Goliath as Gentle Giant

Jewish Science Fiction and Fantasy

Series Editor
Valerie Estelle Frankel

Jewish science fiction is a monumental literary genre worldwide, with hundreds of

novels and short stories along with an enormous canon of films, plays, television
shows, and graphic novels. It’s also strikingly popular. Not only have works of
this category just won the Hugo and World Fantasy Award while dominating
bestseller lists, but talks on the subject are standing room only. The Own Voices
movement has led to a renaissance of Jewish fantasy, even as its authors create
imaginary worlds reflecting their unique cultures. This series seeks subtopics of
exploration within the massive canon, defining aspects of Jewish genre fiction
and its unique qualities. It features both monographs and anthologies focused
on trends, tropes, individual authors, beloved franchises, and so on. Scholars
of all disciplines are welcome, especially those in Jewish Studies, Literature,
and Media Studies, while interdisciplinary and international perspectives are
particularly encouraged.

Titles in the series

Goliath as Gentle Giant: Sympathetic Portrayals in Popular Culture, Jonathan L.
Friedmann
Jewish Science Fiction and Fantasy through 1945: Immigrants in the Golden
Age, Valerie Estelle Frankel
 Goliath as
Gentle Giant
Sympathetic Portrayals
in Popular Culture

Jonathan L. Friedmann

LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London
Published by Lexington Books
An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com

86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE

Copyright © 2022 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any elec-
tronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without
written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages
in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Friedmann, Jonathan L., 1980- author.
Title: Goliath as gentle giant : sympathetic portrayals in popular culture / Jonathan L.
Friedmann.
Description: Lanham : Lexington Books, an imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group, Inc., [2022] | Series: Jewish science fiction and fantasy | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021051359 (print) | LCCN 2021051360 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781666904697 (cloth) | ISBN 9781666904703 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Goliath (Biblical giant) | Goliath (Biblical giant)--In mass media.
Classification: LCC BS580.G65 F75 2022  (print) | LCC BS580.G65 (ebook) | DDC
222/.43092--dc23/eng/20211213 
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021051359
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021051360

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
 Contents

Preface vii
Introduction 1

1 Underdog and Overdog 9

2 Source Materials 21
3 Xena’s Goliath: Grieving Avenger 41
4 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath: Frail Fighter 65
5 Tom Gauld’s Goliath: Warrior Impersonator 85
6 Conclusion: Other Goliaths 113

Appendix: Using and Reusing David and Goliath 123

Bibliography 131
Index 149
About the Author 157

v
 Preface

“It ain’t necessarily so.” George and Ira Gershwin’s cautionary phrase has
echoed across generations of readers skeptical of the Bible’s historical verac-
ity, political-theological agenda, and apologetic posture. The song, originally
from the all-Black opera Porgy and Bess (1935), casts doubt on Jonah’s stay
in the “fish’s abdomen,” baby Moses’ river basket ride, and David’s defeat of
Goliath. Hall Johnson, a noted composer and arranger of African American
spirituals, dismissed the song’s suggestion that poor southern Blacks would
even think of being “liberated from the superstitious awe of Divinity.”1 Such
a song, Johnson concluded, could only be found in a “white revue.”2
Misrepresentations aside, Johnson keyed in on an important point: the
Gershwin brothers apparently penned this song, in particular, as Jews. Jewish
listeners have long heard distinctly Ashkenazic strains in “It Ain’t Necessarily
So,” connecting its opening lines to the chant for the Torah blessings.3
Lyrically, too, the song seems Jewishly tinged: it eschews biblical literal-
ism and implicitly invites reinterpretation—fundamental aspects of Jewish
religious culture. Indeed, the “questioning dimensions” of Jewish textual
study are often puzzling to non-Jewish and especially Christian readers of
the Bible.4
The premise of this book resonates with the Gershwin tune. Suppose the
duel of David and Goliath was not as simple as the Bible reports. Suppose
Goliath was not merely a one-dimensional villain. Suppose David was not
the pious hero he is made out to be. Suppose, in other words, “it ain’t neces-
sarily so.”
Despite Judaism’s culture of questioning, such notions are not raised
in classical commentaries, which eagerly exaggerate David’s heroism and
double down on Goliath’s depravity. The message and structure of the tale,
succinctly told in one biblical chapter (1 Sam. 17), was apparently too simple
vii
viii Preface

and too archetypal to tamper with. Christian retellings and inspirational writ-
ings, with their proclivity for literalism, are even more strongly glued to the
one-sided, surface meaning. Popular entertainment follows suit. Whether por-
traying the duel or recalling it as a metaphor, “David and Goliath” is widely
invoked as an underdog parable or contest of brains over brawn. Goliath, the
crude giant who comes and goes quickly in the text, is merely an obstacle
in David’s rise to power or, in the expanded metaphor, any sizable or unjust
challenge the “little guy” must overcome.
In the Hebrew Bible and stories loyal to it, Goliath is the stereotypical giant
of folklore: big, brash, violent, and dimwitted. Rehabilitating his image is not
an intuitive pursuit. Text and tradition offer little to inspire sensitive revisions.
Yet, the few examples presented in this book demonstrate the possibility of
sympathetic treatments.
Viewed broadly, these popular culture projects—one from television, one
from “pop science,” and one from a graphic novel—fit within discourse on
understanding the “other.” What insights emerge when we imagine things
from Goliath’s perspective? How might this affect our reading of the bibli-
cal account or its many retellings and interpretations? What sort of man was
Goliath really? As Hillel the Elder implored us, “Do not judge another until
you have reached their place.”5

****

Thank you to Valerie Estelle Frankel, series editor, for reading an earlier draft
of this book and alerting me to numerous contemporary references to Goliath
and his duel with young David. Valerie has the immense world of science
fiction and fantasy at her very capable fingertips. Thank you also to Judith
Lakamper, associate acquisitions editor at Lexington Books, for shepherding
the book through peer review and publication, and to the Lexington staff for
producing this handsome volume. I am especially grateful to my wife, Elvia,
whose love, honesty, and creativity inspire me every day.

NOTES

1. Hall Johnson, quoted in Ellen Noonan, The Strange Career of Porgy and Bess:
Race, Culture, and America’s Most Famous Opera (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2012), 181.
2. Ibid.
 Preface ix

3. Jack Gottlieb, Funny, It Doesn’t Sound Jewish: How Yiddish Songs and
Synagogue Melodies Influenced Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, and Hollywood (New
York: SUNY Press, 2004), 156, 218.
4. Miriam B. Raider-Roth, Professional Development in Relational Learning
Communities: Teachers in Connection (New York: Teachers College Press, 2017), 110.
5. Pirkei Avot 2:4.
 Introduction

The idea for this book began with a reading of Tom Gauld’s whimsical and
melancholy graphic novel Goliath. In Gauld’s retelling of David and Goliath,
events unfold from the Philistine’s point of view. Instead of a savage warrior
or belligerent beast, he is a gentle giant forced to play the role of fearsome
challenger. Only in the last few pages, leading up to the giant’s death, do we
catch a glimpse of young David, who comes across as an arrogant and uncar-
ing villain. I read this graphic novel to my daughter when she was nine years
old. She had not yet been exposed to the Bible story nor to its many “for
children” versions. She was unaware of “David and Goliath” as a metaphor
for the underdog’s unlikely victory. Instead, she was introduced to the story
as a tragedy, and to this day she refuses to reread Gauld’s book.
This got me thinking about Mark Twain’s prose poem “The War-Prayer.”1
Church members are gathered as their country prepares for war. The fiery
minister, filled with patriotic zeal, beseeches God to grant them victory and
preserve their troops from harm. The congregation is sufficiently whipped
into militant religious fervor. Suddenly, an “aged stranger” appears “with his
long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white
hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnatu-
rally pale, pale even to ghastliness.”2 The assembly sits in confused attention
as the prophet-like stranger approaches the minister, taps him on the arm,
and motions for him to step aside. The stranger preaches that there are two
types of prayers: one that is said aloud, and one that remains unspoken. In the
zero-sum “game” of war, a prayer for decisive victory implies another prayer
for the annihilation of the enemy:

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells;
help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead;

1
2 Introduction

help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded,
writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane
of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavail-
ing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander
unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst,
sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit,
worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it—for
our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract
their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears,
stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit
of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge
and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite
hearts. Amen.3

After the prayer ends, the churchgoers conclude that “the man was a lunatic,
because there was no sense in what he said.”4
The worshipers’ inability to imagine another’s vantage point contrasted
with Twain’s own habits. His writings regularly express empathy for the
oppressed and antipathy for social norms that promote oppression. Roughing
It includes sensitive portrayals of Chinese immigrants in California and
Nevada.5 Huck Finn realizes that Jim, the runaway slave, “cared just as much
for his people as white folks do for their’n.”6 Responding to European anti-
semitism, Twain wrote a humanizing portrait, “Concerning the Jews.”7 He
went a step further in his autobiography, describing himself—and everyone
else—as a microcosm for all human feelings and experiences:

