Talk:Goliath

message: You should place this story in the beginning of the page. The first and second books of Samuel, many times contradict each other. The 'David & Goliath' story is the well known version of this story but it is not necessarily the true version. Most likely Elhanan killed Goliath and David took the credit in this fictional version. 
There are two biblical accounts: David & Goliath and Elhanan & Goliath. 
They should both be presented in the beginning of the page. 
The two Goliaths (in Samuel 1 and Samuel 2)are described in the same way and it appears they are the same person. If there were two Goliaths, they would add his father's name, to avoid confusion. (I speak Hebrew and the spelling in both accounts is the same in regards to Goliath's name and where he is from.)
The page is set up in a way that presents the "David & Goliath" as the true story.  I think that's incorrect. (I disagree, KJV states the BROTHER of Goliath. Gittites and Philistine are interconnected, I agree it is the same Goliath)
--Michal 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elhanan and Goliath 

message: Seems that the line More modern biblical translations estimate that in fact he stood at four cubits and a span (6' 6") under the heading Account in the Hebrew Bible is possibly a bit misleading.  Though no doubt, there are modern Bible translations using this recorded height, this new height comes from a translation of a "damaged Dead Sea scroll" according to the University of Notre Dame's news site  (Which is also the same website noted in the current version of the Goliath article). The Notre Dame News article also seems to indicate that Bible scholars find the Dead Sea Scrolls religious authority possibly contestable. Taking in consideration that Goliath's fame is mostly based on his height, it seems to me these facts should at least be taken into consideration within the Wiki article. Thoughts on this?--Adrift* 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem seeing the 4 1/2 cubit measurement included in the article as long as it's in reference specifically to the damaged Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources, but it seems better to highlight where the new measurement comes from than to make fairly vague mention of it as a new biblical translation. Just out of curiousity, and not that i doubt you, but can you give links to the septuagint and Josephus measurements that you're referring to? If these are verifiable, i think that it's important to add them to the article as well.--Adrift* 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical translations on Height 

message: I agree that there needs to be clear references to the four cubit claim, as Goliath is an important biblical figure in the life and career of David and the account of his height is certainly of interest.
Josephus' Writings-Book 6, CH.9:
"Now there came down a man out of the camp of the Philistines, whose name was Goliath, of the city of Gath, a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness, and had about him weapons suitable to the largeness of his body, for he had a breastplate on that weighed five thousand shekels..." http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusb6c9.htm
Search any English translation of the Greek Septuagint and you'll find that they use the same measurement.--71.222.48.14 05:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Thank you for the references... that was pretty easy.--Adrift* 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: This part of the Bible isn't considered to be fictional, even by people who freely admit that much of the OT is mythological in character. You (and others) likely think it's a myth and an obvious one due to the mistranslation of the work which made a giant (9'6 instead of 6'6) out of Goliath. 
Why don't people sign their names when they write here? The bible is both fictional and it also documents real events. Historians can tell you which part is real and which is not. There is an amazing Israeli historian who wrote books on the subject, but they haven't been translated. This is not unique to Judaism. Christianity and Islam also tell fictional stories. Should Wikipedia present all biblical/religious stories as factual? probably not. While the fictional story of David is captivating, the real story based on historical evidence is not less fascinating.--Jane955 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: No Cultural Bias, sorry

message: I wouldn't go that far, but the Hebrew texts do atleast give us a general historical setting for Goliath. As for King David, most scholars tend to lean towards his existence, ultimately because there are atleast one or two known references to "The House of David" from the Tel Dan and possibly the Mesha Stele both written within 150 years of his life. Perhaps more can be learned about the historical David if Mazar's palace discovery proves authentic.--71.215.154.31 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: I've put my minor addition in the first paragraph back after another user removed it.  You can see the brief discussion here.  Robinson weijman 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note On First Paragraph

