On the similarity between the story of David and Goliath and the story of David's war in Sheol and the stories of Homer and other ancient writings
The Bible rewards us with great "kindness" when various sayings and descriptions find expression in it, in one context or another, and constitute some logical foundation for historical assumptions, such as the one that will now be brought before you.
As mentioned, the period described in the books of the Bible spans ancient periods of time, from the 14th century BC to the transition between the sixth and fifth centuries, and perhaps even into the Hellenistic period, as estimated by various researchers in relation to the book of Daniel, and therefore historical conclusions should be very careful.
In the discussed chapter we will examine two interesting testimonies, two special events, when the chronological gap between them is not so wide, and the importance of examining them lies in the fact that through them we can trace an interesting development from the combat phase to the almost sporting one.
The first and familiar to all of us tells the story of the confrontation between David and Goliath, which is called in the ancient language the "intermediate system", or the "intermediate battle", and its course was as follows: at some stage of the war between two armies, when the fighters of both sides soaked the ground with their blood, the representatives of The two sides were in a sort of duel, for life and death, when the outcome of the confrontation would determine the outcome of the war. Each side sent one of its senior fighters to the arena, and the victory of the one, the one that ended in the death of the opponent, was supposed to lead to the surrender of the entire vanquished side.
The connection to the war and the ending of the fight in the death of one of the opponents, binds the whole affair to the world of the military, but the very choice, the fight in front of an audience and acceptable fighting procedures, slightly lifted the duel from the fields of slaughter to a different arena, a kind of sport.
In front of David who stood bravely and in possession of a mace and sling stones, the classic weapon of the shepherds, stood the Philistine Goliath, who was nothing more than an Aegean-Greek warrior. The area of Philistia was Aegean many years before, and the issue became clear from the archaeological findings, which supported the names that appear in sources such as "Cretan", "Philathi", "Goliath" in general and more, and most importantly - Goliath's weapon was Aegean. The Bible indicates that Goliath was the "middle man" whose armor was scaly and made of copper, including that his helmet and forehead were made of the same metal. And the interesting thing is that "he speared an arrow like a weaver's lamp" (7 Samuel XNUMX:XNUMX).
"As a weavers lamp"? How? Well, the biblical writer, or "our military correspondent for David-Goliath matters" saw before his eyes a javelin with fuses dangling from one part, and it looked like a weavers' lamp, and indeed it is the classic Greek, martial and sporting javelin, when the caster wraps the fuses/straps of leather around his two fingers and rolls the javelin to within his palm, and thus, when he releases the javelin in the throw, a ballistic movement is created for his shooting, just like the American quarterback in the football game flies the elliptical ball. In this way, both accuracy and power were achieved for the javelin sailing in the air.
Goliath was an Agaian, his weapon was Agaian and therefore his spear looks like that.
So what is the connection between ... and ...? Well, the parallel period in Greece is the Homeric period, during which the Epician Homer composed/wrote his "Iliad" and "Odyssey", with the first centering on the classical medieval battles, during the famous Trojan War.
The intervening battle was therefore Aegean-Homeric, and the David and Goliath war, whether it took place in reality, or in the fevered mind of the biblical writer, was an integral part of the management of the Aegean myth. These battles later evolved into competitive sports in Greece, and so it also happened in Judea.
Not many years after the confrontation between Goliath and David, another, interesting struggle takes place. These are the exhausting and bloody battles between the house of David and the house of Saul, when both sides were satisfied with tragic bloodshed and decided to end the conflict by holding a new kind of intermediate battle.
The author recounts the event in the book of Samuel 17 (12:XNUMX-XNUMX) as follows: "And Abner ben-Ner (the minister of the army of the house of Shaul) and Abdi (fighters) Ish-Busheth ben Shaul went out from Mahneim Gibeona, and Yoav ben-Zaroya (the minister of the army of the house of David) ) and the servants (warriors) of David went out and met together at the pool of Gibeon. And these (the armies of both sides) sat on the pool from that side. And Abner said (from the language of Ithagor) to Yoav: Let the boys (chosen warriors) stand up and play before us. And Yoav said: They will rise! And they arose and passed by number (that is, they were chosen) twelve for Benjamin and Ish-busht son of Saul and twelve of David's servants. And they held each other's head and their swords on each other's side and they fell together. And he called that place the portion of the deserts which is in Gibeon. And the war was very difficult that day..."