The last quarter century of my life has been pretty constantly and faithfully
devoted to the study of the human race—that is to say, the study of myself, for
in my individual person I am the entire human race compacted together. I have
found that there is no ingredient of the race which I do not possess in either a
small way or a large way. When it is small, as compared with the same ingredi-
ent in somebody else, there is still enough of it for all the purposes of examina-
tion. In my contacts with the species I find no one who possesses a quality which
I do not myself possess.8

Of course, nuanced reflections are not likely to be found in war prayers or

theologically framed battle narratives. Compassion for the enemy is absent
from biblical accounts of the Egyptian plagues, the conquest of Canaan, and
the war with the Philistines (of which David and Goliath is a part). It was up
to later commentators to add an ethical layer.
After trudging through dry land that miraculously cut across the Red
Sea, Moses and the Israelites witnessed the waters “come back upon the
Egyptians,” engulfing “the chariots and the horsemen—Pharaoh’s entire
 Introduction 3

army that followed them into the sea; not one of them remained” (Exod.
14:26, 28). They sang jubilantly to “the Lord, the warrior” who “shatters
the foe” and “consumes them like straw” (Exod. 15:3, 6–7). Rabbinic sages
were disturbed by the wholesale drowning. They imagined God preventing
angels from singing along: “How dare you sing for joy when my creatures are
dying.”9 Perhaps the Israelites were permitted to sing because they needed the
emotional release. Still, the Talmud teaches that personal elation should never
blind one to another’s misfortunes, following a verse from Proverbs: “If your
enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, do not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be
displeased, and avert his wrath from them” (24:17–18).10 In other words, God
resents it when people gloat at someone else’s suffering—even if that suffer-
ing is well deserved. To this day, participants in the Passover seder remove
drops of wine at the mention of each plague to honor the Egyptian dead.11
Goliath was granted no such sensitivity. His characterization in the Book
of Samuel is as stereotypical as they come: large, brutish, boastful, aggres-
sive, heavily armed and armored, and only suited for fighting. Shortly after
slaying Goliath, David returns victoriously from battle, greeted by the songs
and dances of Israelite women (1 Sam. 18:5–7). Rather than chastising the
celebrants or showing remorse for the toppled giant, rabbinic lore amplified
Goliath’s one and only dimension, turning him into an even more monstrous
and blasphemous heel—a pattern that continued in Jewish, Christian, and
Islamic commentaries and modern-day religious and mass entertainment.
The New Living Translation’s Life Application Study Bible sums up the reli-
gious view:

Goliath was a giant with an attitude. As champion of the Philistines, he immo-

bilized an entire army of Israelites by challenging any one of them to duel with
him. It took a bold shepherd boy named David to remind them that they were
the army of the living God. . . . David went with the two weapons he knew he
could rely on: his trust in God and his shepherd’s sling. When others looked at
Goliath they saw an opponent too powerful to defeat; when David looked at
Goliath, he saw a target too big to miss. David had armor to match Goliath’s,
but it was invisible. He was equipped with spiritual armor.12

These remarks are followed by four “lessons” from Goliath’s life: “Strengths
can conceal weaknesses; God will not be mocked; God transforms strength
into weakness and weakness into strength; God equips those who trust him
with spiritual armor.”13 This interpretation and many like it draw from the
plain meaning of the text. Taking the Bible at face value, they accept Goliath
as a menacing nuisance, necessary for David’s rise to power and, secondarily,
for teaching that faith helps overcome obstacles.
4 Introduction

Secular interpretations also reinforce the surface understanding: David is

the classic underdog; Goliath is the archetypal bully; their bout is an allegory
for brains over brawn. Goliath has no opportunity to explain his motives or
become a “reformed bully.” He arrives and is dispatched of too quickly to
have a proper character arc. He appears in just one brisk chapter (1 Sam.
17), is mentioned only twice by name (vv. 4 and 23), and is killed before he
knows what hit him (v. 49). He is a bit character whose size and reputation
were—and still are—larger than life.
As a result, even humor books like God Is Disappointed in You, a “con-
densed Bible” by Mark Russell and cartoonist Shannon Wheeler, generally
stick to the Goliath stereotype.

The torrent of abuse and obscenities got to David and he accepted [Goliath’s]
challenge. Amused, Goliath walked up to kill David as if he were going out to
rake the leaves. The boy reacted impulsively by whipping out his slingshot and
firing a racquetball-sized rock directly into Goliath’s skull, killing him instantly.
Then he lifted the giant’s heavy sword into the air, and brought it down with a
thud, decapitating Goliath.14

A creative touch is found in Wheeler’s incongruous New Yorker–style illus-

tration, featuring an eyepatch-wearing Goliath, head still attached, sulking at
a bar and lamenting, “Nobody told me he had a sling.”15
When Goliath receives backstories in film, television, cartoons, comic
books, literature, or religious commentaries, they typically reinforce or
amplify what we already know from the Bible. Set against this backdrop,
the few nuanced treatments of Goliath’s character are especially intrigu-
ing. Cutting through biblical biases and post-biblical images, these revi-
sionist retellings pursue a Twainian question: What if we acknowledged
Goliath’s humanity?
Answers to this question are found in the pages ahead, which bring together
examples and illustrations from biblical studies, religious studies, and pop
culture studies, and are intended for students and scholars in those fields.
More specifically, they demonstrate how the Jewish practice of multiple read-
ings of a text, modeled in rabbinic exegesis (midrash), can complicate and
deepen our understanding of Goliath—if only we look past the stereotype.
Chapter one looks at the origins of the underdog metaphor of “David
and Goliath” and how that metaphor is applied to seemingly any situation
where the ostensibly disadvantaged party faces great odds, confronts major
challenges, or defeats the “monster.” The pervasiveness of the metaphor is a
significant barrier to seeing Goliath (and David) in any other way.
Chapter two explores the source materials, classical commentaries, and
critiques raised by historians, archaeologists, and textual critics. While
 Introduction 5

modern scholars do not expressly rehabilitate Goliath—whom most view

as a mythical-literary figure—they do interrogate political and theological
agendas behind the biblical account, thereby adding shades of gray to the
black-and-white portrayal.
The third chapter presents a summary and analysis of “The Giant Killer,”
an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that reimagines Goliath as Xena’s
friend. Desperately seeking money and information needed to track down his
family’s murderer, Goliath accepts a job protecting the Philistines against the
Israelites. Regretfully, Xena must side with the Israelites and help David kill
her friend. The episode reinterprets David and Goliath as a revenge tragedy:
the giant is a non-Philistine with little interest in the Israelites, yet because his
quest puts the Israelites in harm’s way, he must be stopped before reaching
his goal. While the Israelites celebrate David’s “miraculous” victory, Xena
laments the tormented giant’s sad demise.
Chapter four investigates Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath:
Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. Arguing that under-
dogs often have hidden advantages, the bestselling “pop science” book
begins with a medical view of the biblical giant. According to Gladwell,
himself an icon of popular culture, Goliath exhibited the debilitating signs
of gigantism and advanced-stage acromegaly: bone thinning, strained
heart, hampered mobility, and poor eyesight. Despite his massive size
and intimidating presence, Goliath’s condition made him vulnerable to a
small rock that he could barely see and was too slow to avoid, slung by an
opportunistic challenger whose weapon and tactics violated the norms of
single combat. Goliath’s death becomes the undignified end of a once-great
giant, while David’s victory loses some of its luster and gains suspicions
of cheating. The chapter also compares Goliath to notable real-life acrome-
galics Rondo Hatton and André the Giant, whose kind and generous natures
diverged from their roles on screen and in the ring. Was Goliath a “softy”
off the battlefield as well?
This question is taken up in chapter five, the subject of which is Tom
Gauld’s Goliath. The graphic novel depicts Goliath as a timid, unassum-
ing, and avowedly non-violent giant. In an effort to scare off the Israelites,
Goliath is commanded to put on armor and carry weapons, despite being
a poor swordsman, and shout threats at the enemy, despite being a quiet
introvert. He is hyped as an unstoppable champion, but is more comfortable
sitting against a rock and gazing silently at the stars. He is a thoroughly
relatable protagonist, and his death is genuinely heartbreaking. Gauld’s
unique take is compared to other comic book adaptations of David and
Goliath, which, while taking some artistic liberties, generally preserve the
Bible’s viewpoint.
6 Introduction

A conclusion rounds out the volume with a recapitulation of the main top-
ics and an assessment of how the term “Goliath,” removed from the biblical
tale and allusions to it, has become a generic synonym for “giant,” “behe-
moth,” “colossus,” “jumbo,” “mammoth,” and the like. This non-context-
dependent meaning is commonplace in popular entertainment, from roller
coasters to children’s book protagonists to animated and live-action heroes.
Yet, attempts to make the biblical giant into a likable or even neutral character
remain exceedingly scarce. The takeaway is clear: aside from the few excep-
tions highlighted in this book, viewing Goliath favorably usually requires that
he cease being Goliath.
A note on the meaning of “popular culture” as it appears herein: rather
than limiting examples to those with mainstream appeal or monetary success,
“pop” is used in distinction to so-called highbrow culture. It encompasses the
“people’s culture,” as presented in and informed by mass media, as opposed
to that which appeals only to rarefied tastes. All forms of film, television,
comic books, spectator sports, and commercial music—whether or not they
attract a wide audience—are, in this sense, popular culture. As such, this book
draws freely and equally from obscure and lucrative comics, cult and block-
buster films, “legitimate” sports and sports entertainment, and little-known
and bestselling albums.