message: this text was moved here for discussion about factuality (or lack thereof):
In rabbinic literature, Goliath is given a detailed gnealogy which is not attested in the Bible, and which is clearly modeled on David's descent from the Moabite woman Ruth which is described in the Book of Ruth. The Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 42b) makes Goliath a descenadnt of Orpah, and also makes Orpah and Ruth into sisters (in the Bible they are only sisters-in-law). The net result is to make David and Goliath into distant cousins (their great-grandmothers were sisters).
i've looked up the talmudic refrenced ruth page  and there seems to be no mention of either Goliath or David... plus, orpha and ruth are not sisters, but married to brothers... all this "later jewish sources" seems like innacurate original research/mythology... perhaps the contributer got it off a neturei karta website. Jaakobou 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing the missing Ruth Rabbah reference, I have now put it in. Adam Keller 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Later Jewish Sources

message: In the account of the battle it says that David shot him, then beheaded him.  Then it says he "Died of the stone and not of the sword" with "died of the stone" in bold.  Is there any particular reason for the emphasis here?  Was being killed with a sling bullet part of some prophecy or something?  Otherwise, I don't really understand the significance of dying from the shot rather than the beheading. Childe Roland of Gilead 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Died of the stone" 

message: I re-wrote the summary section to make it a bit tighter and to make it reflect more closely the text of 1 Samuel 17. I used present tense because it makes the story more immediate, as well as marking off the words of the text from any editorial comment (though I tried to put all editorial comment into footnotes). What do you think? PiCo 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writing the sumamry 

message: This section ends in the middle of a sentence, and I can't find a revision where this is not the problem. --Martian.knight 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Later Jewish sources 

message: The idea that Goliath was an isolated case of hyperpituitarism is largely unfounded on two grounds.
1) Under modern archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated and contain the oldest intact portions of the book of Samuel. The Dead Sea Scroll version of Samuel clearly reads "Four cubits and a span." This tallies out to about  7 feet tall, depending on which cubit is used. There are many people around 7 feet tall which have a pure genetic basis for their constitutional stature, and indeed gigantism is a rare occurance.
2)The book of Chronicles chapter 20, describes several different warriors from the same city (Gath) who are also of great stature. And one of them is observed as having Polydactylism (six fingers) a trait often found in inbred societies, "possibly" suggesting the tall stature a familial trait as opposed to rare pathological gigantism.
In addition, it would seem that Philistine "giants" were observed up until atleast 600 BC, at the time of Nebuchadrezzar II's conquest of Palestine. For the famed poet, Alcaeus of Lesbos, mentions that his brother (Antimenidas) was serving as a mercenary under Babylon, and had slain a warrior "lacking one span of five royal cubits in stature."  It would seem that Antimenidas faught at the great battle of Ashkelon, or elseware in the vicinity of Philistia. The Neo Babylonian Royal cubit was about 20.8 inches, a span being half this length. Such units indicate this giant Philistine stood approx. 7'10", (probably in full armor and helmet).--71.215.157.202 23:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: king Og I. The Bible was taller 173.42.69.2 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliath and Gigantism 