Before us is an interesting description of a confrontation between selected warriors as a move to somewhat humanely end the mutual bloodbath between the two armies. And this description is different from its predecessor, from the war between David and Goliath. It is a kind of amusement or play ("and they will play before us") in a fenced arena, it is the water storage pool that was discovered archaeologically and allows several pairs of opponents to be housed in it.
Holding the opponent's head was a kind of accepted starting position between the duel opponents, and perhaps rules of the game, as it appears from Mesopotamian figurines. The starting position is a request to show sportsmanship, with each side revealing to the opponent its area of weakness, i.e. the chest and face, seconds before the mutual disconnection and the beginning of the confrontation. A battle of this type was not supposed to end in death, but only in the marking of an injury, but apparently the spirits became heated (perhaps against the background of the hands of the Benjaminites) and everything became a cocoon of attackers and attackers until the tragic end of the event.
The last event is far from being defined in a sports category, but it is an important, essential step in the transition from the David and Goliath-style intermediate battle to a sporting duel.
26 תגובות
Yair
Hello? Yair? Is this the same Yair who warned us against relying on the Internet "which is full of partial information" and directed us to in-depth books? What happened? Are the in-depth books out of stock? Suddenly the internet is kosher? Don't you realize that these twists and turns only get you deeper into the mud? Because now, when it is already allowed to trust the "partial information" on the Internet, anyone can find tons of websites from which you can learn that:
A. The Minoan culture from which the Linear A script arose was not a Greek culture. There are various hypotheses about the origin of the Cretans, but no one suspects that they were Greeks of any kind.
B. The origin of the B linear script is in the A linear script.
third. Linear B was used by the Mycenaean culture, which is considered by some historians to be Greek, and by others to be pre-Greek (it is enough to read the entry "Ancient Greece" on Wikipedia to understand the problematic nature of the definitions).
d. So even if the Mycenaean culture can be called Greek (in addition to the fact that it was found in a land that was later called Greece), it is clear that the origin of its writing is non-Greek. Just as the script used later by the new invaders of Greece, the Dorian and Achaean tribes, is the Phoenician-Hebrew script, it too was non-Greek. Once the Greeks copied from Crete and once they copied from the skies of the eastern Mediterranean, but they always copied.
Shlomo read the entry below on the linear script b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B
Liir,
I also forgot to mention that the Greeks were an Aryan people, and like other Aryan peoples (the Persians who adopted Aramaic and then Arabic, the Romans who adopted a slightly different version of the Phoenician-Hebrew alphabet, and the Aryan tribes of Northern Europe who adopted Latin) the Greeks did not have a written language their own and they had to rely on others in this matter.
Lair
If you don't know the difference between letters and inscriptions on the one hand and between a script (Phoenician or Hebrew) agreed and arranged with 22 letters, why did you refer me to Noah? Because he knows the difference, as is clear from the quote I gave. The possibility that passages from the Bible were written even before the "official" appearance of the Hebrew script at the end of the 11th century (and hence there were already beginnings of such a script), I already mentioned in section A. In my original response. The novelty of the inscription in the Elah fortress is that, unlike earlier inscriptions, it testifies, like the Ahiram inscription regarding the Phoenician, to the existence of an organized written language that clearly belongs to the Hebrew tribes - and it is also earlier than the Gezer Tablet and the Tel Zeit inscription in which the letters of the alphabet appear in an orderly manner Hebrew in order.
As for the Greekness of the linear script: since the Minoan culture and the Mycenaean culture are considered by many to be pre-Greek, it is not possible that the script they used - that is, the linear script - was a Greek script. The fact that you decide to call a pre-Greek script "very ancient Greek" makes no impression on me, and the rest of your arguments stand just as well as this one.
And by the way:
What about the subject of the article itself? That is, the "Homericness" of the story of David and Goliath? The strange confusion between the spear and the javelin? The intermediate battle as an event occurring at the end of the war? I hope Dr. Sorek addresses all of these in the next stanza of the muscle song, or maybe in the chorus.
Complete
You are really wasting the time of those who read you, apparently with all the quotes and numbers and references it sounds like it is reliable.
1. The linear script B is not considered by very ancient Greek, but by all scholars. Re-read the book you provided.
2. What I specifically referred to as erroneous was that "the earliest evidence of the Hebrew script in the Land of Israel is from the 11th century BC," (14).
