David and Goliath

Recently, I have seen a video on TED in which Malcolm Cladwell, a Canadian journalist, was talking about the well-known story of David and Goliath. He was perhaps trying to bring a new fresh wind into analysing the ancient story, so he aimed for a shocking approach and attempted to re-evaluate the whole concept. Traditionally, the story is viewed as a metaphor of a strong yet proud and arrogant man who meets his downfall at the hands of much weaker looking opponent, who employed the only muscle that matters, his brain, and thus prevailed over his formidable adversary.

Mr Cladwell turns the whole concept upside down. In his view, it is Goliath who is the underdog in the upcoming duel. He claims that Goliath owed his proportions to a medical condition known as acromegaly, a form of gigantism. Such people, the presenter argues, usually have very poor eyesight, because of a benign tumour that not only causes overproduction of the growth hormone but also compresses the visual nerves. 

While Goliath served in the Philistine army as a heavy infantryman, equipped with the best armour that the bronze-age technology could provide, his adversary, David, was a young, agile and clever shepherd, who, besides his courage and wits was armed only with a sling. Slingers, the presenter claims, were the artillery of the day and often played a decisive role on the battlefields, thanks to the accuracy and devastating effects of their weapons.

The situation is as follows: A stumbling, half-blind idiotic giant of a man clad in an impressive looking, yet cumbersome coat of armour is met by a cunning, agile, cold-blooded killer who shoots the poor fellow right between the eyes with a stone or a metal ball travelling at the velocity of a 9mm projectile. Of course, the giant had as much chance as a snowball in hell. The point is, concluded Malcolm Cladwell, who was the underdog here?

To give his lecture credibility, the presenter often quotes from the Bible, treating this source as an eye-witness account of an event that really happened. Not a metaphor, but a war report. As if the fact that the events transpired 3 millennia ago and had to be translated from a language long dead were not an issue and the text could be considered the exact account of the event. Every word David and Goliath speak to each other is analysed as if they were recorded by a hidden microphone. For instance, Goliath asks David: “Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks?” Which supposedly proves the fact that the giant was half blind because the shepherd had only one. Not sticks but a stick. Am I the only one who finds it a bit fishy? A sentence uttered by somebody who is generally considered not to be an actual person but a metaphor for a dumb, brute force, a sentence that, if it was ever uttered at all, was pronounced a few thousand years ago, such a sentence is supposed to prove anything just because it uses PLURAL instead of SINGULAR?

But, ok. Let’s give Mr Cladwell the benefit of a doubt. It really happened, the guy really said just that and it really proves that he was half blind. David wastes no time, swings his sling and hits the bloke squarely between his eyes, causing him to fall unconscious or dead right there, anyway, he immediately finishes him off with a swing of his own sword.

However, I am afraid the presenter overrates the slingers when he describes them as “the decisive force on the battlefield.” True, the battles of that time and long afterwards usually began with the archer/slinger action, however, to the well armoured heavy infantrymen they were more of a nuisance than a threat unless they were used in an ambush or followed by a more serious attack of heavier units. Heavy infantry wore armour and carried shields for a reason. To use a sling in a single duel situation would, I guess, be suicidal for the slinger. If he missed, if he failed to disable his opponent with the first shot, he would be quickly cut to ribbons, as the usual tactics of light troops, i.e. hasty retreat behind the lines of heavy infantry, would be out of the question here.

What I liked about the narration was the attempt of the presenter to think out of the box, however, he should not have taken the approach of: Everybody was wrong, this is what really happened. His vivid narration, gestures and countryside descriptions say: I was there, I saw it all, I told David how to approach this. Had he presented his talk as pure speculation, it would have been at least interesting and refreshingly new. To prove anything, he would first need to have some evidence of the real existence of the characters, which is of course not easily accomplished. What we do have, however, is some evidence to the contrary, like the fact that the composition of the story suggests evolution and editing of the account. According to the Bible, David is the king Saul’s shield bearer, and also a shepherd? The king calls for him, but why would the king call a shepherd into the battle? He then asks who he is as if he does not know his own shield bearer. The presenter conveniently ignores this illogicality and keeps fiddling with individual words like “a stick or sticks” in order to prove…what? That Bible can be trusted as a source of historical evidence?

What is more, literary scientists consider the whole story of David vs. Goliath a later evolution of a much older Story of Sinuhet, an Egyptian who was exiled and lived a life full of adventures, before eventually returning home. That Sinuhet also defeated a huge adversary with a single arrow through his throat and a subsequent axe action. However, even that story is considered to be fiction, written for propaganda reasons. Evidently, ordinary people always dreamed of being able to prevail over stronger opponents, and the fact that this happened very seldom made the few instances when it did actually happen all the more memorable.

As a metaphor, the story David and Goliath warns against the arrogance of power and gives hope to the oppressed. While it can be fun to think about the real course of events and consider their verisimilitude, it should be made clear that it is just that – fun.

Comprehension questions: (check here)

1. Mr Cladwell describes the story of David and Goliath as a metaphor.
2. Both David and Goliath were armed to the teeth.
3. The writer feels that Mr Cladwell overestimates the effectiveness of a sling as a duel weapon.
4. The writer is of the opinion that Mr Caldwell draws important conclusions from irrelevant details.
5. The writer considers Mr Cladwell a bad narrator.
6. The story of David and Goliath is absolutely unique.
7. The writer claims that biblical stories must never be reinterpreted.

For more exercises like this and for further improvement of your English/Spanish, feel free to contact me and arrange some online lessons.