Changes

== Extra-biblical evidence ==

== Extra-biblical evidence ==

No one claims to have found the bones of Goliath. But one of the key counterclaims against Goliath's story is that the name ''Goliath'' is not of Semitic origin--nor of Hamitic, either--so that it was not a true Hebrew or Philistine name. But the discovery, in November 2005, of a pottery fragment in [[Tell es-Safi]] in central Israel now casts doubt on that counterclaim. The fragment dates, conventionally, to 950 BC, and thus could have been from either the [[United Kingdom of Israel|United Kingdom]] under [[Solomon]] or the [[Divided Kingdom]] under King [[Abijam]] or [[Asa]] (or perhaps some time frame in-between, or even earlier). It bears an inscription that appears to be a "Semitized" version of an [[Indo-European]] name that sounds remarkably like "Goliath."<ref>[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10355223 Goliath's name found in Israeli archaeological dig], ''The New Zealand Herald'', 15 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20051110-124720-9344r/ David and Goliath: truth or legend?], ''United Press International'', [[Jerusalem]], 10 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/ Scientists find 'Goliath' inscribed on pottery] ''Associated Press'', 10 November 2005 (through ''MSNBC'')</ref>

No one claims to have found the bones of Goliath. But in November 2005 a pottery fragment was found in [[Tell es-Safi]] in central Israel The fragment dates, conventionally, to 950 BC, and thus could have been from either the [[United Kingdom of Israel|United Kingdom]] under [[Solomon]] or the [[Divided Kingdom]] under King [[Abijam]] or [[Asa]] (or perhaps some time frame in-between, or even earlier). It bears an inscription that appears to be a "Semitized" version of an [[Indo-European]] name that sounds remarkably like "Goliath."<ref>[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10355223 Goliath's name found in Israeli archaeological dig], ''The New Zealand Herald'', 15 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20051110-124720-9344r/ David and Goliath: truth or legend?], ''United Press International'', [[Jerusalem]], 10 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/ Scientists find 'Goliath' inscribed on pottery] ''Associated Press'', 10 November 2005 (through ''MSNBC'')</ref>

Given its dating, it is regarded as the oldest Philistine artifact yet found. More to the point, while it might not have belonged to this Goliath, or have been made to honor him, it ''does'' show that the name ''Goliath'' was far more popular than one might suppose because of its non-Semitic origin.

Given its dating, it is regarded as the oldest Philistine artifact yet found. More to the point, while it might not have belonged to this Goliath, or have been made to honor him, it ''does'' show that the name ''Goliath'' was in use amoung the Philistine population of Gath at a period close to the traditional date of David's battle with the giant.

== Modern speculations on Goliath and the combat ==

== Modern speculations on Goliath and the combat ==