# Talk:Samson

Under 4.3, The day:

the pillars were placed at least 3 metres apart, and as such to pull the philistine temple's down by pushing apart its two pillars would require an armspan significantly over 3 metres. To complete this task, Samson would thus require to be at least 3 times the size of an average human
The armspan of an average human is the height of the same human. The average human male stands 1m75, right? So we can say that Samson would need to be twice the size of an average human, not three times.
D. F. Schmidt 14:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
He would need to be 3 metres tall, or an orangutan. The current average human height is about 5'10". 3 metres requires a height of about 9", which is less than twice the size, but still ridiculously large, to still also have sufficient strength. It is plausible however, and an unbiased anthropologist could confirm, that the average human height in the region at the time was much smaller. ~~~~ 23:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"overcoming the objections of his parents who didn't realise that it was 'of the LORD', he married her."
I don't think that is very well worded; it uses a quote without explaining who it is of, or what it means.  Can someone clarify it, please?--LadyAphelion 22:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably from the King James Bible, the book of Judges, chapter 14 verse 4, "But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel." I think it would be better to say, "overcoming the objections of his parents who didn't realise that it was the will of the Lord, he married her."
If you are new to Wikipedia, Welcome! Most of the time you should just dive in and edit.  Be Bold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Brazilian psychanalist Moisés Tractemberg proposed in his book Psicanálise da Circuncisão that Samson's hair may be a metaphor for a non-circumcised male; he is stronger - more virile - than other hebrews for being whole, and when he is cut as an adult, he loses his power. I think that's worth mentioning. Stormwatch 13:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But then becomes stronger after all that.79.112.122.167 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You should say "twice the height," or possibly "more than three times the weight," but that would be silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.6 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being dense, but where in this article, or anywhere else, does it make any reference to the pillars of the temple being three meters apart? Primium mobile 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The section that's essentially an extended analysis of Samson as a sun god was uninformatively labeled "Samson's life." I gave the section a name that tells the reader what's coming. Jonathan Tweet 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this section on the main article page. Did someone remove it? NCReligionBuff (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the coment about Samson being a "solar deity". Strangely enough, the reference given (to Moblay) actually says the reverse:
Mobley, Gregory (2006) Samson and the Liminal Hero in the Ancient Near East, Continuum International Publishing Group, p. 5.
"(p. 7) Suffice it to say that, apart from the imaginative but forced allusions to astral activity--Samson's hair as the rays of the sun, the donkey jawbone as lightning; Delilah as a lunar goddess--the evidence for solar ideas in the narrative is minimal. The "Samson"--"sun" connection, the instance where fire and images of heat are mentioned, and the general setting of the story in the vicinity of Beth Shemesh, "Temple of the Sun" (though this towm does not appear in the story), are hardly enough to justify reading the narrative as a solar myth."
Very strange indeed!
GDon (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)GDon

The Biblical narrative of Samson being a solar deity is the only way it makes any sense, read C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (1918) where a comprehensive explanation is provided. Driver made the same argument - Samson's hair being the sun's rays with Delilah being the moon - with the cutting of the hair representing the eclipse, when the sun loses its power, and when Samson was divested of his strength. Lung salad (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out where the editor inserted an introductory verse. Jonathan Tweet 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical story is pretty close to actual scripture, but it leaves out a few things and it suggests some additions that aren't actually in the text itself. I'm editing the text to make it closer to the actual Biblical text. If someone wants to suggest interpretations that aren't in the text, those can go in a subsection. So far I've done the first two paragraphs. Jonathan Tweet 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user inserted unsourced commentary on the relevance of Samson eating honey from the lion. Since the story itself makes no commentary one way or another as to whether eating the honey breaks Samson's Nazarite oath, and since there's more than one way to interpret it, the summary of the biblical story shouldn't include commentary one way or another. A separate section commenting on the story and on whether Samson breaks rules and his oath would be relevant. Jonathan Tweet 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wild speculation. It is a human corpse that defiles a Nazirite, and honey poses no problem whatsoever in Jewish dietary law. Even so, the Nazirite vow doesn't suddenly disappear if the laws are broken. Quite on the contrary - Nazirism is prolonged by such violation. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems out of place: "The biblical story of Samson is so specific concerning time and place that Samson was undoubtedly a real person, who pitted his great strength against the oppressors of Israel.[1]". His date of birth isn't listed at the beginning of the article. So how is his time and place known? --SCJE (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of place it most certainly is and should be deleted forthwith, which I shall do myself if no one objects in the next few days (and if I remember to come back to it!). Nick Michael (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I object--Java7837 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1. It is futile and childish to write "I object" without qualifying your objection(s).
2. If you object, why did you delete the text yourself on 23 December 2007? Just curious.
Nick Michael (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't delete it I moved into the intro, also the text is important because some people just claim he is not historical yet great detail made in mentioning places in the story of Samson, shows that there may be some truth in the story--Java7837 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me Java - you added a source rather than make it look un-NPOV. I must say I like your articles - great work... Nick Michael (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)other
Thank you, very much--Java7837 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an estimate of the dates of Samson's birth and death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.30.140 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Book of Judges is notoriously weak in chronology, and many think that Samson is more or less legendary anyway.  However, if the Philistines came in with the Sea peoples, that would seem to place it in a more or less 12th century BC or early 11th century BC context... AnonMoos 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Samson lived when God was punishing the Israelites by putting them under the Philistines.