Alphabetic inscriptions have been found in Israel since at least the 16th century BC.
3. Regarding your paragraph 2 in 21, the inscription from Emek Elah does not change a quarter of anything regarding the beginnings of the alphabetic script, which are from the beginning of the second millennium BC, 800 years before the times he mentioned.
My other claims in 20 also stand firm.
Yair,
1. On p. 26 of Noah's book, he dates the Sinai inscriptions in Sarbit al-Khaddam to "approximately 1500 BC" (as I wrote). On page 51 of the book he writes: "The term 'Phoenician' indicates a writing that originated around 1050 BC" (as I wrote). Neve also points out that the linear script you consider Greek is actually a Cretan-Mycenaean script that was adopted by the Greeks (page 19 of the book), just as they adopted the Semitic script. There is no general agreement on the Cretans and the Mycenaeans being Greek. That's why I reserved the definition of the linear script as directional. (Yosef Neve, "The beginning of the alphabet, an introduction to Semitic-Western epigraphy and paleography", Magnes Publishing House, Jerusalem XNUMX).
2. Noah believed that the Hebrews adopted the Phoenician script, but he could not have known, when he signed his book in 1989, that in 2007 excavations would begin in the Hella fortress, that the findings there would be dated to 1050-970 BC, and that the oldest Hebrew inscription would be found, in the meantime , the equivalent in terms of time to the earliest Phoenician inscription, is the Ahiram inscription - about 1000 BC. So it is not known who adopted whose writing. The general assumption is that an advanced political organization was needed in order for a "national" newspaper to be created, and while in Lebanon there were only state cities and no central government was ever organized there, here in Israel and Judea a kingdom far greater than anything known in Lebanon appeared since the days of Saul.
3. To the best of my understanding, an elaborate script is the one that allows the transmission of maximum information with minimum effort. I am glad that the texters agree with me.
4. I will not waste the readers' time on the rest of your claims.
Complete
1. If you have read Noah's book, you know that what you wrote about the beginning of the Hebrew and Greek script is not true.
2. Since Noah's book came out, nothing has been updated about the beginning of the alphabet.
3. An elaborate script is a script that allows for eloquent and fast reading, and such is the Greek. It is a clear fact that the pundits of the Tanakh had difficulty reading many words and often made mistakes, due to the lack of vowels.
4. The use of 'y' and 'u' as vowels began much later and in the Shiloh inscription from the beginning of the 8th century there are only the first hints of 'u' as a vowel and not 'y' as well as in the Misad Hasakihu inscription 100 years later.
5. Abbreviation of the writing is not a sign of perfection but rather the length of the words and the absence of vowels.
6. How to write on the Internet and SMS. Attests to the devices and not to the perfection of the writing.
7. Your claims to Yuval about the times when Homeric poetry was written are not relevant because the culture and the stories existed long before it.
8. The writings from Crete from the 16th century onwards are undoubtedly of ancient Greek origin.
9. Like the opponents of evolution, you are not forced to accept the results of scientific research, and you are free to ignore it, but if you use the findings, you must justify any opposing claim not through blasphemy.
Liuval: It is not possible that Dr. Shurk sees, as you say, the scripture as an "authentic description that was written in the period it describes", since the David-Goliath battle took place approximately in 1000 BC, at least 200 years before Homer and the Iliad. And Sorek also did not decide if the description of the battle is real or a creation of the author's "fever mind". He also writes that the description is "Igai-Homeric". So the one who described the battle, as far as he was concerned, had to be a Greek-reading Hebrew writer who lived after the 8th century. Sorek does write that this is a "parallel period", but not many would agree with him that the 11th or 10th century on the one hand, and the 8th century on the other hand, are parallel.
Liair(17): Thank you for the reference to Noah's book, and for the warnings about the Internet. Noah's book was published in 1989, and when I got to know him I didn't know there was an internet yet. Since Noah's book was written, a few more things have become clear, some inscriptions have been discovered and some carbon 14 tests have been conducted. As for the perfection of the Greek script - in the Hebrew script they used letters XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX and even XNUMX as vowels. Your claim due to the merits of the Greek script is another example of the exaggerations of arrogant and liars among the Greeks and their admirers from European cultures. It is clear to me that Hebrew is more sophisticated than Greek-Latin-English-French, because it is shorter in writing by dozens of percent compared to these languages. Convincing proof of the perfection of Hebrew compared to these languages is provided by modernity: see how the Internet and SMS are causing the abandonment of vowel letters, for the sake of brevity.