message: If Goliath suffered from some sort of vision problem, then ANY Israelite warrior would have been able to sneak up on him!
I can't say I know much about ancient warfare, but simple common sense dictates that, if they do not allow people with vision problems in the army TODAY, chances are, they didn't back then either.  Size would have certainly been impressive in an ancient battlefield, but, if Goliath really had had vision problems, he would not have lasted that long in an ancient battle field.  Also, keep in mind, the sling was a very common weapon in the ancient mediterranean world.  David wasn't the only slinger in Saul's army; chances are, there were probably many.
Statistically speaking, since the Israelite army, like ANY ancient Mediterranean army, would have had many slingers, and many archers, someone with Goliath's vision problems as alleged by the medical speculation would not have lasted very long at all.  Part of the reason the Philistines kicked the Israelites around so much is because their army was better organized; if the theory is true that the Philistines were originally a displaced Greek people (namely, the Minoans) chances are they would have been familiar with the Phalanx formation.  If this is true, makagainst the unorganized mob that was the Israelite army under Saul, they would not stood much of a chance.  Of course, there is a huge problem with my Phalanx theory; for it to work, Goliath would have to be the same size as his fellow warriors.  Wait.
Maybe Goliath wasn't a giant at all; maybe he was just a really good fighter made into a giant to make David look good.  Whatever the truth is, please reconsider the "medical speculation" part because, with all respect, it just doesn't make any sense.  I insist; someone with vision problems as a result of gigantism would not have lasted very long in the brutality of a hand-to-hand dominated ancient battle field.  Don't forget all the arrows, spears, and stones flying around.
If the "medical speculation" were true, then, Goliath would not have lasted very long at all.
Now, this last part is not analysis, but purely personal opinion; you ask me, all Goliath was was a really good warrior, not a giant.  Like the Greek Achilles, or, the Babylonian Gilgamesh.  Time, and exagerated accounts, turned him into a giant.  Also, please remember, in any good story, you have to have a threatening villain to make the "hero" look good.  Goliath was probably powerfully built, and larger than average, but I have serious qualms that he was actually a giant.  If, out of opinion, I had to throw in a figure, I would put his height at around 6'5, or 6'3.  When compared to your average ancient Israelite (who stood at 5'4), naturally that would be a terrifying height.
The Philistines, from what I have read, were said to be more sophisticated than the Israelites.  That probably means they were better nourished, and had a more varied diet.  They were also considerably wealthier, and tended to view the Israelites as "scum" by many speculations.  Ironic actually, that in ancient times Philistines were wealthier and more "sophisticated" than the Israelites who live in what is now the West Bank.  In modern times, Israelis seem to have taken the place of the Philistines, and Palestinians, the place of the ancient Israelites.
Of course, in ancient Israel there were never any cases of "suicide attacks" on Philistia.
206.63.78.97 05:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the section, not because of your arguments here, but because it was speculative and peripheral. As for your points above, the LXX and Dead Sea texts of 1 Sam. 17 give G's height as four cubits and a span, about 6'6"; as these two are older than the Masoretic (or at least the extant texts are older), and as they sound plausible, I'm personally of the opinion that they represent the original text. Finally, please get yourself an account and sign your contributions. PiCo 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Enjoyed the comments about the phalanx formation. Research would have to be done and/or shown that the Minoans actually used the phalanx formation. The first Greek phalanx formation is not mentioned until Homer (8th century BC) (see the wiki on phalanx formation). Though it was used much earlier in some places. You state the Philistines were more "sophisticated" than the Israelites but fail to make note of their use of iron rather than bronze (see wiki on Philistines).PrinceJason (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding The "Medical Speculation" 

message: I have deleted this link to an article about ancient armour: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28195001%2F03%2970%3A1%3C47%3AOSAOAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage,
While not questioning the value of this article in ts own context, it isn't really relevant to our paragraph. The author, E. A. Speiser, is talking about the etymolgy of various words for various pieces of armour; he also concludes that scale armour was well-known in the region in the 10th century BCE. I'm sure he's right, but the point of the paragraph is that the actual armour described in 1 Samuel 17 is Greek and dateable to the 7th-6th centuries. Philistine armour of the 10th century was quite different in appearance, and the matter of scales isn't germane (what's relevant is the description of greaves, body armour, the number of weapons, the presence of a shield-bearer, etc - these are all representative of Greek mercenary hoplites of the 7th century onward, known to have been present in many courts of the region, including that of Judah, while Philistine armour of the 10th century BCE was quite different). So, somwhat regretfully, I'm deleting it. PiCo 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is clear that the the writer of the biblical text had problems with the words for the new armour that can from the east and not the west, namely Greece.  If you want to add a sentence that says some other scolors say its from Greece go ahead.  But that really seems like a flawed hypotheses since the text would have used lone word from Greek instead of a hittit or mesoptania.  Hardyplants 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've piqued my curiosity about the history of body-armour - I'm sure it must have been invented as soon as people discovered how to hammer metal! Anyway, something for me to look up. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article, I hate to edit with back-up from others. PiCo 07:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliath's armour (reference) 