A better way of putting it would be that God 'allowed them to be conquered by the Philistines'.  A more neutral statement.  Panda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.150.146 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral statement?
If we are stipulating the existence of a supreme Biblical God and all that entails, don't we have to take the Bible's word for his intent?  FF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.189.70 (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User 168.91.1.189, whose talk page is full of vandalism warnings, modified (8 Feb 2007) the transcript of Judges 16:28 from:
"O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes." to 
"O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for one of my two eyes."
This didn't make sense to me and I even suspected vandalism (sorry!). Looking up the ref. however was interesting:
1608 (Robert Barker): my two eyes
1611: my two eyes
Revised: my two eyes
Vulgate: uno duorum luminum meorum i.e: one of my two eyes
although in all editions quoted above, including the Vulgate, verse 21 definitely refers to eyes in the plural being put out. This is interesting: I wonder why the different versions...
Nick Michael 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In some Brazilian portuguese versions(maybe because portuguese is closer to latin language) this text, in english, will be like that:"..At least by one of my eyes..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.182.72 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Latin version isn't the original, Hebrew is. The Hebrew version indeed says "and I shall revenge one of my two eyes from the Philistines" TFighterPilot (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, thanks. I wonder what the other eye was destined to revenge... Nick Michael (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have put the nomination on hold. Below are my thoughts concerning what needs to be done to make Samson a Good Article. The information is in a bulleted list, with the pertaining section of Wikipedia:What is a good article? noted.

1a. The Biblical narrative section is painful to read.
1b. The article could use some reorganization.
The lead seems very cluttered. The information concerning the meaning of the name should be limited in the lead and expanded in it's own section (Variants and meanings of name). Also, the sentence concerning Joan Comay's belief that Samson was undoubtedly a real person has no place in the lead. Consider adding a section concerning whether or not Samson was a real person with more in-depth information. In review... I would recommend a thorough rewrite of the lead, following WP:LEAD
The Biblical narrative section is painful to read. You should add subsections ([[[Subsection title]]]) to further break down the story.
The inline citations should appear at the same location throughout the article, per WP:CITE. I would recommend all references follow punctuation. Currently, there are references listed before and after periods throughout the article.
2b. The article currently has unsourced statements, which could be considered controversial, in the section "Possible Philistine influence". These statements need to be referenced using inline citation.
6. I think the article could do with a map of the areas being mentioned. There are numerous references to placenames and no map available. I would recommend one be added when the Biblical narrative section is re-organized.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- PEPSI2786talk 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As none of the recommended changes have been made, the article has failed to reach Good Article status. -- PEPSI2786talk 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
May I still add a comment?  I'd like to second Pepsi2786's comments.  The narrative section certainly is painful, and a map would be useful.
I also think that there are way too many footnotes in the article, 160 by my count!!  I mean, c'mon.  The vast majority of the article is non-controversial and certainly we don't need 5 footnotes for the jawbone incident.
There also should be a section to discuss what modern scholars propose regarding these stories.  I'll see if I can't add something.  Oscar (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