For Yair(18) the ancient Igaic writings, which are not clear if they are of Greek origin, are not relevant to the matter of the Iliad and the Odyssey which were written in the Semitic alphabet as a Greek conversion.
Complete,
Writing in Greek began in a different script at the latest in the 16th century BC in Crete.
Regarding the data of Goliath and Nsekwe, the wars of David and the Philistines, read Samuel 15:22-9. These are more ancient and more reliable stories than the story in Samuel XNUMX, which appears to be an adaptation of the story of June. The story in Samuel XNUMX (and also XNUMX) may be as old as the XNUMXth century.
Complete,
The history of the script as you learned it is incorrect. Do not rely on the internet which is full of partial information. Read Yosef Noah's book The Beginning of the Alphabet.
The earliest remains of the Alaf Beit in Israel are probably from the 16th century or even earlier. The script at that time was not the same as the Phoenician script, which is admittedly from the 11th century.
The question of whether the Tanakh chapters were written before the time of David does not depend on the actual existence of the script but on the language and the matters narrated. No sentence in Tanach was written before the ninth century BC, except maybe the song of Deborah, in part.
The Greeks did not. Today there is no more sophisticated script.
The article does not claim that the Tanakh stories are copied from Greek literature, but rather that the actions described are similar to what is known from Greece, and therefore there was probably a Greek influence on the culture in Israel, which is reflected in the Tanakh stories.
Regarding the connections between Greece and Israel, see response 11, an excellent book on this.
To Shlomo (response 14): You spoke well.
In this regard, I also disagree with Dr. Sorek, but from a different angle. He sees the biblical text as an authentic account that was written in the period it describes, while I claim that these stories were drawn from the pen of the biblical writer hundreds of years later.
It is true that ancient things also reached the biblical collection, but the text of the entire Book of Samuel and most of the Book of Kings was written for King Josiah by scribes and priests who harnessed the king to fulfill their agenda. If they copied from the Igaian literature, they were not accurate in the act of copying, either out of negligence or on purpose.
Thank you again Dr. Sorek for the correction. I will wait for Heracles patiently but with eager anticipation
A. The earliest evidence of the Hebrew script in the Land of Israel is from the 11th century BC, and they are parallel to the earliest evidence of the Phoenician script (actually it is the same script itself). However, the letters of this Semitic script found in Sinai are attributed to the 15th century BC, so it is possible that the writing of chapters that appear in the Bible began a very early period. The Greeks adopted this Semitic script - they simply copied it from the Phoenician traders - only in the 8th century BC. That is, hundreds of years after the heavens were already engaged in writing. It is believed that Homer was active at that time, and some date the writing of the Iliad to an even later period. In any case, it is clear that if there was an act of plagiarism - it is much more likely that the Greeks copied from the Phoenicians or the Hebrews, and not the other way around.
B. The assumption that it was an act of copying falls away when reading the descriptions of the intermediate battles in the Iliad. There is no similarity between them and the battles described in the book of Samuel. Not in terms of the circumstances in which the battles were fought, nor in terms of the armor and armament of the warriors (and I would be very, very happy to receive a sight-place that would disprove this assertion) but this complete lack of imagination also knocks down the far-fetched assumption that the book of Samuel described a battle that is "an integral part of the procedures of the Igai myth" , as the author of the above article writes.
third. The claim that "the intervening battle was therefore Igai-Homeri" is no less far-fetched. The Greeks, who took from the Phoenician skies the writing, and also the form of political organization in the city-states, took from the guards the method of fighting in the phalanx, and it is very possible that they also borrowed from the ancient Near East the intermediate battle (as is the custom of the arrogant and the liars, the writers of the ancient Greeks tried to attribute to their people almost everything they took from their surroundings, and it's a shame that contemporary historians and archaeologists still take these exaggerations seriously). And even if the Greeks arrived at the wonderful idea of the intermediate battle without help from the East, there is evidence of the existence of intermediate battles in the Semitic East in a period much earlier not only to Homer, but also to the time of the Trojan War. So the "fever mind" in the whole episode is not exactly that of the biblical writer.