message: The Phalanx was a Hoplite technique not used before 700 BC. The Philistines had a regular army equipped with Iron and Bronze spears, but they employed frontline special units of trained men like Goliath. This is similar to King David and his 30 mighty men.
The earliest Hebrew text make it clear Goliath was gigantic, standing 6 1/2 to 7 feet tall, carrying 100 lbs of armor. Other men this size also came from gath and Gezer. These were not ordinary men.
The stature of Goliath and the warriors of Gath, was clearly hereditary, with some possible mutations (six fingers) caused about by selecive breeding. Not the result of Acromegaly, a rare disease which cannot account for multiple giants in one city.
The height of most Hebrew men was less than 5 1/2 feet tall and would have stood at Goliath's chest. Saul the first king of Israel, was also chosen for his strength and stature, head and shoulders above everyone.
Size was important for ancient battles, the biggest and strongest were the ideal warriors in an age of heroes.
As late as 600 BC, warriors of gigantic stature were found among the Philistines/ Judah, as the poet Alcaeus testifies to the slaying of a man nearly 5 cubits tall.
:Talk pages are meant for discussing improvements/changes to the article, not as a place where you can share your personal thoughts on a subject. If you want to edit the article, please do so - and explain your edits here if you feel they might be controversial. And please get yourself an account. PiCo 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Regarding The "Medical Speculation" 

message: Added this new section but it lacks references. Can anyone help? PiCo 09:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a web site I came across http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08647b.htm  it does not cover Goliath but gives an overview of the multiply manuscript lines  for the book of Samuel(see the bottom), when I have more time I will try to make a more detailed search- but this is not my field so will have learn as I go. Hardyplants 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'll add that site as a link via a footnote. It might also be useful when I add a further planned section or paragraph on the comparison of the book of Samuel and the book of Chronicles. But it's a useful source for sure. PiCo 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "Texts" and Goliath's height 

message: 11:56, 10 July 2007 PiCo (Talk | contribs) (20,134 bytes) (changing "wounds" to "strikes", the modern equivalent of "smote" and closer to the text.
:If you have not seen my talk page already, look at this link for the modern use of the word smote:
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%94&btnG=Search+Images
It looks like wound or cripple instead of strike.  Hardyplants 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I don't like "wound" as a translation because to me the word implies leaving a gapping hole in the flesh with blood running out and bones showing. That may indeed be what happened, but it doesn't imply what I think is the most importrant aspect of the image 1 Samuel is trying to convey: Goliath is hit by the stone and rendered unconscious (not bloody). How about "struck down"? I'm trying to find an English word or phrase that conveys the intention of the story, rather than staying strictly true to the Hebrew. PiCo 12:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  smote 

message: Article leaves out the SPAN in Goliath's stature, and misquotes the source. 4QSAM and LXX actually read "his height was four cubits and a span." The span, is simply a handspan of the oustretched fingers, an approximate measurment in ancient times equalling 8.75-9 inches, roughly half the cubit of a common man in those days. This puts Goliath at about 6-ft-8-ins or 6-ft-9-ins, a very large person. That the original source quoted leaves this fact out is simply incorrect. --71.222.54.25 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the article by changing the direct quote to an indierct one - I have no idea why the source leaves out the "span".PiCo 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four cubits AND A SPAN 

message: An editor ercently added a sentence about a parallel between David/Goliath and an incident from the Iliad. It was in the wrong section, but it seemed relevant and well-sourced, so I moved it down to a section which talks about the extra-bilbical referants to Goliath. But when I tried to merge it into that section it didn't quite gel, and I didn't succeed in creating a really fluent paragrpah. Others are welcome to try to improve this. (And I renamed the section "Goliath and the Greeks", but a better title is no doubt possible). PiCo 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that in the Iliad, Ereuthalion is not mentioned as a Giant. He was described as "the tallest and strongest Nestor ever slew". Even if this tale of Nestor provided inspiration, it's best We give this link with clarity.Fotte (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliath and the Greeks 