Since this is a story from the Bible, shouldn't there be a few more references to the actual verses, instead of just a few scattered chapters?  There are plenty of references to scholarly articles, but the primary text is very accessible...when this article says that Samson's parents couldn't cut his hair, there should be a footnote referencing the primary text that says that exact thing.
I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to use footnotes...maybe someday i'll do it, when i don't have three papers due in a week — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.63.68 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Angel of the LORD ... GOD

should be simply "angel" (no capitalization, no "of the Lord"), and God/Lord, not GOD/LORD.
Someone with a poor sense of grammar currently repeatedly injects these POV affectations in capitalization and style, effectively spamming/bombing the Samson article with his minority POV. Fellow Wikipedia contributors, please do what it takes to prevent this meddling.
Although I respect that contributor's right to hold different religious values, it's obvious that his writing style imposes a minority POV writing style within a NPOV article. These affectations are far outside the mainstream of good English writing style. Wikipedia uses normal rules of grammar and style, such as are found in The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual and The Chicago Manual of Style.  
According to mainstream English grammarians, there is no precedent for entirely capitalizing GOD and LORD. Writers should only concern themselves with the initial letter: the G in God (and L in Lord) should be capitalized when referring to a monotheistic god, and not capitalized when referring to a polytheistic god. So, for example, "Jehovah is the Christian God" is correct, and "Apollo is a Greek god" is correct. At no time should the words "god" or "lord" be entirely capitalized, unless the rest of the sentence is also capitalized. "He is the LORD, my GOD" is never grammatically correct.
Capitalizing the "A" in "angel" and adding "of the LORD" are also examples of nonmainstream writing style. The word "angel" doesn't merit capitalization, unless it's at the beginning of a sentence or referring to an American baseball franchise. The addition of "of the LORD" is simply superfluous dead wood in the sentence. In the context of the article, there are no angels which are not "of the Lord". Even outside the immediate context, it's difficult to find any situation where we need reminding that a particular angel is "of the Lord"; it's simply a safe assumption that unless otherwise stated, an angel is playing for God's home team, just as Mets are from New York and All Blacks are from New Zealand. 
It's only worth mentioning whether an angel is NOT "of the Lord", since that's exceptional. For example, even Satan (a 'fallen angel') was, according to the Bible, made by God and is therefore "of the Lord"; if one argues that in the Bible some angels are not "of the Lord" then in those rare cases, the context should make clear that those angels are not God's handiwork, not playing for His Home Team, or come from New Jersey (just kidding!) ;^). In all other situations, to write "Angel of the LORD" is to club readers over the head with obvious information simply in order to give a boost to fringe zealotry POV, like saying "the Pope of the ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH" or "a Koran that contains the WORD of ALLAH" or "a JEWISH Rabbi who follows the dictates of GOD". 
In reviewing many online style guides using the search terms "god" and "capitalization", I could only find one style guide that recommended capitalizing all letters in Jesus's name (but not in the words GOD or LORD, as in their tag line "God's #1 Source of Christian News"): http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v02i08&art=caps 
An important bit of context is that this minority POV styleguide even suggests "Just to be sure, capitalize words on either side of the Word God; This shows how His holiness spreads to all that surrounds Him." This context shows that The Holy Observer's style guide orbits mainstream style somewhere out in the outermost fringe of minority POV... yet even The Holy Observer does not go so far as to fully capitalize "God" or "Lord".
I found several relevant style guides and debates within Wikipedia. There's some small debate about whether to capitalize God, Lord, Him, Bible, and so on, but none even consider whether to fully capitalize God/Lord.
Here are some relevant Wikipedia webpages. 
They all support the mainstream writing convention "monotheistic = God/Lord; polytheistic = god/lord":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_62#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines.2C_and_their_adherents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Nouns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god_poll
Here are some non-Wikipedia sources, all in support of the mainstream rule of capitalization:
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Capital3.html (quoting The Chicago Manual of Style)
http://truth4believers.livejournal.com/5870.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/capitalization.htm
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=God#Capitalization_of_.22God.22
We can't defend "all-caps" from a translator's point of view. Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic do not have capitals and lowercase letters. The Koine Greek in which the original New Testament was written contained no lower-case letters in any words. It wasn't until the 9th or 10th century C.E. that Greek started to use both upper and lower case letters. ref: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64857 Therefore, unless we're presenting quotes in the original language without translation, we're left with the absurd proposition that all words should be purely in capitals or lowercase. That's indefensibly poor writing style, so we're obligated to follow mainstream English capitalization conventions even when quoting from the Bible. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"He is believed to be buried in Tel Tzora in Israel overlooking the Sorek valley. "
BY whom, and based on what? Garth M (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Icelandic_Samson.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasama (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delightful, yes. Why don't you put it on? Nick Michael (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This 2006-NOV-24 edit seems to have been the first to introduce era notation into the article. It used BCE. The Era notation was deleted on 2007-DEC-05 by a currently and indefinitely blocked user without prior placement of a { {fact}} tag. This 2008-OCT-14 edit introduced AD notation. --JimWae (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new image from the Google Arts Project by German painter Lovis Corinth. Feel free to use or not. Dcoetzee 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this article discuss the similarity between Samson's suicide while killing his enemies and modern-day suicide bombers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.73.122 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 
Umm no, apparently it was his duty to commit murder in the name of God, which he eventually did. his death would be payment for betraying god. In theory he wouldn't had to die if he did the job in the first place. I guess thats the moral of the story, kill when god says or you will suffer.79.112.122.167 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't put him so far away from the ethics of suicide bombers, does it? However, what matters is if this is discussed in relevant publications that ought to be mentioned here.--JakobvS (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we giving Comay, who is an architect by profession, so much emphasis? How is she the equal to Professor James King West? What makes her a reliable source for whether or not Samson was a real historical figure? are there no academic sources for her perspective? Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Several decades ago I read several analyses of the Bible.  Issac Asimov's Guide to the Bible concurred with a more scholarly less well known book I read.  Both books concurred on a point I had heard elsewhere:

The bible is stitched together from documents written at different times, by different factions -- this is why it doesn't seem particularly coherent, and why some sections contradict others;
In particular, scholars concurred, the story of Samson predates the universal acceptance of monotheism by the Hebrews.  When it was written the temple Samson topples was the home to another god -- a rival to Jehovah/Yahweh.
So, why doesn't this article say anything about the Samson story predating monotheism?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan's question contains some assumptions that are far from universally held, and is asking for more discussion on a minority point of view.  I suggest that we not add speculation on this point in the article. Pete unseth (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pete unseth suggests that we continue telling people what they want to hear since that's the majority view. 
In any case, the exclusive monotheism to Jehovah doesn't begin until the 2nd C BCE. Historiaantiqua (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Samson/CommentsTalk:Samson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 05:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's likely that a comparative religion scholarly source (or a philosophy or atheist source) critiques the killing of 30 random men for their soft undershirts and fancy clothing so Samson could repay a debt on riddle game that he unfairly setup with a riddle that couldn't be deduced like a normal game of riddles. In modern society this would be a mass murder of Ted Bundy status.  Some scholars must have covered this aspect of the Samson Saga.  Anyone know which source to look at? 97.85.173.38 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I will go ahead and review this article, which I had never edited until yesterday when I made three minor edits involving the placement of images and the text in the captions. I have noticed that the nominator MagicatthemovieS has never edited this page and does not appear to have conferred with any editors who have prior to nominating it, which is an inconvenience because it means it is unlikely that he can be relied on to implement changes or adjustments. As such, I will try to implement minor adjustments myself, since I wrote a lengthy essay about Samson a year ago and I think I know enough about him to make those adjustments if necessary. Nonetheless, I will try to leave off any major changes to other editors who have been active at this page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have ended up making a lot more contributions to the article than I ever anticipated; I greatly expanded the lead, as well as the "Interpretations," and the "Cultural influence" sections. I also switched out a large portion of the images, cleaned up bare urls, and added a lot more citations. I do not think I would have passed the article in the state it was in before I modified it, but now I think I am comfortable doing so. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Katolophyromai given your intensive work on this just before you passed the GA review, and the very extensive editing subsequent to that, it would seem more appropriate for you to undo your acceptance of the GA nomination, and allow someone to review it when this intensive building phase is over. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. One problem with it is that it will probably be almost another year before someone else finally comes along to review it. My experience with GA reviews is that it usually takes forever for someone to express willingness to review the article. I nominated ancient Greek literature back in June and no one has touched it since then. Besides, I suspect that the ongoing changes are probably almost over. (On the other hand, when I took on the task of reviewing this article, I was not at all expecting to make as many changes as I did, and, even after making those changes, I was certainly not expecting any more major changes to occur immediately following the pass of the article.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
As you will. i don't intend to make drama over it. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dilidor, about this and this, where you are wanting the content to say:
Delilah, however, relentlessly nags at Samson, and "pressed him hard with her words day after day, and urged him," until "his soul was vexed to death."