NOTES

1. Albert Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain: A Biography (New York: Harper, 1912), 1234.
2. Mark Twain, The War-Prayer (New York: Harper, 1970).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. See chapter 54 in Mark Twain, Roughing It (Hartford, CT: American, 1872).
6. Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (New York: Webster, 1885), 201.
7. Mark Twain, “Concerning the Jews,” reprinted in Janet Smith, ed., Mark Twain
on the Damned Human Race (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 156–77.
8. Mark Twain, Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: Chapters from the North
American Review (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1924), 225.
9. b. Megillah 10b; b. Sanhedrin 39b.
10. b. Berakhot 31a.
11. This compassionate explanation is ubiquitous but modern, originating in
the nineteenth century and becoming widespread during the twentieth century.
See Zvi Ron, “Spilling Wine While Reciting the Plagues to Diminish Joy?,”
TheTorah.com, 2020, https://www.thetorah.com/article/spilling-wine-while-reciting-
the-plagues-to-diminish-our-joy.
12. Life Application Study Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2013), 441.
 Introduction 7

13. Ibid.
14. “The 1st Book of Samuel,” in Mark Russell and Shannon Wheeler, God Is
Disappointed in You (Marietta, GA: Top Shelf, 2013).
15. Ibid.
 1.‌‌‌‌

Underdog and Overdog

The phrase “David and Goliath” has long been synonymous with confronting
great challenges, overcoming incredible odds, and underdog victories. The
two figures represent stark contrasts of physical traits and abilities: a mas-
sive warrior who uses conventional objects of war; a small shepherd who
uses unconventional means (stone and sling).1 In the popular imagination,
Goliath is a stand-in for any powerful adversary, while David is any scrappy
or resourceful “little guy.” The ubiquity of this symbolism is arguably more
indebted to post-biblical amplifications than to the Bible itself, which offers
few details but lays the groundwork for an ever-growing assortment of retell-
ings and re-creations. Between 1500 and 1700 alone, more than 100 poems,
plays, and prose works derived from the Davidic narrative were produced
in Western Europe. The most popular subjects were David’s love affair with
Bathsheba, the rebellion of his son Absalom, and the slaying of Goliath.2
Johann Kuhnau, a German polymath and composer, included “David and
Goliath” among his six biblical sonatas published in 1700. The piece’s first
movement explores the “insolent bravado of the giant”; the second portrays
the trembling Israelites; the third expresses David’s confidence and the
giant’s fall; the fourth depicts the flight of the Philistines; and movements
five through seven convey the joyous Israelites, the women dancing, and
general jubilation.3 Kuhnau’s was one of many musical and visual artworks
that drew—and continue to draw—inspiration from the story.
By the nineteenth century, numerous sermons and books included varia-
tions of the phrase: “We all know the story of David and Goliath.”4 More
than an awareness of its popularity among Bible readers and Sunday school
students, the phrase acknowledged how pervasive the story had become in the
broader culture as a metaphor for an underdog victory—even before the term
“underdog” had been coined. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
“underdog” originally referred to the losing dog in a dogfight. The dictionary
locates the term’s first printed use in a London Daily Telegraph article from
1887. However, nearly three decades earlier, in 1859, it appeared in a poem
9
10 Chapter 1

by David Barker, “The Under Dog in the Fight,” which ran in the New York
Evening Post and other American newspapers.5 Barker’s poem captures the
universal impulse to root for the underdog:

But for me—and I care not a single fig

If they say I am wrong or right—
I shall always go for the weaker dog,
For the under dog in the fight.

The other side of this metaphor is the “overdog” or “top dog”: a powerful
or successful person, group, or institution who is favored to win or achieve/
retain dominance. Overdog victories can be thrilling for top dogs and their
supporters, but their predictability is rarely the stuff of compelling storytell-
ing. Underdog victories, on the other hand, are inherently attractive, in large
part because most people identify with the struggles of the less advantaged
and believe it is just and right for them to finally succeed.6 Many also relish
the thought of upending the natural or social order, as an 1882 article from
Popular Science describes: “[I]f the under dog in the social fight runs away
with a bone in violation of superior force, the top dog runs after him bellow-
ing, ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ and all the other top dogs unite in bellowing, ‘This
is divine law, and not dog law.’”7
By the 1920s, “underdog and overdog” and “David and Goliath” had
become virtually interchangeable. An article by Charlie Chaplin for the
Ladies’ Home Journal, published in 1922, suggests the association was
already clichéd: “The triumph of the mite over the mighty was sure to be
sympathetic. It is the old idea of the under dog, or of David and Goliath.”8
A 1939 analysis of a Chaplin film uses similar language: “It may be
a David-and-Goliath affair. It may be a turning worm. It may be a lucky acci-
dent that places the underdog on top.”9
Today, the battle of David and Goliath is the paradigmatic underdog par-
able. However, the popular image of tiny David smiting enormous Goliath is
not simply a modern retrieval of an ancient myth. Goliath’s presence beyond
the Bible was boosted by medieval and early modern authors, who exagger-
ated the giant’s size, monstrous features, beastly habits, and evil instincts. The
twelfth-century Glossa Ordinaria, compiled mostly from Bible commentar-
ies of the Church Fathers, allegorizes David versus Goliath as Christ versus
Satan—a depiction found in several illuminated books, including Speculum
humanae salvationis (fourteenth century).10 Cursor Mundi, an anony-
mous fourteenth-century religious poem, depicts Goliath as a stereotypical
club-wielding brute.11 Michael Drayton’s 1630 poem, “David and Goliath,”
describes the giant’s brow as “two steep penthouses [hanging] down over his
eyelids.”12 Abraham Cowley’s unfinished epic “Davideis, a Sacred Poem of
 Underdog and Overdog 11

the Troubles of David” (1656) has Goliath filling an entire valley and the sun
being frightened by the glow from his armor.13
In her classic study of the Grail legend, From Ritual to Romance, folklor-
ist Jessie L. Weston hears echoes of Goliath’s name in tales of heroes and
imposing foes engaged in single combat. The toppled villain in a Scottish
tale is named Golishan. An Arthurian romance tells of Gawain, King Arthur’s
nephew, defeating Golagros. Another Arthurian legend has Percival fight-
ing Golerotheram. Although these fearsome opponents are not giants per se,
Weston asks, “Are these all reminiscences of the giant Goliath, who became
the synonym for a dangerous, preferably heathen, adversary . . . ?”14
Modern literature continues the trend. Joseph Heller, in his irreverent novel
God Knows, imagines that Goliath’s “eyes were like coals, his beardless,
mottled face darkly studded. . . . The veins and tendons in his muscled neck
swelled vividly when he finally drew a gargantuan breath and opened wide
his jaws to speak. His voice was deafening.”15 Poet Margaret Avison’s Goliath
is not only bearded, but has a purple beard.16
Such otherizing both exaggerates Goliath’s deviousness and, by com-
parison, enhances David’s godliness, wholesome vigor, and worthiness as an
opponent. Children’s literature, especially, portrays Goliath as an “archetypal
bully” with “fangs, warts, and crooked and gaping teeth,” and David as a
relatable weakling-underdog.17 These images are often part of an encompass-
ing “boy tale” aesthetic.18 The pastoral setting, David’s origin as a humble
shepherd, his simple piety, his “rite of passage” battle, and his unlikely vic-
tory fit the pattern of an idealized “boy wonder,” with the aim of molding
the character of the person reading it. Not surprisingly, this goal is most
pronounced in children’s stories, which typically focus on David’s boyhood
years, remove the duel from the larger Davidic narrative, and most certainly
omit David’s later moral failings. Yet, these simplifying tendencies are also
present in works for adults, suggesting not only that early encounters with the
sanitized story stay with us as we grow older, but also that David’s boyhood
and defeat of Goliath hold up as a stand-alone tale.
In Patterns of American Popular Heroism, James Shoopman cites David
and Goliath as an underpinning of a range of hero narratives, whether or not
the author is conscious of its influence. These include cowboy movies, mili-
tary fiction, detective novels, superhero adventures, and more. “Across time
and distance,” writes Shoopman, “the world fantasizes the ability of the right
person, in the right time and place to fight-down intractable evils. Aeneas
crosses the sea and fights irrational enemies to found a new Trojan homeland,
young King-to-be David fells Goliath with a single stone, Sir Galahad finds
the Holy Grail.”19 The story is most strongly imprinted on the underdog vic-
tors of popular culture: “Jason Bourne, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter—all
of these are David against Goliath, winning the victory of the least likely to
12 Chapter 1

succeed.”20 To be sure, David versus Goliath is one of many long-told stories

of this kind, but its placement in the Bible and countless retellings have made
it the most familiar iteration in Western cultures. (In the United States alone,
some forty million Bibles are sold each year, a figure inclusive of standard-
and large-print Bibles, pocket and study Bibles, children’s and illustrated
Bibles—all in a variety of editions.21)
The Seven Basic Plots, Christopher Booker’s expansive treatise on recur-
ring structures and themes in the world’s story traditions, connects David
and Goliath to other plots centered on “overcoming the monster.” Shared
elements in these stories include: a monstrous entity threatening an entire
community; the hero’s “light” (virtuousness, pure motives) contrasting with
the monster’s “darkness” (brutality, animal nature); the two characters meet-
ing in a decisive confrontation; and the physically weaker hero outwitting the
monster. Booker provides a number of examples:

Gilgamesh sets out to challenge Humbaba because the monster is casting a

shadow over the kingdom of Uruk; David challenges Goliath because the giant
is threatening his country, Israel; Theseus journeys over the sea to challenge
the Minotaur and his master, the tyrant Minos, because they are threatening his
father’s kingdom of Athens; Beowulf is called in from his own country because
Grendel is threatening to destroy the kingdom of Heorot; Dracula is threatening
to become master of England; James Bond’s villains are threatening England,
the West, all mankind; Darth Vader, in Star Wars, is threatening to impose tyr-
anny over the entire universe.22

In each instance, the hero displays a combination of qualities that makes

him worthy of defeating the monster: selflessness, courage, determination,
self-reliance, cleverness, and a clear vision of what must be done. Moreover,
according to Booker, these stories have five basic stages: (1) the call to action;
(2) preparation for battle; (3) a one-on-one confrontation; (4) a battle “in
which all the odds seem loaded on the monster’s side”; and (5) the unlikely
defeat of the monster.23 The last stage usually results in the community being
liberated and the hero receiving a material reward. In the biblical story,
Goliath’s slayer “will be rewarded by the king with great riches; he will also
give him his daughter in marriage and grant exemption to his father’s house
in Israel [freedom from royal levies]” (1 Sam. 17:25).
Slaying the giant is a popular motif in world folklore. A Persian legend tells
of Rostam the holy warrior slaying the giant Akuan. Albadan, an armor-clad
giant of Spanish lore, is killed and beheaded by the knight Galaor. Angoulaffre
of the Broken Teeth, a descendant of Goliath in French legend, is killed by
the hero Roland in one-on-one combat. The Arthurian giant Cormoran is the
first victim of Jack the Giant Killer. The giant Galapas is beheaded by King
 Underdog and Overdog 13

Arthur himself. Gilgamesh beheads Humbaba in the Mesopotamian myth. In

Armenian folklore, the hero Zurab kills the giant Tapagoz and rescues the
princess. The Australian giant Thardid Jimbo is slain by a fair and clever
woman. Icelandic lore has a fight to the death between two giants, Heimo
and Thurse.24 Some of these legends predate the story of David and Goliath;
others were directly or indirectly influenced by it. “Slaying the monster”
and “slaying the dragon” are further variations of the motif, and, like tales
of slaying giants, often serve as allegories for defeating any formidable
obstacle or foe.
As this sampling shows, beheadings are a conspicuous feature of con-
frontation myths around the globe. The grisly act appears in Indian Vedas,
Aztek legends, Celtic folklore, Greek mythology, the deuterocanonical Book
of Judith, and elsewhere. The annals of Neo-Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II
(d. 859 BCE) include the boast: “I felled 800 of their combat troops with
the sword (and) cut off their heads.” Of another conquest, the king claimed:
“I hung their heads on trees around the city”25—much as David deposited
Goliath’s head in Jerusalem (1 Sam. 17:54). Armies routinely brought their
enemies’ severed heads to their capitals as evidence of victory (heads were
easier to carry than entire bodies). In one Neo-Assyrian relief, a solider piles
heads and looted objects together, underscoring the value of the heads as
“treasures.”26 In the Bible, King Saul is himself beheaded by the Philistines
(1 Sam. 31:9; 1 Chron. 10:10).
A proper study of the decapitation trope could fill an entire volume. It will
suffice to note that severing heads can be interpreted in several ways: an allu-
sion to human sacrifice; a euphemism for castration; an act of finality; a show
of might; an act of intimidation; proof of death; a means of capturing the
victim’s power; etc. As a storytelling device, beheading serves as a dramatic
resolution to the tense moments leading up to the battle, when the physically
outmatched hero’s survival is in doubt. It can also be a terrifying display of
power, as related in the biblical account: “David ran up and stood over the
Philistine, grasped his sword and pulled it from its sheath; and dispatched him
and cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their warrior was dead,
they ran” (1 Sam. 17:51).
Vampirologist Theresa Bane speculates that the prevalence of stories of
slaying giants reflects the Jungian idea of “racial memory,” or patterns of
thought and fragments of experience that have been transmitted in all humans
through the ages. Read in this way, they may be cautionary tales of the dan-
gers of natives and foreigners intermixing, or perhaps residual memories of
a time when Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens cohabitated and interbred.27
The notion of giants resulting from the mixing of “two discrete natures”
was advanced by Sulpicius Severus (c. 363–c. 425), a Christian writer
from Aquitania (now Aquitaine, France) known for his chronicle of sacred
14 Chapter 1

history.28 The underlying “moral” of such interpretations is the need to van-

quish the contaminating threat of the “other,” as represented by the horrifying
proportions and viciousness of the giant/monster/dragon.
Hints of this are present in the biblical account of the Nephilim, giants who
“appeared on earth when the divine beings cohabitated with the daughters
of men, who bore them offspring” (Gen. 6:4). Although the verse calls them
“heroes of old, the men of renown,” their enormous size later strikes fear
in the Israelites. In the Book of Numbers, twelve spies are sent by Moses
to scout the land of Canaan and assess the strength of its native population.
They return forty days later with a dire report: “The country that we traversed
and scouted is one that devours its settlers, all the people we saw in it are
men of great size; we saw the Nephilim there—the Anakites are part of the
Nephilim—and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must
have looked to them” (Num. 13:32–33). Among the spies, only Caleb and
Joshua assert themselves as proto-Davids, reminding the Israelites that they
may be small, but they are mighty with God on their side: “Have no fear
then of the people of the country, for they are our prey: their protection has
departed from them, but the Lord is with us. Have no fear of them!” (Num.
14:9). (The Nephilim name has been recycled in contemporary fantasy,
including in L. Jagi Lamplighter’s Prospero Regained and Cassandra Clare’s
Queen of Air and Darkness.29) Similarly, in Greek myth, giants often result
from couplings of gods and humans and other “unnatural” pairings. Two of
the more interesting offspring are the giants Agrius and Oreius, twin brothers
born to Polyphonte and a bear.30

LIMITATIONS OF THE METAPHOR

Seemingly any subject involving a smaller person, group, movement, or

force squaring off against a larger one can be framed as a David and Goliath
story. The entry on “David versus Goliath” on TV Tropes, “the all-devouring
pop-culture wiki,” defines it as “any climactic combat or competition where
the hero is the underdog. More specifically, it refers to conflicts where the
hero is of much smaller physical stature than the villain.”31 The wiki entry
includes dozens of examples culled from comic books and strips, card and
video games, anime and manga, live-action and animated film and televi-
sion, and more. The television drama Kings (2009), based on the story of
King David, takes place in a kingdom resembling present-day America and
has David defeating a nigh-invincible Goliath tank. The legal drama series
Goliath (2016–2021), starring Billy Bob Thornton, borrows its title from the
underdog metaphor. Thornton’s character, Billy McBride, is a down-and-out
former star lawyer battling his former law firm, the show’s metaphorical
 Underdog and Overdog 15

behemoth. The 2020 film Percy vs. Goliath, starring Christopher Walken,
centers on a Canadian farmer and a giant corporation whose GMOs are
interfering with his crops. Another illustration of the metaphor’s ubiquity is
Survivor: David vs. Goliath (2018), the thirty-seventh season of the competi-
tive reality show. Contestants were divided into two “tribes” embodying the
biblical figures: David, composed of ten underdogs, and Goliath, compris-
ing ten overachievers. Predictably, a member of the David tribe won the
competition.
Joining overt and less-obvious examples are innumerable references to the
metaphor in stories and scripts. For instance, in the supernatural television
series Angel, the geeky Wesley refers to David and Goliath when standing
up to an enormous Haxil demon (“Expecting,” season one, 1999).32 In the
military science fiction adventure series Stargate SG-1, the team arrives on
a planet inhabited by medieval Christians. Simon, a monk, faces a demon
“like David before Goliath” (“Demons,” season three, 1999).33 In the Star
Trek: Voyager episode “Collective” (season six, 2000), the Doctor remarks,
“Behold! The David that slew our Goliath,” referring to a pathogen that had
wiped out Borg drones on a cube in the Delta Quadrant.34
The durable symbolism of David and Goliath is abundantly attested in the
titles of wide-ranging books and articles, as the appendix to this volume dem-
onstrates. Like any metaphor, the phrase can help us understand the events or
circumstances taking place and the actors or parties involved. Yet, at the same
time, the metaphorical framing tends to constrict our perception and prevent
us from seeing things in any other way.
In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Darmok” (season five,
1991), the crew of the USS Enterprise-D tries to establish communication
between the United Federation of Planets and the Tamarians (also known as
the Children of Tama).35 Previous attempts were unsuccessful, as the univer-
sal translator could decipher individual words but not their intended meaning.
In an effort to bridge the communication gap, Enterprise captain Jean-Luc
Picard is transported to the wild environs of the planet El-Adrel IV, along
with the Tamarian captain Dathon. Through their harrowing encounters with
a monstrous creature, which ultimately kills Dathon, Picard realizes that the
Tamarians communicate with metaphors drawn from their native mythology.
Among the phrases are: “Shaka, when the walls fell,” a metaphor for failure;
“Temba, his arms wide,” meaning giving and receiving; “Sokath, his eyes
uncovered,” a metaphor for comprehension; and “Darmok and Jalad . . . at
Tanagra,” a friendship forged through facing a common enemy—itself an
underdog tale involving comparatively puny mortals battling a powerful
monster. At the end of the episode, the latter metaphor is adapted to reflect
what had transpired: “Picard and Dathon . . . at El-Adrel.”
16 Chapter 1

