The notion that Samson was used as a “stud” while blind and imprisoned comes from the Aggadah.
Appreciate the clarification.
Many historical characters pass into fiction and the significance of the details of the story escapes us even though they are preserved in the account.
I think it was Malcolm Gladwell’s account of David and Goliath where he suggests that Goliath had a particular pituitary problem that, although he was extremely tall, left him relatively near-sighted.
Thank you for that take on talent.
As for you find the notion troubling, my belief allows for God speaking to people in different groups of people differently, the way they need given their culture. (also I believe everything ever written is scripture, God inspired, God created)
Much like a parent talking to multiple children, not all need to hear the exact same thing, but be instructed for who they are and for their good and guidance.
This to me is the basis of the world wide multiple religions that all appear to converge to the same principles.
The Midrash (Jewish oral legend) says that Goliath was descended from Orpah, the sister of Ruth (ancestress of David - so you see the narrative symmetry) who did not return to Israel with Naomi. I don’t see anything that makes a connection with Samson and Delilah, though of course, nothing specifically rules it out, either.
And sometimes that something is the cycle of seasons, such as the stories of descent into the underworld (Persephone, Ishtar, etc.) that never required an actual historical person but the figures made up entirely to fit the story. I think that there is evidence worth considering that the Samson/Delilah story is a solar myth, with this being one of the better links I googled up.
Eh, every culture in history has had champions, mighty fighters, and war heroes, so it’s no stretch to suppose that Israel had one, too. Was he named Samson? Sure, why not? And was he eventually defeated by a woman from the enemy’s side seducing him? Well, it’s not an uncommon way for such heroes to be defeated.
The bit about the hair, yeah, that’s probably an embellishment. And his kill count is almost certainly inflated. But the rest is plausible enough.
AFAIK, shield men accompanied any great warrior who didn’t have a free hand. If you fought with a two-handed weapon, or carried a weapon in each hand you had a shield man.
The stick/sticks thing seems to me to be reading significance where there is none. Goliath says “sticks” when presumably looking at only one stick. So what?
Finally, if Goliath had so many problems, why in the nine hells would they pick him as their champion? Why not pick another warrior who, though shorter, was a better fighter?
I think the idea is, there was no better hand-to-hand fighter. Like, as soon as you get close enough to this guy, he’s going to bring his sword down on you so hard that your armor is going to be useless: he’s big and he’s strong, and he’s done it before; and he’s got so much of a reach advantage that he’ll cripple or kill you juuuust before you get close enough to try any silly fencer tricks with your weaker swordarm.
Of course, if you stay like twenty feet away he maybe can’t discern your features or anything – but so what? Once you get near the guy, it’s like you’re up against that impressive-looking swordsman who totally would’ve killed Indiana Jones.
And “grinding grain” is an obvious put-down. The typical grain mill in areas without water for motive power was a grindstone turned by an ox or some such animal harnessed to it and walking in a circle to turn it all day long. Turning a once-mighty warrior into a captive doing the job of a brainless ox all day is simply a way of showing how much he had fallen.
(Somewhere else in the bible is the admonishment, “do not muzzle the ox that grinds the grain” i.e. let the poor thing eat any grain that spills into his path… don’t be petty and cheap with the menials who work for you.)
The ‘great warriors’ were upper class. They had servants.
Today we are used to the idea that every soldier carries his own stuff everywhere.
This wasn’t so in ancient times. It was normal to have servants with you on campaign. Not just the officers.
Even the greek citizen hoplites had servants to carry the heavier stuff, while on the march. It was normal to only put on all the armour right before the lines actually met.
Let’s not forget that Samson is a judge–a pre-royal leader of Israel. And it makes sense that said leader might be some great fighter.
I see no reason the hair thing can’t be true. It sounds exactly like the sort of thing people would do. It doesn’t have to be supernatural–he believe his vow was the source of his strength, and that his hair being cut violated that vow, so then he believed he was weaker.
I do doubt that he was asked three times, though. That’s a common story telling device, and a way to “prove” it was his hair that was the issue. It’s honestly hard to believe that even an arrogant “musclehead” would let it happen 3 times.