This is not encyclopedic, not necessary, in my view and that of others. Please discuss. If we can't agree this is something we can easily have an RfC on. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog: To say that she "persisted" is worse than an understatement; it is a misrepresentation of the text's implications. That is the reason that I included the quotations both times—which you referred to dismissively as "overcite"—in order to demonstrate the force of the text's wording. You (equally dismissively) persist on insisting that we use your chosen neutered wording. I have made a compromise edit which avoids the word "nag". If you are concerned about the footnote, I do not know how to make any other type of reference style; feel free to adjust the format of the Judges 16 reference. But kindly stop the revert war.  —Dilidor (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
original diff 6 November 2017
diff 17:13, 9 November 2017
diff 19:02, 9 November 2017
diff 19:09, 9 November 2017
One more and  you are done.
Thanks for finally coming to talk;; please do review WP:BRD (which is not BRRRRD)
You are not addressing the problem that others as well and I have raised, and that is we do not need all this "color" and emphasis (WEIGHT) on the extent of nagging, with the two quotes.  What is encyclopedic is simply to recount what happened.  You have not explained why we need the "color" nor the WEIGHT; you are not even bringing a secondary source to justify that this emphasis is somehow DUE, but only the prooftexting.  So please explain. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Jytdog that, in this particular instance, the quote regarding the extent of Delilah's nagging is unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the text. Sometimes quotes are useful and can help add context, but they should be used sparingly and, in this case, the quotation does not add anything. It is simpler and more sensible to merely state that Delilah "persisted" than to quote the full verse saying she "pressed him hard with her words day after day, and urged him", which is pointlessly redundant and verbose. Furthermore, I suspect that the sudden shift from the literary present-tense used in the summary to the past-tense used in the quotation, followed by the abrupt return to the literary present-tense thereafter is likely to confuse most readers. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Both of the photos in the death section appear to have Samson with long hair, despite the fact that his hair was cut which caused him to lose his strength. This may not be relevant to the purpose the photos are being used for, but I personally find it strange and erroneous. His long hair may have been a key characteristic of his, but here it doesn't make sense. It doesn't support the argument that he prayed for strength and received it (unless he prayed for strength and received hair, which I would find amusing). Could someone attempt to remedy this? 2601:1C0:6D02:3C10:40A1:D6AB:F929:EFD2 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reading the "Scholarly Interpretation" section, there are a number of transitional adverbial phrases (e.g. "In contrast", "Conversely") that do not seem to fit the logical progression of the paragraph. Are these scholars' opinions really in contrast to one another? Are they part of a single, coherent scholarly dialogue? It seems to me that Cornay is addressing issues of historicity, West is noting the moral issues in the narrative, and Gilad is speaking about the ethical issue of intermarriage in the wider biblical corpus. These are, indeed scholarly opinions, but they do not seem to be addressing the same issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerjmowry (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 

As I understand it, there is controversy amongst theologians and academics as to whether accounts of Samson bringing down the temple say that he grabbed the outside of the pillars and pulled them in, or whether he put his hands against the inside of the pillar and pushed outward. I do not believe that there is a definitive answer, but the phrasing in the introduction: "he prayed to God and miraculously recovered his strength, allowing him to grasp hold of the columns and tear them down" seems to imply the former. I was just wondering if there is interest/consensus in rephrasing that sentence so that Wikipedia can maintain its neutral point of view and not make any implication one way or the other. Cheers! Jake (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the controversy was addressed later in the article, I went ahead and rephrased the introduction to avoid Wikipedia's taking a stance one way or the other. I understand it is a delicate subject and therefore neutrality is of heightened importance, so please improve upon my edit if possible. Jake (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently, well sourced info has been added to the article likening Samson to a terrorist and the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. While if these interpretations are truly shown to be noteworthy enough, I will respect their inclusion in the article, but a) do they truly belong and b) would it be better to place them in another section in the article? Any and all input welcome. Thanks! Jake (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. Since the story of the Hebrew Samson is told in Hebrew Scriptures, he certainly was not a terrorist. Making any connection to the terrorists of 9/11 is wrong in many ways. 73.85.201.118 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a really strong page. Yesterday I tweaked the summary of the bible story of Samson's birth as I had the original text in front of me.
I changed:
Manoah then prepared a sacrifice, but the Angel of the Lord would only allow it to be for God. He touched it with his staff, miraculously engulfing it in flames, and then ascended into the sky in the fire.
to
On the Angel's instructions, Manoah sacrificed a kid to God and he and his wife watched as the Angel ascended into the sky in the flames.