d. According to all that is known, the spear is the heavier weapon (between the spear and the javelin), and it is used as a stabbing weapon, or at most as a short-range throwing weapon (like the spear that Saul threw in David). Whereas the javelin, is used as a long-range throwing weapon. It seems, then, that the author of the article was confused: out of a desire to show the Greek origins of Goliath's weaponry, he used the nickname "weavers' lamp" (intended to describe the size and weight of the spear), and tried to describe the spear as a light throwing javelin used as a long-range weapon, in which There is the use of a wire that gives the weapon that is thrown the rotation and power. But what to do, that Goliath had both a spear and a javelin - and precisely for a spear this description does not fit? What's more, the weight of her blade alone reached 600 shekels? So the sentence "Goliath was an Agaian, his weapon was an Agaian and therefore his javelin looks like this", has no hold in the biblical text where the javelin is not described at all.
God. Regarding the intermediate battle between Yoav's fighters and Avner's fighters at the pool in Gibeon, Dr. Sorek writes: "We have before us an interesting description of a confrontation between selected fighters as a move to somewhat humanely end the mutual bloodbath between the two armies." There is no reason for this. The battle happened near the death of Shaul and Jonathan in Gilboa, and the reign of Ish Bushet son of Shaul. This battle was not preceded by any "mutual bloodbath", since it was the first battle between the armies, and the intermediate battle preceded the war. By the way, an accurate visual description of the method of battle that was practiced in the pool in Gibeon is found in Tel-Khalaf on the Gozan river in Syria - further evidence of the celestial and non-Igean origins of the intermediate battle.
Friends,
First - the name is Heracles (Greek) and not Hercules (Latin).
Secondly - I did not come to draw a parallel between Samson and Harals, but to present the interesting contrast between the battlefield and the sports field, and this will also be the subject of the following chapters.
Thirdly - Herakles was the patron of quite a few gymnasiums in the Hellenistic diaspora, and therefore the continuation of the chapters and their eight will not be microscopic.
Fourth - thanks for the comments and clarifications in any case
Thank you Yair
I wrote the name of the book in front (but, as you already know, it is not easy for me to purchase books now).
I believe that the book of Deuteronomy was heavily edited and proofread in the days of Josiah, but the core of the book was written about seventy years earlier, not in Jerusalem but in Samaria. So is the book of Joshua. Due to the lack of time, I will not elaborate now, but I promise to fill in the gaps in the near future.
pottery delicacy,
Nothing in the Bible was written before the days of David, nor during his time, but only approximately starting from the 8th-9th century BC, this can be proven both by the contents and by the language,
jubilee,
A great deal of the Tanach was written in the 7th century and before it. Deuteronomy, there is general agreement, was written in the days of Josiah.
Yuval, your comparison between Samson and Hercules is successful, and has already been researched, and there is an excellent book on the connections between Greece and Israel, which is not found on the Internet nor in stores, but only in academic libraries: The Sea Gentiles in the Land of Israel in the Biblical Period, by Atniel Margalit.
Uncle!
I will fix it, and not happily.
The rebellion was against Greekization, but within two generations the Hasmoneans were Greekized. Their cruelty knew no bounds, and one of the kings of the Hasmonean house (whom I will not name, out of disgust) crucified thousands of Jews from the Pharisee movement.
The wicked Antiochus deposed the last of the priests of the House of Zadok (Honio and Yeshua [Jason]), and the right thing to do was to restore the priesthood to them. However, the Hasmoneans took over the temple and assumed the high priesthood for themselves.
I despise the Hasmoneans for their actions, and therefore also the Haga that the Jews adopted and called "Hanukkah". But I do not consider myself anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist, but rather the complete opposite. I believe that our right to the land is indisputable even without using the Hasmonean symbols.
I don't know what Dr. Yachiam whistles inside his heart, but I have never seen anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist expressions in his articles.
Yuval Shalom
If you want an example of the anti-Jewish tendencies of the esteemed doctor, go to the article "The Maccabean Revolt as an Expression of Frustration..." where he writes about the Matityahu family: "... delusional fanatics such as this family...". The Matityahu family did not start a rebellion because of the "occupation" but because religious decrees. The respected doctor denies the Jews the right to worship, probably out of disgust for the Jewish religion, and correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you Dr. Sorek,
I have already apologized for the inaccuracy in my words. But this does not change my argument, since the entire seventh century is also late to Homer's time - if we accept David's theory.
