial.

Originally, the slaying of Goliath was one of a collection of tales in which many heroes slew giants. Elhanan was one of these valiant warriors as were other members of “The Thirty,” many of whom were credited with such victories. “The Thirty” itself may have been a mythical group much like Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table. As David became the greatest hero of the Judaean court and Judaeans were eager to believe their founding king capable of great deeds, his substitution for one of the other giant killers took no great suspension of credibility.

As well you should! Muninn. What fun!

As far as archeology goes, if you're doing science in that field, you're doing a lot of work _in_ the field, eh?

I went on a dig with some mates once, found a Pleistocene shrew's skull, but not a shard or a point. At least I didn't have to do a write-up.

This post has been edited by Sapo on Sep 25 2007, 08:34 PM

among other things, this is a flawed statement as were many other things in that article that was quoted. The president probably doesn't know the name of 90% of the people who work in the white house. I worked on one job for two years and never learned every person's name who worked in the very same building with me. There simply wasn't time. Claiming that Saul would have known his name is simply reaching for straws.


Also, who ever wrote that article, because of the fact that they had this preconcieved notion that something must be false about the story, they decided to pick and choose passages with similar content, and assume that they must all be describing the same event but only one description is true. But that was a false line of reasoning.

The David Vs Goliath story appears before the other giant killing stories that mention his name, and there is no contextual reason to assume it is any less true than the other stories. Even if you were to make the claim that one or more of the stories is false, there is nothing in the context of any of the stories that could be used to disprove the other stories. And how do you say, "This one is the correct story, but the others must be mistaken"? You cannot, because you have no evidence to discount any of them, and the only reason they appear to you to be contradicting one another is because you want them to.

The writer of the Chronicles passage was accused of inserting the phrase "The brother of" into his version of the passage, as though to "cover up" some alleged falsehood, but how do you know he did not have other sources which validated the writing? The manuscript he may have been quoting from Samuel would have been at least a century old or so, and the language would have changed somewhat. Word conjugation and usage would have changed and so on, so when he (or they)wrote the Chronicles they may have updated the language of the passage for clarity.

It is obvious that the same exact giant was not killed two different times by two different people. David killed one giant named Goliath, and one of David's men killed another giant who was related to the first giant.

And yes, the King James translators sometimes did insert words or phrases into the text in certain situations where an exact appearance of a hebrew or greek root word did not appear, but they did this based on cross-referencing the translation of other parts of the text, or sister passages talking about the same thing, and the context of the passage in question.

This is not intellectually dishonest since all translation is based on context. Languages change over time. Word spellings, definitions, grammar, syntax all change. And for the record, the King James version has been updated at least 11 major revisions just to keep up with the changes in the English language. You and I probably could not even read the TRUE "original King James version" of the Bible because with was in 1611 English, not 2007 English.


People come up with some of the stupidest, ill thought out excuses to attack the Bible and christianity. Next time, at least try bothering to think about what you write or quote.