message: I've removed a section chock-full of uncited material. each notation needs citation before return ing to the article:
Modern references
(Image set as no-wiki)
* The lead character in Disney's animated series "Gargoyles" was called Goliath and according to dialogue in the first episode is so strong that he was named for "Philistine Giant who battle David." (Ironically, his chief enemy was a now reformed villain named David--full name David Xanatos.)
* In the Real-time strategy game StarCraft, the Goliath is a mechanical combat unit used by the Terran race in the intergalactic war against the Protoss and Zerg.
* A toy vehicle set in the 1980s M.A.S.K. toyline was named Goliath; it consisted of a race car which transformed into a jet, and the race car's transport truck with transformed into a missile launcher.
* The British Royal Navy had several successive ships bearing the name  HMS Goliath. One of them took part in the Napoleonic Wars, and a later one in The First World War. 
* One of the two shipyard cranes that dominate the Belfast skyline is nicknamed Goliath. The other crane is nicknamed Samson.
* The World's Largest bear, of Space Farms Zoo and Museum in Sussex NJ was honorably named "Goliath". The record holding bear lived between 1972-1991.
* The world's heaviest beetle, and by far the largest member of the scarab family, measuring as much as a sparrow but weighing in at five times a sparrow's weight, is called the goliath beetle. 
* In the TV series Knight Rider, Goliath is the name of Kitt's Arch nemesis, an indestructible trailer truck.
* In another computer game, Battlefield 2142, in the expansion pack Northern Strike there is a vehicle of the EU team called the Goliath. It is a huge armored APC which is considered the hardest vehicle to destroy as it has regenerating armor, and requires certain panels on it to be destroyed before becoming vulnerable. It is the biggest drivable vehicle in the game (drivable, as in not a Titan).
* A VLF RADCOM Antenna type.  The Goliath will have a mast at each of the six corners and one in the center of each canopy.
* The Israeli Rock band Kaveret composed and sung a song called "Goliath" telling the tale of the 6 Day War through the tale of David and Goliath.
* The Swedish melodic death metal band In Flames released a song "Goliaths Disarm Their Davids" on their 1997 mini-CD Black-Ash Inheritance.
* Davey and Goliath, the 1960s Art Clokey-animated Lutheran Church in America-sponsored children's television program gives the names of the chief characters of the David and Goliath story to its main characters, Davey Hansen and his dog, Goliath.
* Goliath is the name of the Triax army's giant tank/mobile land fortress in the 1989 Kenner toy line Mega Force.
* A form of battle armor ridden by Vile in Capcom's SNES/PSX game "Mega Man X3" bears the title Goliath.
* In Pro Evolution Soccer 6 a special selection team is named "Goliaths" because all players are very tall
* Goliaths are an extremely strong (and somewhat clumsy) race in the Dungeons & Dragons supplement Races of Stone, where they are considered "medium" sized, but have the "strong body" ability that treats them to be one size larger when it suits them.
* The Mars Volta's 2008 album is titled "The Bedlam in Goliath" and features a track titled "Goliath'
* The 2007 Tommy Lee Jones movie In The Valley of Elah has Jones's character recount the story of David and Goliath (which took place in the valley of Elah) to a young boy. The moral of the movie is one of courage and facing your demons, which mirrors that of the biblical story.
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material

message: I made an addition to the "see also" section. I added Pier Gerlofs Donia, known as the Goliath of the North. Just to inform you all,
Jouke Bersma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: Stuff like this is very confusing, is this from the bible?  Why is this mentioned without a little explanation of what exactly samuel 17 is?--Extrabatteries (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you jest? PiCo (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary: 1 Samuel 17 

message: Was Goliath a real man?  If so was he realy killed by David?  In this article it is unclear if he was purely a product of the old testment or if the bible story depicted a real man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.59 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real or fictional? 

message: This section is rather confusing and is based on the website "Christian apologetics and research ministry", which cites the findings of Gleason Archer, a defender of Biblical Inerrancy. In my opinion this section does not acquire wikipedias standards for sources and should therefore be removed. greetings --85.127.116.45 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Elhanan and Goliath */ 

message: Why there are no pronunciations of words written in Hebrew? Does anybody think everone can read that in original? We need in all Wikipedia Hebrew words transcribed in Latin alphabet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.164.85 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General question. Important 

message: Someone should mention Islam's POV.
Quote from the Quran
Quran,Chapter 2 verse 249-251
2:249
When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "Allah will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused." But they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Jalut and his forces." But those who were convinced that they must meet Allah, said: "How oft, by Allah's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere."
2:250
When they advanced to meet Jalut and his forces, they prayed: "Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith."
2:251
By Allah's will they routed them; and Dawud slew Jalut; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.75.74 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam and Goliath