Yuval Shalom
King Josiah fell on his watch-carriage in 609 BC, that is, at the end of the seventh century BC.
What exactly is the argument about? There is no doubt that parts of the Bible were already written in the sixth millennium (for example, the story of creation and the stories of Gilgamesh), Hammurabi's laws were already written in stone in the 18th century, and some of the psalms are very ancient. But the sequence from Deuteronomy to the Book of Kings was written in the days of Josiah who reigned at the end of the seventh century (which is very close to the sixth century - and Harini apologizes for the inaccuracy). Other books were written later, right up until the moment the Bible was signed in the second century AD.
Clarification for before and after the counting: the settlement of Qumran existed for about two hundred years and was destroyed with the destruction of the Second Temple. This is the hypothesis of the archaeologists and if I was not precise I was not far wrong. This is how it is when you look at a settlement where what remains of it are tables suitable for writing scrolls, urns with scrolls in them, caskets intended for ink and other finds. The date, as is customary in archaeology, was determined according to the findings that remained at the site.
Who said that most of the Bible began to be written in the sixth century? This is of course not true. The Bible was already partially written before the days of David and continued to be written until they closed the book. The buried scrolls testify that the book of Isaiah was already written when it was copied and a complete copy can be seen in the Hall of the Book. The copying of the scrolls was done in an early period, probably before and after the census. It is probable that the scroll of the temple was written when the temple still existed.
Uncle!
The writer does not distort the facts, and this is for the simple reason that the facts do not exist. All we have is the Bible, and it was written on behalf of interested parties. We have no extra-biblical evidence about Abraham and David.
Most of the Bible began to be written in the sixth century, after the time of Homer; And even if the basis for the described events is authentic (something that is subject to debate), the stories themselves show traces of the influence of the later period in which they were written.
Like you, I also have misgivings about the story of the massive bloodshed at the blessing; But my reasons are different from yours.
But all of these pale in comparison to your blatant assertion that the writer is anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish whose goal is to destroy the ground from under our feet. You are both prosecutor and judge (and maybe the executioner too), and in a reformed society there is no place for such duplication of roles.
The writer distorts the facts, according to his anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish views. Its purpose is to "prove" that the Jews have no right to the Land of Israel based on the Bible. And below are some facts: 1. The period of Abraham is around 1800 to 1900 BC. That is, 400 to 500 years before the period in which the Bible supposedly discusses. 2. David's period is around 1000 BC while Homer's period is around 750 to 800 BC. 3. Why not simply accept the story about the unnecessary death around the pool instead of stating that it is a "turning point" in the history of Jewish sports?
And what about Samson the hero?
The similarity between the story of Samson and the story of Hercules from Greek mythology, with all the other Greek mythological elements accompanying it, is too great to be considered a mere coincidence. Samson, a big and strong man who overcomes a thousand men with the help of a donkey's cheek in one afternoon, can only be compared to one of the gods. Such was Hercules who even became a god. The miraculous birth of Samson can be compared to the birth of Hercules from a woman who gave birth to the god Zeus in an experimental way. Like Hercules, Samson is also described as a hot-tempered mountain of man who, in one moment of anger, wreaks havoc on his surroundings. The attribution of Samson's power to his hair also does not fit the monotheistic belief but fits fetishistic mythological foundations: in Ionian mythology it is told of a king named Nissus (who can write letters and adding one letter creates the name Samson), who as long as one particular curl in his hair was not cut, it was impossible to conquer his country . The curl was finally cut off, under romantic circumstances, and the kingdom was conquered. The story of the honey that Samson found in the lion's carrion also has a parallel in the story of Aristaeus. Samson's plots also included riddle stories that are very typical of Greek mythology. In the story of Samson, secular riddles with complete solutions are presented. Such riddles are found in Greek mythology, the most famous of which is the Spinach riddle solved by Oedipus.
It is possible that the character of Samson was taken from the Philistine culture that originated in the islands of the Aegean Sea and was adapted by the biblical writer to Hebrew reality. Samson is a member of the tribe of Dan, and according to findings (found, for example, by archaeologist Yigal Yedin) it was found that the tribe of Dan is one of the sea tribes that was close to the Philistines.