We have all heard and repeated the phrase “David and Goliath.”’ It is in our language as a metaphor for improbable victories by some weak person over someone far stronger. Everything I had heard about that story turned out to be wrong.
A friend told me the unadulterated version of this well-known bible story with its researched additional details that had remained clouded in mystery for so long.
David wasn’t the underdog like believed. Rather, it was that 6-foot – 9-inch-tall warrior Goliath, shrouded in copper armour and wielding a large weapon for battles.
The original story was from where idea of underdogs comes from — all created by this extraordinary encounter between these two guys thousands of years ago. But the more of the story told, the more interesting it became. Uncovered were all of these fascinating facts — both about David and about Goliath that radically changed the understanding of what happened that day in the Valley of Elah.
On two sides of that valley were two powerful armies in another cultural war – the Israelites on one and the Philistines on the other side who had arrived to overthrow the Israelites.
Each were composed of rows of warriors in the front lines then the gladiators on horses behind them and in the rear were the slingers.
No one army could get an advantage and it wound down to be a draw. Someone had to win so a “one on one” confrontation was set. Goliath the giant was an obvious choice for the Philistines. On the other side the sole volunteer a teenage shepherd boy accompanied only with a cane and sling. The Israelite commander was reluctant to send such a youngster into the fray but the teen insisted.
Uncovered information showed Goliath was not what we thought he was in a profound way. In fact his appearance of strength was his greatness weakness. Goliath had been born with acromegaly, a hormonal disorder in which the pituitary gland releases excess growth hormone resulting in an abnormal height. Andre the Giant, who wrestled for a career is a recent example. Goliath had a side effect – his eyesight. He needed guidance down to valley by an aide.
And David is also not what you think he is.
Fascinating is the offense David relied on. Now we know that this sling he used as a weapon was anything but a child’s toy.
It was a devastating weapon. So devastating because of distance the projectile could travel and the accuracy, that David using a sling turned the tables. He was the underdog no more. Once you understand that Goliath is less intimidating than you think he is, and David has superior technology, you might say: why do we tell the story the way we always did? It actually is a far more meaningful and important story in its updated version than in the unsophisticated way told for too long.
As the two designates to fight steadily approached in the valley, Goliath kept repeating, “Come close little guy so I can cut you into pieces.”
Once within range, David chose a dense stone for his sling, aimed it at Goliath, striking him right between the eyes, killing him. The Philistines retreated in defeat.
Now we may ask if our desire is to root for the underdog or be with the winning team?
This is one of those contradictions that we carry around but never fully resolve. It makes sense that we would want both. The underdog winning is the romantic position. It’s the one that gives us hope. If one can be in the position of power, it l would be the preference but if not, being the underdog is a fallback position that we have.
This story tells you us that Goliaths could have more vulnerabilities than thought. It helps understand for instance why the foreign policy objectives of the United States have failed in Viet Nam, Iraq and now Afghanistan.
These are countries that are a fraction of the size. And still, the U.S. struggled but was unable to achieve their goals there.
Just because you’re big and strong doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want.