message: The title of this part would imply it is about how old David was when the battle occurred however this is over various manuscripts.  The heading needs a re wright to remove the disconnect from the heading and the content.  Jasoninkid (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is indeed about how old David was at the time of the battle: it says that there are two textual traditions presenty, in one of which he is a young boy, and in the other a warrior. I gave it a new title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.250 (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: David’s age

message: I appreciate what's been attempted with this section, but it isn't actually about the textual history. To do that, you need to follow up the manuscript history and the reconstructions made by textual critics.PiCo (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  section "textual history" 

message: The old citation link for the VeggieTales reference led to a blog with one explicit post about macrophilia (cannot unsee) so I went ahead and killed the citation. Needs a new citation now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofthemage (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed a link in the adaptations section, need a new citation 

message: Goliath (Bulgarian = goliat) , 
the naked man,
гол мъж,
голият човек
- - - - -
It certainly isn't Bulgarian in origin. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The  origine of the name  Goliath  

message: "MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) including 6 motion picture studios namely Sony, Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, Paramount and Fox are now planning to bring down Google (aka Goliath)."
Definitely not appropriate for the introduction. I removed it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism in introduction 

message: I added:
:The historicity of King David and especially the detailed stories about him is disputed.
which was reverted by User:Atlan with the edit summary "doesn't belong there".
The article doesn't have any information about the disputed historicity of Goliath, who only appears in the David and Goliath story in the Bible.  Is mentioning that in the intro a matter of phrasing (since the way I said it is about King David and not Goliath, though really it applies to both)?  Or is there somewhere else in the article this should be? -- Beland (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple of problems with your addition. First, this is an article about Goliath and not David. The historicity of King David is only tangentially relevant to this article. There was no mention of Goliath in your edit (you already acknowledge this). Second, you shoehorned it in the lead, in a paragraph that could not possibly have less to do with the historicity of Goliath. Third, "this story is disputed" could be added to any religious text. What's the point of such a general statement in the lead?--Atlan (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a better phrasing would be: "The historicity of Goliath and other stories about King David is disputed."  This is an encyclopedia article, so it needs to be clear on the point of whether it's discussing fiction or non-fiction, or a belief held only be a certain denomination.  Some elements of religious stories are in fact corroborated in non-religious texts, such as the existence of certain historical persons or events.  The way the article goes on now, with details and even paintings of the subject, makes Goliath sound real - which is disputed. -- Beland (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: Since the idea seems to have attracted some controversy in years past, I figured I'd mention this here first. There's an interesting paper on the matter here, which raises the possibility. A fairly well-known writer, Malcolm Gladwell, also titled a book David and Goliath and specifically did so because of, among other things, the possibility of Goliath having acromegaly; he wrote that in addition to his size the texts hint at him possibly having vision problems, which are very common in untreated acromegaly patients. In addition to the book itself there's a Charlie Rose interview where he says as much, I can certainly find that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 06:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acromegaly 

message: How can Wikipedia cover the contemporary secular usage of "David and Goliath," especially in the media, to neutrally represent an underdog situation, a mismatched contest, as in:
:"used to describe a situation in which a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent" > "The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest." > "From the Bible story in which Goliath, a giant, is killed by the boy David with a stone." Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
Specifically, usage came up in a contentious WP editing discussion, where it was claimed that "David and Goliath" (used by an editor to describe a situation, i.e. not as a direct quote from a source) by default has good-vs-evil connotations, where David as inherently good (David has God on his side), and Goliath as evil, therefore, not neutral (as in NPOV).
Good-vs-evil is one meaning, but in a survey of major English-language news media, all of the dozens of examples checked were simply small-vs-big, never implying good-vs-evil. This includes site searches of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Economist, The Guardian, and others, describing everything from a tiny Internet startup vs a major Net corporation, to two major league baseball teams.
My intention here is not to argue usage, but to get suggestions on how to cover this, as I think it is noteworthy enough to merit a section in this article (some time ago, I added a line to the lead) as David and Goliath redirects here, and possibly notable and broad enough to start a separate page, which would I suppose would cover the Biblical story, with modern usage of the phrase in its own section. --Tsavage (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to cover "David and Goliath" used to describe a mismatched/underdog contest 