Tamarian-inspired, metaphor-based communication could be extracted

from Earth’s mythologies. The Hebrew Bible is a rich source for such a lan-
guage. In addition to “David and Goliath,” referring to improbable victories,
there could be: “His tent wide open,” a metaphor for hospitality (Abraham
and Sarah’s tent, Gen. 18:1–15); “The bush ablaze,” signifying an epiphany
(Moses at the burning bush, Exod. 3:1–6); “Miriam dancing at the shore,” a
metaphor for victory (after crossing the Red Sea, Exod. 15:20–21); “Samson,
when the pillars fell,” indicating self-sacrifice (Jdgs. 16:25–31); and so on.
Still, as management scholar Mats Alvesson observes, some caution
against the overuse of metaphors, citing their potential to obscure or dis-
tract from “objective reality,” which should be perceived “without a gestalt
or image standing between the reality out there to be understood and the
researcher [or other knowledge-seeker] trying to make sense of what is going
on.”36 Metaphors, especially when used too liberally, hinder the ability of
unique situations or “objective data” to speak for themselves. After all, the
essential function of a metaphor is to experience or understand one kind of
thing through the lens of another.
A major impediment to eliminating metaphors—if such a thing is possible
or even desirable—is the abundance of metaphorical concepts woven into the
fabric of everyday language: “time is money,” “argument is war,” uncertainty
is “up in the air,” practicality is “down to earth,” good/more is “up,” bad/less
is “down,” and so on. In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson examine how these idiomatic features of speech subconsciously
shape the way we feel, think, perceive, and act.37 Indeed, someone who loves
cloudy days and abhors sunshine is nevertheless prone to using the conven-
tional metaphors: clouds mean sadness; sunshine means happiness.
Metaphors derived from myth and literature not only reduce the alluded
story to its bare elements, but also preclude other potential understandings.
“Adam and Eve in the Garden” (Gen. 2:4–3:24), for instance, might refer to
paradise or living the good life, but the couple’s actions in Eden are far more
complicated and morally fraught. Likewise, the David and Goliath metaphor
diminishes both characters—and the situation itself—to stereotypes, thus
impeding other interpretations. The black-and-white portrayal, enshrined in
the repeated juxtaposition of the names, prevents us from seeing potential
shades of gray.
Up to this point, we have examined the underdog symbolism of David and
Goliath. Yet, as Christopher Booker briefly entertains, “If we were to look at
the story of David and Goliath from Goliath’s point of view, it would seem
like the end of a Tragedy.”38 Some authors have taken this contrarian view to
the extreme. Robert Graves’ 1916 poem, “Goliath and David,” reimagines the
giant defeating David.39 Sixty years later, Richard Howard wrote “The Giant
on Giant-Killing,” a poem comprising Goliath’s posthumous reflections
 Underdog and Overdog 17

after being slain by a nude, feminized David, as depicted in Donatello’s

bronze. In Howard’s poem, Goliath is filled with erotic admiration for his
young slayer.40 Such reversals and sympathetic treatments not only chal-
lenge the established reading, but also humanize the giant in unexpected and
thought-provoking ways.
Despite these intriguing possibilities, the dominant characterization of
Goliath—and giants in general—still holds. Nineteenth-century scholar
William R. Harper summarized the nature of giants in cross-cultural myths,
legends, and folklore: “big and stupid giants have often every token of
uncouth native barbarians, exaggerated into monsters in the legends of the
later tribes who dispossessed and slew them.”41 In many cases, giants take
on the qualities a society most fears or despises. Kifri of Persian legend,
for example, is the personification of infidelity and atheism, and even kills
himself after delivering a rant against Heaven.42 In a similar fashion, rabbinic
storytellers made Goliath into the quintessential blasphemer.43
However, there are exceptions to this rule. The benevolent giant
Dehotgohsgayeh of Iroquois and Onondaga lore protects humans from
harm. The Greek giantess Elate, one of the few female giants of mythology,
could not stop crying after the death of her brothers, twin giants Ephialtes
and Otus. The gods took pity on her and transformed her into a spruce tree.
The Russian giant Vorys Mort is an ally to hunters, driving game to them in
exchange for tobacco. Gandalue’s gentleness and generosity set him apart
from the other behemoths of Spanish folklore. Gog and Magog of British
legend are good-hearted heroes, as are the Estonian giants Kalevipoeg and
Soini.44 In some versions of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” including one recorded
by Australian folklorist Joseph Jacobs (published in 1890), Jack is a trickster
and a thief, the giant’s death is not justified (he does not have any human
captives), and Jack ends up marrying a princess45—elements recalling the
opportunistic, morally ambiguous, princess-marrying David of biblical lore.
A number of modern giants further challenge the bully type so endemic
to world folklore. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s musical Into the
Woods (1986), which intertwines several Grimm Brothers fairy tales and
examines their consequences, similarly paints Jack as a thieving murderer
and the giant as an undeserving victim.46 The television miniseries Jack
and the Beanstalk: The Real Story (2001), an “ethically corrected” version
co-produced by Hallmark Entertainment and The Jim Henson Company, also
shows the giant in a more congenial light and invents the Land of Giants
populated by behemoths from Hebrew, Buddhist, Nordic, and other mytholo-
gies.47 C. S. Lewis’ series of fantasy novels, The Chronicles of Narnia
(1950–56), features both good and bad giants,48 as does the Harry Potter
series (1997–2007).49 The Big Friendly Giant in Roald Dahl’s 1982 book,
The BFG, is an outlier among his kind: while other giants eat human beings,
18 Chapter 1

he eats only snozzcumbers (a foul-tasting vegetable).50 To these can be added

The Jolly Green Giant, mascot of B&G Foods; Obelix from the comic book
series Asterix, a “sweetie” whose enormous size and superhuman strength
terrify the Romans;51 the eponymous giant in The Iron Giant, who abhors
violence and befriends a young boy;52 and many others.
Ultimately, whether a giant is gentle or ghastly largely depends on who is
telling the story. Lucretius’ saying from De Rerum Natura (On the Nature
of Things) comes to mind: “That which to some is food, to others is rank
poison.”53 This maxim has been restated many ways: “One man’s pleasure is
another man’s pain”; “One person’s trash is another person’s treasure”; “One
woman’s floor is another woman’s ceiling”; “One man’s loss is another man’s
profit”; “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” From the
Egyptians’ perspective, the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea was no miracle:
it was the tragic drowning of Pharaoh’s entire army (Exod. 14:28). Likewise,
while the Israelites saw Goliath as an arrogant, terrifying brute, the Philistines
apparently revered him as a warrior-hero. An even deeper, more humanizing
portrait emerges when we imagine the giant’s own perspective.

NOTES

1. Heda Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Biblica 60:1
(1979): 52.
2. Ted-Larry Pebworth, “Cowley’s Davideis and the Exaltation of Friendship,” in
The David Myth on Western Literature, ed. Raymond-Jean Frontain and Jan Wojcik
(West Lafayette, IN: Perdue University Press, 1980), 97.
3. C. Hubert H. Parry, The Oxford History of Music, Vol. III: The Music of the
Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1902), 374.
4. Eliza (Lady) Verney, Practical Thoughts on the First Forty Chapters of the Book
of the Prophet Isaiah (London: James Nisbet, 1858), 129.
5. David Barker, “The Under Dog in the Fight,” Washington Union, April 6, 1859.
6. Joseph A. Vandello, Nadav Goldschmied, and Kenneth Michniewicz, “Underdogs
as Heroes,” in Handbook of Heroism and Heroic Leadership, ed. George R. Goethals,
Roderick M. Kramer, and Scott T. Allison (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2017), 345.
7. Goldwin Smith, “Science and Morality,” Popular Science, April 1882, 761.
8. Charles Chaplin, “We Have Come to Stay,” Ladies’ Home Journal,
October 1922, 61.
9. Milton Wright, What’s Funny and Why: An Outline of Humor (New York:
Whittlesey House, 1939), 42.
10. David Lyle Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature
(Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992), 314; Sara Kipfer, “Goliath; V. Visual
Arts,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 10, ed. Hans-Josef Klauck
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 599.
 Underdog and Overdog 19

11. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and the Middle Ages
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), 86.
12. Michael Drayton, The Works of Michael Drayton, vol. 3 (London: W. Reeve,
1753), 1631.
13. Abraham Cowley, Poems: Miscellanies, the Mistress, Pindarique Odes,
Davideis, Verses Written on Several Occasions, ed. A. R. Waller (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1905), 333.
14. Jessie L. Weston, From Ritual to Romance (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1920), 91.
15. Joseph Heller, God Knows (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 72.
16. Margaret Avison, Winter Sun (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960), 92.
17. Paul B. Thomas, “Goliath; IV. Literature,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception, vol. 10 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 598.
18. See Jessica Fitting, “Children’s Literature and the ‘David and Goliath’ Story,”
Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 34:2 (2010): 38–53.
19. James G. Shoopman, Patterns of American Popular Heroism: From Biblical
Roots to Modern Media (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2020), 28.
20. Ibid., 82.
21. Anthony Hatcher, Religion and Media in America (Lanham, MD: Lexington,
2018), 135.
22. Booker, The Seven Basic Plots, 245.
23. Ibid., 48.
24. These examples are taken from Theresa Bane, Encyclopedia of Giants and
Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2016).
25. St. John Simpson, “Annihilating Assyria,” in In Context: The Reade Festschrift,
ed. Irving Finkel and St. John Simpson (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2020), 141, 142.
26. Joel M. LeMon, “Beheading in the Ancient World,” Bible Odyssey,
February 16, 2011, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/
beheading-in-the-ancient-world.
27. Bane,  Encyclopedia  of  Giants  and  Humanoids  in  Myth,  Legend  and  
Folklore,  6–7.
28. Sulpicius Severus, Historia Sacra, cited in Stephens, “‘De Historia
Gigantum,’” 55.
29. L. Jagi Lamplighter, Prospero Regained: Prospero’s Daughter (New York:
Macmillan, 2011); Cassandra Clare, Queen of Air and Darkness (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2018).
30. Bane, Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and
Folklore, 14, 47.
31. “David versus Goliath,” TV Tropes, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/
Main/DavidVersusGoliath.
32. David Semel, dir., “Expecting,” Angel, season 1, episode 12, 1999.
33. Peter DeLuise, dir., “Demons,” Stargate SG-1, season 3, episode 8, 1999.
34. Allison Liddi, dir., “Collective,” Star Trek: Voyager, season 6, episode 16, 2000.
35. Winrich Kolbe, dir., “Darmok,” Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 5,
episode 2, 1991.
20 Chapter 1

36. Mats Alvesson, Understanding Organizational Culture (London: Sage,

2002), 20.
37. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1980).
38. Booker, The Seven Basic Plots, 182.
39. Robert Graves, Goliath and David (London: Chiswick, 1916).
40. Richard Howard, “The Giant on Giant-Killing,” October 1 (1976): 47–49.
41. William R. Harper, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, Genesis
VI,” in The Biblical World, Volume 3, ed. William R. Harper (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1894), 446.
42. Bane, Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids, 99.
43. Midrash Tehillim 36:2; Vayikra Rabbah 10:7.
44. These examples are taken from Bane, Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids
in Myth, Legend and Folklore.
45. Mari Ness, “Is Killing Giants Ever Justified? The Evolving Tale of ‘Jack
and the Beanstalk,’” TOR, April 19, 2018, https://www.tor.com/2018/04/19/
is-killing-giants-ever-justified-the-evolving-tale-of-jack-and-the-beanstalk/.
46. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine, Into the Woods (New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1989).
47. Brian Henson, dir., Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story, Hallmark
Entertainment and The Jim Henson Company, 2001.
48. Paul F. Ford, Companion to Narnia: A Complete Guide to the Magical World
of C. S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 224–25.
49. Acascias Riphouse, The Harry Potter Companion (College Station, TX:
Virtualbookworm, 2003), 389–90.
50. Roald Dahl, The BFG (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982).
51. See Peter Kessler, The Complete Guide to Asterix (London: Hodder Children’s
Books, 1995).
52. Brad Bird, dir., The Iron Giant, Warner Bros., 1999.
53. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, trans. John Selby Watson (London: George
Bell, 1898), 169.
 2.‌‌

Source Materials

The biblical saga of King David has captivated audiences for millennia. A
composite narrative of heroic legends, morality tales, pious poetry, political
propaganda, theological statements, and cultural myths, David was both a
product and exemplar of Israelite popular literature. The original storytellers
had no compulsion to apologize for his moral failings, lapses in judgment,
or weakness for women; such faults and frailties added drama, deepened
themes, and made David tantalizingly realistic. David was an “ideal type,”
not because he was perfect, but because he was a thoroughly human “every-
man” who modeled piety in the “midst of the exigencies of life”1—an image
bolstered by his name gracing seventy-three biblical psalms. Rabbinic custom
later attributed the entire Book of Psalms to him.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls went
many steps further, crediting David with 3,600 psalms and 450 songs.3
Modern authors continue to explore David’s complex characterization,
highlighting the same traits and exploits that have long secured his place
among the “who’s who” of biblical personages. In King David: The Real Life
of the Man Who Ruled Israel, Jonathan Kirsch argues that David “possessed
every flaw and failing a mortal is capable of, yet men and women adored
him and God showered him with many more blessings than he did Abraham
or Moses.”4 Joel Baden’s book, The Historical David: The Real Life of an
Invented Hero, “exposes an ambitious, ruthless, flesh-and-blood man who
achieved power by any means necessary, including murder, theft, bribery,
sex, deceit, and treason.”5 David Wolpe’s David: The Divided Heart attempts
to “unravel his complex character” and paint a “portrait of an exceptional
human being who, despite his many flaws, was truly beloved by God.”6
The bout with Goliath is arguably the most well-known Davidic tale.
Here is the basic outline: the Israelites and Philistines are positioned in
opposing camps; a Philistine champion (Goliath) emerges calling for single
combat; King Saul and his men are afraid; David tells Saul that he wants
to face Goliath; David refuses Saul’s sword and armor; David prepares his
sling and stones; Goliath mocks David; David proclaims that God is on his
21
22 Chapter 2

side; David fells Goliath with a stone and beheads him; the Philistines flee
and the Israelites give chase; David deposits Goliath’s head in Jerusalem
(1 Sam. 17:1–58).
This is the “coming of age” chapter in David’s life. Untrained and unwanted
on the battlefield, the “ruddy-cheeked, bright-eyed, and handsome” (1 Sam.
16:12) shepherd accepts the seemingly impossible challenge. Armed only
with his sling and stones (shepherd’s tools) and driven by an unshakable faith,
the boy shows flashes of cunning, courage, and warrior instincts that will
define him in adulthood. He is even rewarded with a bride, Saul’s daughter
Michal, solidifying his transition to maturity. Narratively, Goliath is merely
a plot device: an obstacle and stepping-stone to David’s predetermined role
as Israel’s king (1 Sam. 16:13). Hardly an endearing figure, he towers over
his heroic challenger as a stereotypical warrior-brute, whose size and military
prowess are matched by his hubris and disdainfulness. David’s victory is a
surprise, but the giant gets what he deserves.
In most retellings and recollections, David’s victory is presented as the
triumph of faith and purity over depravity and brutality. While the hero’s
life becomes messy and morally fraught as he grows in years and power, his
battle with the giant is treated as fodder for inspirational and uncomplicated
children’s stories. However, as we shall see, this is not the only way to view
Goliath—or young David.
Before delving into contrarian depictions, it is important to survey the ins
and outs of the source materials, how they came to be, and the impact they
have had on our perceptions. The academic study of the origins and com-
position of the David and Goliath legend is robust, interdisciplinary, and, at
times, complex. Informed by historical, political, theological, archaeological,
and literary analysis, the story has been assessed and reassessed from many
sides. The picture of Goliath that emerges is one of an amalgamated character
repurposed from fabled giants and brute men, Greek lore and military history,
and political and territorial strife—all filtered through the inventive, embel-
lishing, contemporizing tendencies of oral storytelling. Despite ample room
for creative expansion and character development, biblical and later authors
painted Goliath into a superficial corner, making him bigger and badder but
never more than a monotonal villain. From the vantage point of the Bible and
its traditional commentaries, Goliath is far from sympathetic.

THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS

Giants appear early on in the Hebrew Bible. In the verses preceding Noah
and the Flood, we are introduced to the Nephilim, an ancient race of giants
 Source Materials 23

believed to dwell in the land of Canaan. The giants originated from the cou-
pling of divine beings and mortal women, as Genesis 6:1–4 recounts:

When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the
divine beings [or “sons of God”] saw how beautiful the daughters of men were
and took wives from among those that pleased them. The Lord said, “My breath
shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him
be one hundred and twenty years.” It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim
appeared on the earth—when the divine beings cohabitated with the daughters
of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

This account, like many antediluvian episodes and cameos in Genesis, reads
like a condensation of a once well-known but now forgotten legend. The pre-
ceding verses (Gen. 4:17–5:32) contain bare references to pre-deluge person-
ages who were no doubt part of larger story traditions. Genesis 4:20–22, for
instance, mentions that Jabal “was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents
and amidst herds,” his brother Jubal “was the ancestor of all who play the
lyre and the pipe,” and their half-brother Tubal-cain “forged all implements
of copper and iron.” Tubal-cain’s sister, Naamah, is also named, and may
have been the first singer, although her role—whatever it was—is omitted
from the text.7 These figures, only tersely noted and appearing nowhere else
in the Bible, recall the primordial founders of civilization in Mesopotamian
lore.8 The genealogy in Genesis 5 likewise rattles off names with little or no
details, mapping out ten generations of “begets” from Adam to Noah. The
ages of these once-mentioned characters are exaggerated, another sign of
their legendary status, with Enosh living 905 years (Gen. 5:11), Jared lasting
962 years (Gen. 5:20), and Methuselah winning the longevity prize with 969
years (Gen. 5:27). In fact, the relatively short Nephilim lifespan (120 years)
is explained as a consequence for the breach of divine-human boundaries that
produced the giants (Gen. 6:3). Their identification as “heroes of old” is out
of sync with this punishment and the general depiction of giants in the Bible,
suggesting that, sometime in the distant past, the image of the hero-giant was
replaced by the villain-giant. God’s rationale for the impending Flood comes
immediately after the Nephilim are introduced:

The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan
devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted he
had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. The Lord said, “I will blot
out from the earth the men whom I created—men together with beasts, creeping
things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.” (Gen. 6:5–7)

Nephilim next appear in Numbers 13:33, where their great size frightens the
Israelite spies Moses had sent to scout the land of Hebron. The verse further
24 Chapter 2

notes that the Anakim (Anakites), including three named earlier—Ahiman,

Sheshai, and Talmai (Num. 13:22)—were also part of the Nephilim. In the
Book of Joshua (15:13–14), the virtuous spy Caleb is remembered for dis-
lodging Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai from the land, a feat recalled again
in Judges 1:20: “he drove the three Anakites out of there [Hebron].” Yet,
Judges 1:10 places the giants’ defeat later at the hands of the tribe of Judah,
even as Joshua 11:21 expressly states that there were no Anakim after the
time of Joshua, Caleb’s contemporary. According to Robert D. Miller II—a
proponent of biblical performance criticism, which highlights the interplay of
orality and literacy in the development of scriptural texts—rather than seeing
these discrepancies as “different views of the same event” or as “conflicting
contemporary accounts by different groups who wanted to take credit,” it is
best to understand them as “isometric but separate story kernels [that] cir-
culated independently in the Israelite tradition, all of them alluding to more
substantial stories not preserved in the Hebrew Bible.”9 Inconsistencies in
biblical portrayals of Goliath can be explained similarly (more on that later).
While these accounts reflect an ancient view of Canaan’s aboriginal inhab-
itants as fearsome giants, the existence of giants after the Flood troubled
those invested in a consistent narrative. Classical Jewish commentaries saw
Genesis 6:1–7 as a sequence of related events: divine beings (sons of God)
cohabitated with earthly women (daughters of men); giants came into being;
God was appalled by the unnatural coupling—a last straw that pushed God to
destroy life on Earth.10 From this perspective, the waters were sent in part to
wipe away the abomination of the giants. According to the Genesis account,
only eight people survived the Flood: Noah, “who found favor with the
Lord” (Gen. 6:8), Noah’s wife, their three sons, and their three wives. A just
and providential deity would not have allowed a giant, or a pair of giants, to
survive; even if they were considered a distinct species, it is highly unlikely
that they would have been among the animals packed into the floating ark.
Jewish interpreters found a rationale for the persistence of giants in the
Book of Deuteronomy, which tells of the defeat of Og of Bashan, an Amorite
king, who was the last of the Rephaim (3:11)—another lineage of giants or,
perhaps, a generic term for “giants.” Og’s iron bed is described as nine cubits
long and four cubits wide. A cubit is generally taken as eighteen inches, so
the bed was an impressive 13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide, or roughly twice
the size of today’s twin-size mattress. Rabbinic interpreters understood the
reference to Og as the last Raphah (sg.) to mean that he was the only giant
to have survived the Flood. In their expanded story (midrash), Og had made
a deal with Noah: Noah allowed him to sit on the outside of the ark on the
condition that he serve Noah and his descendants as a slave.11
Og is elsewhere mentioned alongside Sihon, another Amorite king (Pss.
135:11, 136:19–20), leading the rabbis to portray them as brothers, the sons
 Source Materials 25

of Ahijah, whose father was the fallen angel Shamchazai and whose mother
was Ham’s wife.12 The story tradition also exaggerates their size beyond
reasonable dimensions, with their feet alone measuring eighteen cubits in
length.13 And, with great size comes great evil: Sihon and Og are depicted
as more dreadful than Pharaoh, and their downfall is compared to crossing
the Red Sea.14 Og’s death is particularly fantastical. He lifts a mountain over
his head measuring three parasangs long (approx. nine miles) and intends to
drop it on the Israelite camp. His plan is thwarted by ants dispatched by God,
which crawl on him and cause him to lose his grip. As the mountain slips onto
Og’s neck, Moses axes him on the ankle, causing him to fall to his death.15
The terms Rephaim and Raphah occur twenty-five times in the Bible,
sometimes in passing (e.g., Gen. 14:5, 15:20) and other times in connection to
the “Valley of Rephaim” (Josh. 15:8, 18:16; 2 Sam. 5:18, 22; 1 Chron. 11:15,
14:9). The Moabites identified a population of Rephaim as Emim—“a people
great and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites” (Deut. 2:10–11)—while
the Ammonites knew other Rephaim as Zamzummim—“people great and
numerous and as tall as the Anakites” (Deut. 2:20–21). Interestingly, Emim is
derived from the Hebrew word eimah, meaning “terror” or “fear” (in Modern
Hebrew, seret eimah means “horror film”). So, rather than a proper name,
the appellation likely indicates how the Moabites perceived the Rephaim.
Similarly, the term Zamzummim is related to zimzum, which means “buzz”
or “hum,” perhaps a derogatory reference to their “primitive” language. Other
notable giants include Arba, whom the Book of Joshua identifies as the great-
est of the Anakim and the forefather of “the Anak” (14:15, 15:13). Hebron
was once named for him (Kiriath-arba), and anak is the modern Hebrew word
for “giant.” The Amorites—the Canaanite tribe ruled by Sihon and Og—are
also described as giants in Amos 2:9–10: “whose stature was like the cedar’s
and who was stout as the oak.”
Giant lore continued in extra-canonical literature. Most prominent is
the First Book of Enoch, a text whose only known complete version is an
Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation derived from the original Hebrew
or Aramaic, dating to around the fourth century BCE and ascribed by tradi-
tion to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah (Gen. 5:18–24). The first section
of the book, known as the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), tells of angelic
beings, called Watchers, who leave their heavenly abode to sire children
with mortal women, following Genesis 6:1–4. The result is disastrous, as the
Watchers teach human beings forbidden practices and their hybrid offspring
are murderous giants. God sends four archangels to punish the Watchers
and restore order.16 The portrayal of giants in 1 Enoch may have been a
polemic against the Diadochi, Alexander’s successors, who claimed that
they descended from gods. The giants’ bloody deeds resemble those of the
Diadochi, who led armies through Palestine during at the end of the fourth
26 Chapter 2

century BCE. The stories are also similar to Greek myths about primordial
wars of giants.17 Genesis 6:1–4 is further expanded upon in the Book of
Giants, a group of Aramaic fragments found at the caves of Qumran (Dead
Sea), as well as in surviving Middle Iranian fragments of the Manichaean
Book of Giants.18
Taken together, these stories imbue giants with a host of genetically deter-
mined propensities: violence, deviance, amorality, and primitiveness. The ste-
reotypical link between giantism and militarism was so pronounced that even
Judah Maccabee, warrior-hero of the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BCE), is
extolled poetically: “Like a giant he put on his breastplate, he bound on his
armor of war and waged battles, protecting the camp by the sword” (1 Macc.
3:3). This simile draws on the giant’s military reputation without assuming
the less savory aspects.
Giants’ traits are stressed in a sequence of four combat reports in 2 Samuel
21:15–22, recounting David’s men defeating Philistine giants. In the first,
Ishbi-benob, “a descendant of the Raphah,” attempts to murder David but
is instead attacked and killed by Abishai ben Zeruiah, one of David’s loyal
soldiers (vv. 15–17). A second battle with the Philistines includes Sibbecai the
Hushathite, another of David’s men, killing the giant Saph (v. 18). The third
fight involves Elhanan, a Bethlehemite soldier, killing Goliath the Gittite,
“whose spear had a shaft like a weaver’s beam” (v. 19). The fourth account
tells of “a giant of a man, who has six fingers on each hand and six toes on
each foot,” taunting Israel (à la Goliath in 1 Sam. 17) and being struck down
by Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei (vv. 20–21). These terse
verses, likely remnants of larger story traditions, conclude with a eulogy for
the giants: “Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they
fell by the hands of David and his men” (v. 22).

