One of the most fascinatring components of the science of archaeology has been the subset known as Biblical archaeology, that branch whereby the art and the science of archaeology tends to become particularly muddled. "Proof" of the literal truth of the Bible is one of the constant demands imposed on the field by the more literal minded of Biblical students and theologians. The more rational scientific approach tends to look upon these foks with a bemused glance, yet is wary of saying too much of a disparaging word about them. After all, any serious archaeological endeavor has to of necessity receive funding from one source or another, and those interested in uncovering archaeological evidence to support their faith one might imagine would tnd to be among the more generous of donors. And so, the more serious student and afficianado of archaeology-those of us who wnat to discover the truth, whatever that might be-tend to laugh in silence.
However, the branch of pseudo-archaeology may have gotten a much needed shot in the arm (akin to heroin, some of us might cruelly suggest) when it was announced recently that an archaeological discovery in the ancient Philistine city of Gath, in Southern Israel, may at last lend credence to the story of David and Goliath. In fact, the name Goliath has been discovered on pottery shards, in the form of it's Philistine version Golyath.
I first heard of this watching the news crawl on CNN when it was announced that a "Goliath of a find" possibly proves the existence of the giant, whose name was doscovered on shards IN HIS HOME!
"Huh?" I said to myself. What do they mean, his "Home"? You see, I 've learned to read these crawls with every bit as much skepticism as I do the tone in Sean Hannity's voice when he goes into his super patriot schpiel, or O'Reilly's assertion of being a populist, everyman type of independant.
Sure enough, it turns out the home was not the house, but the city-Gath- which was suppossedly the giants hometown. But nevertheless the crawl succeeded in heightening my interest long enough for me to give it what I hope is some rational thought. It didn't take me long to figure out the obvious.
Goliath was probably originally-a Philistine God. A heroic type of Philistine Hercules. He may not have originally even been seen as a giant so much as a great heroic strongman. The giant business may have been assigned by later Hebrew writers, who may have seen a giant stature as a sign of evil and cruelty.
It would take a lot of study and more archaeological work to learn more, but why else would a name appear on a Philistine shard. Another possible explanation is that this was actually a common Phlistine personal and/or family name, and that this might have been a signature of either creation or ownership. But I tend to want to adhere to the god idea. He may possibly have been a half human, or even a totally divine, son of Dagon, who seems to have been, from what we now know, the most important of all the Philistine deities.
Actually, the Philistines originally were not native to the area, but seem to have had some connection to the Minoan civilization that dominated the Meditterrannen prior to the coming of the Mychaenaean Greeks (who themselves preceeded the more familiar classical Greeks). In fact, they may indeed have been the remnants of the civilization of Crete, the Minoans, who had establsihed a highly advanced maritime civilization but who ultimately met a sudden demise about 1500 B.C. or so. Sometime afterwards, the group of maritime marauders known as the "Sea Peoples" laid waste to the entire Meditterrannean area, ultimately proving insatiable and unstoppable, until they finally were held in check by the power of the Egyptians. The remnants of the Sea Peoples then established their territory in what later came to be known as Philistia. That sorrowful little strip of land now known as the Gaza Strip. In fact, the ancient city of Gaza was one of their major cities, Gath being another. In fact, there were five major cities, each ruled as a semi-autonomous city state ruled by it's own individual king.
In point of fact, though the Philistines are generally viewed as being quite barbaric, they may actually have been quite advanced, and may have had a generally high cultural level. There can be little doubt, however, that they were warlike, and aggressive, and bend on dominating the area of the world to which they had become consigned.
One way of gathering clues as to the true nature and/or identity of the giant/hero/godman Goliath, might actually be in comparing the evidence from Minoan archaeological endeavors. It could well be that the Sea Peoples who were the forebears of the Philistines might actually have originated from Minoa, or Crete. Or, it could be that they originated from Sardinia, or some other such Meditterrannean island, but at any rate there should be some form of comparison in the record if this were the case.
Whatever the case, you can count on fundamentalist Christians in days and weeks to come to begin pounding the drum to the rhythym of an imagined proof as to the existence of Goliath, and thus overall proof of the Bible. Such as was the case when the discovery of the name of Abraham turned up in some ancient records, despite the fact that Abraham was doubtless as well a fairly common name of the time.
What might be interesting is if the building where these shards were uncovered, turned out to be the remains of some ancient Philistine temple. Of course, as I imagine a good many temples tended to have high ceilings, and doorways, this might to the overeager be utilized as proof of Goliath's giant stature.
It would be nothing unusual if Goliath turned out to have been a god or godman hero. Actually, the ancient Hebrews did this quite often, and the early Christians followed suit, in turning the heroes and deities of a rival culture into villains and devils. The entire story of the plaques of ancient Egypt, for example, the seven plaques put on Pharoah and the Egyptians by God because the Egyptian ruler refused to accede to Moses demands to let his people go free from bondage-these plaques individually were God's conquest of first one, and then another, Egyptian deity.
The miracles of Christ, to a large extent, were simply a revision of this. Christ overcoming the power of the pagan Romans deities with his greater power as the only son of the one true God. Poseidon can make the seas rage with madenning fury? Well, with just a word, Christ can calm them immediately. Demeter when displeased can bring upon the earth famine, and therefore starvation? Well, with little effort at all Christ can feed the multitudes with just a few fish and loaves of bread.
So this is standard for the ancient Jewish writers. My God is better than your God, or Gods. Remember, mankind was pretty much in a juvenile phase during this historical epoch. We haven't really grown much more mature, unfortunately, over the last three thousand years.
But three thousand years ago, it would make a kind of sense, and a point of national pride, to establsh a great hero, a representative of the Israelites, as a man of God as well as a conquering hero, who with faith in the Lord conquered a giant evil which seemed at first glance to dwarf him, against whom no thinking person would have given him, or any other person, the slightest chance of standing against.
It was a great story, to be sure, and valid on a personal level as to the struggle between good and evil, as much so as on a cultural and national level. I guess that is the thing about the best myths. Their power and majesty resides to a great extent in their ability to, by striking some inner chord, and filling some dark inner void, not only make you believe them, but make you want to believe in them.
I recognize that power, but I still want to know the truth, regarless of what it confirms or denies. But I guess I shouldn't be so hard on those who want to believe their little fantasies are literal truth. It's understandable-insane, but understandable.