And, yes, kill counts almost certainly get inflated over time.
Speaking of his judgeship, I actually initially thought what the first few posters said–that the timeline was too far apart. But, when using Google to confirm, I got stuff about Samson being the last Judge of Israel (as he is the last one mentioned in Judges). If so, then the timing can work. (If anything, the timing might be a bit short for Goliath to be old enough to fight.)
The other stuff people say all checks out, though. There is no such tradition, and there are other explanations for his height. There were indeed “giants” in those days, according to the text. It makes more sense that he was descended from them. Samson’s height is never given as being remotely unusual.
Plus, his powers come from a Nazirite vow (basically an ascetic vow), not some genetic superiority, and those powers disappear when he allows the vow to be broken improperly. Goliath has no such vow to the Lord, so why would he get any of Samson’s power? It just doesn’t work with the myth.
It’s pretty clear that that is exactly what happened.
2 Samuel 21:19 says (JPS), “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” Since 1 Sam 17 describes the man David fought as a Gittite named Goliath, “And the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam,” it’s almost certainly the same man.
Of course, that contradicts the David story, and translators who think they can do better than God in preserving the true meaning of the Biblical text want to help, so this is the same verse in the KJV, emphasis mine: “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.”
The original Hebrew has no hint of “brother” in that verse, so it was obviously inserted by translators to avoid the contradiction. Not just in the King James, but in many modern bibles, including one of the very latest, the Net Bible.
By the way, the fact that translators are able to do this, and have their changes persist, apparently forever, should be all you need to know about inerrancy.
As to the OP, Samson seemed to do whatever he wanted, so it’s not impossible that he had affairs with Philistine women, even before he was captured. But there’s a much more likely source of Goliath’s size.
The same chapter I quoted above says that Goliath and three other very large men were descendants of Rapha. Deuteronomy refers to the Rephaim as a race of giants (Moses himself speaks of one whose bed was 13 feet long), and it’s plausible that over the years, the spelling changed slightly. Note that Samson, while strong, was not described as extraordinarily large in the Bible (although there are non-Biblical embellishments that say he was).
I’m no expert in Biblical Hebrew, but I believe that the literal translation is, “hiking the Appalachian trail.”
There’s another problem with this notion that should be obvious: Goliath was really big (whatever that means: 7’? 9’?), and his strength clearly derived from his size. Samson, however, was strong, but it’s never implied that he was particularly big. Having him as Goliath’s father doesn’t really explain anything, because we still need to explain why Goliath was so big.
Ugh, that’s what I get for chiming in before completely reading the newest posts.
The rest of your post is spot on, but I do want to quibble about this. First off, the KJV puts those words in italics, which is their way of indicating that the clarification was not part of the original text.
But, more importantly, they didn’t make it up themselves. They just followed what Chronicles said. So, if anyone cleaned up the narrative, it happened before then. To use the JPS, as you did:
And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (1 Chronicles 20:5)
See, by that point, he even has a name. (And if you know about how Chronicles was made, you know that they combined multiple sources. I for one think Kings was one of them.)
Yes, the original KJV does. But many others, including the American King James and the King James 2000, do not. And many people reading the KJV are unaware of the significance of the italics, or don’t even notice them.
They didn’t make it up, but they did “help” God by harmonizing it with Chronicles. Where do they get off doing this? What if somebody else decides to harmonize Matthew with Luke, and changes one or both of Jesus’ genealogies, or the inscriptions on the cross? What if somebody decides to change historical events to more closely accord with an earlier prophecy, or vice versa?
The whole awful story is plausible enough? There’s quite a bit there - multiple mass murders, a beehive inside the carcass of a dead lion that he tore apart with his bare hands, arson, it’s really terrible. He had all this strength as a gift of God and used it to create the most mayhem possible when throwing a childish temper tantrum. I mean, the story’s really horrible.
The costume and the superpowers are probably embellishments, but aside from that, it seems perfectly plausible that Clark Kent was a real person.