message: Tweaked a couple of sentences for readability. Hope this meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliath and the Greeks 

message: Ed17 - just to explain why I reverted your edits: none of the sources you provided were biblical scholars, which means they have no status as reliable sources. The closest were Vladimir Berginer and Chaim Cohen, but neither have a background in biblical studies. Biblical scholars are unanimous that the Goliath story is a fiction, and that Goliath is a fictional character. The Goliath story is a legend, not a piece of history, and discussion of Goliath as if he were real is beside the point. PiCo (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for opening this discussion. :-) Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your position? As far as I'm aware, the sources I provided are reliable and meet the verifiability policy, and there's no guideline that says sources in Christianity religious articles must also be biblical scholars. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ed17. To start with a very minor point, this isn't a Christianity topic, since the David/Goliath story is in the Book of Samuel, which is Jewish. But it isn't a Jewish topic either, it belongs to biblical studies, which despite the somewhat clunky title is a defined area of academic study. It means taking the bible as a literary work and examining its literary elements. Your approach (or the approach of the authorities you quote) is to treat the bible as a historical work, meaning they assume that the Goliath story is a historical record, that this battle actually happened and that the Book of Samuel is comparable to a newspaper article. Biblical scholars say it's not - it's just a made-up story, based on legends about King David and Goliath and about as reliable as similar legends about King Arthur. The relevant Wikipedia policy is Reliable Sources, which also touches on relevance. PiCo (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point, and I've modified my comment above. :-) However, I must disagree with your other point. The fact that biblical scholars think that the story is apocryphal does not mean we can't include reliably sourced information from other viewpoints. It could be qualified with "if the story is true" or somesuch, of course, but I've demonstrated that this is a topic that sources have speculated about. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's literally dozens of sources making a link between Goliath and acromegaly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They have to be by biblical scholars to be reliable sources. As the universal consensus is that Goliath never existed, this is unlikely to happen.PiCo (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but that's literally not how WP:V and WP:RS work. :-) If that's your only argument, I will be restoring the information. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Ed. Apologies for having ignored this for so long. I think you understand my problem - Goliath is fictional, and therefore his height doesn't need an explanation, any more than the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk. What seems to have happened is that there was a story about an Elhanan who fought a giant and this was attached to David when the story was being written. Still, if you can find a way to preserve that fact I'd be open to suggestions. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  We have a ted talk, a primary source from the biomedical literature speculating (PMID 25075136]) and  which actually is doubly speculative, guessing that Samson had a visual disorder caused by acromegaly. This is gossip, really. It is also stuck in the section on Textual issues; this is not a textual criticism issue. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've launched an RfC on this to seek wider input. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliath's acromegaly 

message: I had left the structure of the page like this on July 11, dealing squarely with the textual difficulties and describing clearly what the Bible says, which is what we should in one place, without privileging the received mythology.  
User:PiCo, please explain this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you're reifying the text (i.e., treating Goliath as a real person, rather than a fictional one).PiCo (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify? What of first edit linked by Jytdog treats Goliath as real? Also, do remember that we can take no sides either way on this: we can't treat him as fictional or nonfictional: we must follow WP:NPOV. we just report what the sources say and leave the reader to decide. We can neither reify nor fictionalize. — trlkly 04:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burying textual difficulties 

message: I personally have no problem with the lead identifying Goliath in terms of his combat with David, but the sentence I replaced (which had this) had no source, and I like sources for everything. If a source can be found for the "combat with David" I'd be quite happy with it.PiCo (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: The source given to say that most scholars agree that the shorter "four cubits and a span" is the original does not actually say this. It is simply a paper by a scholar making the argument that this is the original. The argument made is compelling, but we really need a source that actually states that most scholars agree with his reasoning. 
If one is found, I would suggest that the Paper not be removed, as it appears to be a better source for the statements of the previous sentence. It can simply be moved upward. 
I will now be somewhat bold and update the page to have both sources on the first part, and leave the other statement unsourced, inviting someone to provide a citation.
:I think I've added a decent source. Alephb (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on Goliath's height 