which is a more accurate rendering of the story . There's nothing in the text about the angel touching the sacrifice with his staff.
This was then undone:
37.142.171.6 (talk)
(Undid revision 961088516 by Davidbaker999 (talk))
Tags: Undo Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits
Can anyone advise about how I should do this properly? I am not a regular editor on Wikipedia.
Thanks.
David
Davidbaker999 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 

Like with all historic figures, it's important to list the birth and death dates even if they're only approximate. Samson was born c. 1200 BC and died c. 1160. 73.85.201.118 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 

You need to provide a source for these dates. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bedan is Beth-Dan, since Samuel is a Dannan or Dannoi, a Greek.  This strengthens his connection to Herakles, but additionally, suggests the rabbis are correct, since that is his surname, or branch, ie. he is of the House of Dan Historiaantiqua (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

... only alluded to ("gates of a city") in comparison to Hercules. Arminden (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The article needs to include something about how touching the lion carcass (and being in a vineyard) would also (possibly) have been in violation of his Nazirite vow - that has been discussed a fair bit in the secondary literature.[1][2][3] StAnselm (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

1 What is the % and evidence?
2 what did Sampson do when it came to relationships 2601:406:4000:1B6:E5A7:82DA:5D19:EB6 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a Haaretz subscriber. The press release photo shows a very sketchy incised image of a tiny stick figure almost disappearing into the seal's margin, next to a large animal with a tail. Does Nir Hasson really speak of a "long-haired man"? Quoting whom, the specialists, or making his own interpretation? Maybe there's a doubling of a line there that might represent long hair, but no other online source mentions it, not even the claim that the stick figure represents a man (why not woman, child, deity?), let alone a long-haired one.
The century varies, C12 or C11, some mixing up the period of the judges with the date of the artifact and/or of the layer it was found in, which isn't the same thing.
Eisenbrauns doesn't allow a preview into the final report. Maybe there is some online IAA publication on this? Arminden (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Samson according to the scholars, has lived in between the times of 1200s.Though the story might be true that he lifted the gates, chances are that it was a Copy Of Ali-Ibn-Abu-Talib.The time Ali lived in was about 500s to 700s or close somewhere.One of the The Jihad (War) inwhich Ali took part was in order to conquer Khyber.And the truth there is that he Also pulled out and lifted the Heavy 900kg gates of Khyber, which is not as heavy as 4tons as in Samson story. But, the reason why im saying it is Truth, is because It has been stated and have happened by the scholars and the soldiers who had lived when samson never existed (500s to 700s). So, maybe im not right but what if Samson story is a LIE as I stated? Nexoluce (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The disambiguation at the beginning of the page states "Not to be confused with Sampson, Sanson, or Samsun." Rather unintentionally, this leads to some ambiguity as to whether "Sampson" or "Sansón" are valid spellings. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that both of these are lumped in with "Samsun" a city in Turkey. The reason this is confusing is that "Sampson" is an occasionally used biblical Greek spelling of the name Samson, and "Sansón" is the modern Spanish spelling of the same name. I am unsure as to the procedure for disambiguating on Wikipedia, but the wording of the page - as stated earlier - leads to questions of the legitimacy of the names "Sampson" and "Sansón." The main question at play here is how exactly to make this less misleading. Whether the best way to do that is to move "Sampson" and "Sansón" to the above line "For other uses, see Samson (disambiguation)," or to get rid of both as not to show favoritism to any particular language's spelling, is completely outside of my expertise. AndrewGates1211 (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)