message: Forgive me if I don't adhere to the Wikipedia discussion norms- I've never done this and only felt pushed to when I noticed this issue.
In the section titled "Composition of the Book of Samuel and the Goliath narrative", the following statement is issued as examples for evidence of revisions of the Biblical account: "Traces of this can be seen in the contradictions and illogicalities of the Goliath story - to take a few examples, David turns from Saul's adult shield-bearer into a child herding sheep for his father, Saul finds it necessary to send for him when as the king's shield-bearer he should already be beside his royal master, and then has to ask who David is, which sits strangely with David's status at his court."
Undoubtedly those revisions occured, but this is an unsubstantiated statement and poor citation (the citation given at the end is merely to a Biblical commentary and offers no support beyond the basic text). These examples of supposed "contradictions" are easily recognized and explained by 1 Samuel 17:15, which states that in his initial service to Saul, "David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem." It wasn't until after the battle with Goliath that David was exclusively in Saul's service (1 Sam 18:2). The examples currently provided in the article section have assumed the order of events all wrong. 
As for Saul having to ask who David is, this isn't correct either- he asked "whose son is this youth?" Though David was familiar to Saul, he could have easily forgotten David's origins.
Finally, nowhere does 1 Samuel claim to be completely chronological- it's clearly seen that some sections are organized topically, such as the interlude at the beginning of chapter 18. Similarly, this could explain why 1 Samuel 16:14-23 appears where it does, since it's concerned with the "Spirit of the LORD" as the verse before it are. Chronologically, it may well belong elsewhere. As such, apparent "contradictions" arise from a surface level reading of the text, and though I'm open to the possibility of other examples, the ones provided have fairly simple and obvious explanations within the context. I would like to see a better example and a better citation for this. I could well be mistaken here, but in that case this section needs more elaboration/details/citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D000:17D:45A8:8B23:8077:4161 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, all Bible contradictions can be harmonized. It's when you try to harmonize the various harmonizations where the whole enterprise breaks down. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the Goliath story was investigated by Dominique Barthélemy, David Willoughby Gooding, Johan Lust, and Emanuel Tov in "The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism", 1988 (the paper is available here). The story exists in two versions, a short version in Greek and the longer version in Hebrew - our OP will be familiar with the long Hebrew version, as that's the one in our Bibles, but the manuscripts of the Greek version are older. They ask whether the Greek is an abridged version of the Hebrew or the Hebrew an expanded version of the Greek, and conclude that the second is the case - the Hebrew version, the one in our Bibles, has been created by expanding the shorter Greek version. This accounts for the inconsistencies and contradictions in out story. See if you can find the blog called Remnants of Giants (maintained by a Biblical scholar who happens to like the Bible's giant stories) and look up Goliath and Tov. This paper is also relevant.Achar Sva (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The Books of Samuel are essentially a work of fiction. Those "contradictions" seem to be typical continuity errors. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We've made plenty of adequate and plausible explanations as to why the books of Samuel are not fiction and how the supposed contradictions really aren't so. You don't speak for Jews and Christians. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, pal, you know what? You don't speak for all Jews or for all Christians, either. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contradictions and illogicalities of the Goliath story" examples 

message: , do you have a WP:RS which denies that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Bible scholars agree with our article?
These are Christian (or should I say Evangelical) publishing houses:
* Zondervan Academic
* Presbyterian Publishing Corporation
* InterVarsity Press. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tgeorgescu: Do you think Vetus Testamentum is also a conservative Evangelical publishing house? It has published this article with a text-critical analysis which provides an explanation for the alleged tension between 1 Sam 17 and 2 Sam 21:19. Potatín5 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brill is a bona fide academic publisher. I did not read the article, it could still be WP:UNDUE. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tgeorgescu: So, are you going to read it in order to verify if it's WP:UNDUE? I can wait, then. Potatín5 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found it at academia.edu. Written by a professor from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which belongs to biblical inerrantism, i.e. a WP:FRINGE WP:POV. I cannot say that it is bunk, but I don't think that it got traction in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edit war 

message: At first read I missed the [a] footnote completely.  As the original spelling is in Hebrew, shouldn't that be much more prominent and occur in the article text, if not the lead?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah spelling