GOLIATH

An obvious problem arises in the third report, in which Elhanan, not David,
is identified as Goliath’s killer. A later version in 1 Chronicles 20:5 attempts
to smooth out the discrepancy, proposing that Elhanan actually slayed
Goliath’s brother Lahmi. In addition to reconciling the earlier accounts—a
primary agenda of the Book of Chronicles—this reworking builds on the
assertion that “David and his men” defeated giants (2 Sam. 21:22), even as
David’s direct involvement is absent from the four accounts. As a result, the
Chronicler’s addition of Lahmi not only disentangles Elhanan from Goliath,
but also solidifies David’s role as destroyer of giants. Taking a different stab
at harmonization, Rashi, an eleventh-century rabbinic commentator, pro-
posed that Elhanan and David were one and the same. Other explanations
 Source Materials 27

include: reading Elhanan as a nickname rather than a given name, El (God)

hanan (favored); emphasizing the second part of Elhanan’s father’s name,
oregim, meaning “weavers,” creating the epithet, “one whom God favored,
the weaver”; and seeing Elhanan as David’s original name and David as his
throne-name (a notion unsupported in pre-king stories of David, where he
is called David). Yet, these interpretations leave another discrepancy unad-
dressed: 1 Samuel has Goliath killed in the Valley of Elah; 2 Samuel has him
die at Gob, also identified as Nob.19
More likely, the reference to Elhanan, preserved in 2 Samuel 21:19, is
the remnant of an earlier, more expansive saga of a Bethlehemite folk hero
who is virtually forgotten, save for this brief verse. Elhanan’s name occurs
again toward the end of 2 Samuel in a list of heroes (23:24); however, there
he is identified as the son of Dodo from Bethlehem.20 This, too, may speak
to Elhanan’s status as a folk hero whose exploits were told and retold in a
fluid oral tradition, where details, such as who his father was, were subject
to change (as in the game of telephone). At some later point, the killing of
Goliath was taken from Elhanan and absorbed into the Davidic narrative. As
rabbinics scholar Azzan Yadin contends in his essay, “Goliath’s Armor and
Israelite Collective Memory”: “If the slaying of Goliath had originally been
associated with David it is hard to imagine that Elhanan would have been
credited with the same feat. It is quite possible, however, for David to be
glorified through the appropriation of other heroic traditions.”21
An additional relic of Elhanan’s story is found in 1 Samuel 21:1–10. After
fleeing from the raging King Saul, David stops at Nob for food. Weaponless,
David encounters Ahimelek, the priest of the local shrine, who tells him:
“There is the sword of Goliath the Philistine whom you slew in the valley
of Elah; it is over there, wrapped in a cloth, behind the ephod. If you want
to take that one, take it, for there is none here but that one.” To this David
replies, “There is none like it; give it to me” (1 Sam. 21:10). The sword is
never mentioned again. It seems unlikely that the weapon would have been
relocated from Elah, where David defeated Goliath, to Nob/Gob, where
Elhanan killed Goliath. As Stanley Isser contends in his book, The Sword of
Goliath: “If Elhanan killed Goliath in a battle near Nob and dedicated the
defeated warrior’s sword at the local shrine, it would explain the tradition of
the sword being kept behind the ephod by the priests of Nob, conveniently for
David.”22 Isser speculates that David’s proclamation, “There is none like it,”
could be an allusion to folklore missing from the biblical account. Perhaps the
sword, like Excalibur of Arthurian legend, had magical powers that empow-
ered its owner to perform heroic deeds, made its possessor king, or protected
the person who held it.23
28 Chapter 2

Another factor pointing to Elhanan as the original slayer of Goliath is

the aforementioned reference to weaving. The Hebrew of the verse can be
read to mean that Elhanan’s spear, not Goliath’s, is like a weaver’s beam:
“Elhanan the son of Ja’are [of the] oregim [weavers] the Bethlehemite, killed
Goliath the Gittite, whose spear [Elhanan’s] was like a weaver’s beam.”24 The
weaver’s beam analogy appears again in 1 Chronicles 20:5, where Goliath
is replaced by Lahmi, as well as in the story of David of Goliath, where the
weaver’s beam-like spear is part of Goliath’s arsenal (1 Sam. 17:7). It could
therefore be that familiar elements of the Elhanan legend—a giant named
Goliath, the sword of Goliath, and the weaver’s beam—all migrated into
David’s story.
An interesting consequence of this mashup is that Goliath’s name is men-
tioned only twice in the account of David and Goliath, in 1 Samuel 17:4 and
23—the latter being an “awkward interpolation.”25 Otherwise, he is simply
called “the Philistine,” suggesting that he was originally anonymous before
receiving the name from Elhanan’s legend.26 Moreover, David’s Goliath
is not explicitly called a giant (Raphah) as he is in Elhanan’s verse, but
is instead described as a “champion” of large stature, great strength, and
advanced training.
To further complicate matters, two versions of the biblical story have been
handed down: one in Hebrew (Masoretic) and one in Greek (Septuagint). The
considerably shorter (and less problematic27) Greek translation may preserve
an earlier iteration of the text, despite being translated relatively late (second
century BCE).28 Among the plot points present in the Hebrew but absent from
the Greek are: 1 Samuel 17:12–31, which mentions Jesse and his eight sons,
has Goliath repeating his challenge for forty days, and describes David’s
interactions with his three brothers on the battlefield; and much of the after-
math of the slaying told in 17:55–18:30, including David’s (re)introduction to
King Saul, his fast friendship with Saul’s son Jonathan, David’s lyre-playing
for Saul (recalling 1 Sam. 16:23), Saul’s growing suspicion of David, and
the reiteration that Saul had lost divine favor (recalling 1 Sam. 16:14).29 Two
primary models are used to explain the origins of the longer-form Hebrew
rendition: the supplementary parts were either brought in from a preexisting,
alternative, independent story; or the additions resulted from a calculated
“re-composition” or “rewriting” on the part of the Hebrew author.
As an addendum to the latter model, Anneli Aejmelaeus, professor emerita
at the University of Helsinki, suggests that the added elements reflect a
“midrashic process,” wherein “scriptural parallels, reminiscences, or allu-
sions” to scenes and themes from David’s life were inserted to both flesh
out the story and better place it in the continuity of the Davidic saga (and
the Bible more generally).30 While both the Greek and Hebrew versions fol-
low the same basic outline, the Hebrew repeats some key details from the
 Source Materials 29

previous chapter (1 Sam. 16), such as introducing David and his family as
new characters and introducing young David to King Saul. These redundant
aspects help ground the David and Goliath duel in the period of “young
David,” reminding the reader that he is still a small, pure, overlooked, and
physically weak shepherd when he faces the Philistine—attributes not as
clearly portrayed in the Greek version.
Other details unique to the Hebrew account similarly emphasize David’s
youth and disadvantaged position. For example, his eldest brother scolds
him for being on the battlefield (“manly” turf) and asking naïve questions (1
Sam. 17:26–29), David is swordless, and a stone from his simple sling kills
the Philistine (1 Sam. 17:50—“Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with
a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was
no sword in David’s hand”). In the Greek telling, David goes directly to Saul
without first mingling with the Israelite soldiers or upstaging his older broth-
ers; he merely topples Goliath with the stone; and he kills the champion by
beheading him (possibly with David’s own sword)—all of which imply an
older and more seasoned soldier.
Performance critics would add that the Hebrew rendition was but one ver-
sion among many. Oral recitation remained the primary mode of storytelling
in the Ancient Near East, even after story variants were committed to writ-
ing. In this sense, the written texts—whether the shorter Greek or longer
Hebrew—are the “fossil remains of living oral performances.”31 Authors in
antiquity selected from oral and written sources, interjected their own ideas,
and composed versions that were subject to change with each telling.32 Their
narratives relied on “gobbets,” or generic markers that functioned as “reg-
isters”33 or aides-mémoires: story patterns, characters, objects, key phrases,
etc.34 Extemporization was more important than memorization; written
accounts served as models or semi-rigid frameworks into which novelties
were introduced.
One Goliath-specific variation concerns his height. In the Hebrew text, he
is “six cubits and a span tall,” or roughly 9 feet, 9 inches. The Greek text has
him at a more human “four cubits and a span,” or about 6 feet, 9 inches—an
inch shorter than Hall of Fame pitcher Randy Johnson. Intriguingly, while
the longer account is preserved in the oldest-known Hebrew fragments of
1 Samuel (4QSama; mid-first century BCE),35 that source lists Goliath at four
cubits and a span, matching the Greek version. The comparatively modest
stature was also recorded by Romano-Jewish historian Josephus (first century
CE), and occurs in the Lucian Greek recension (third century CE), the
Alexandrinus (fifth century CE), and other early codices.36 Goliath’s size was
likely exaggerated in the oral tradition as the story was recited/performed
for different audiences over time. The amplification of his height also sup-
ports the view that Elhanan’s giant was absorbed into David’s tale: not only
30 Chapter 2

was the anonymous Philistine given the name Goliath, but, like Goliath in
2 Samuel 21:19, he became a Raphah. Moreover, a careful reading of the text
reveals that Saul and his men were intimidated by Goliath’s military training,
not his size per se. When David tells Saul that he wants to fight Goliath, Saul
responds: “You cannot go to that Philistine and fight him; you are a boy and
he has been a warrior from his youth!” (1 Sam. 17:33). Of course, even at
6’9” Goliath would have been an imposing presence. The average Israelite
male was probably around 5 feet tall.37
Archaeologist Jeffrey Chadwick further notes that Goliath’s height of four
cubits and a span roughly corresponds to the width of the gates of Gath, the
remains of which were found at Tell es-Safi (approximately halfway between
Jerusalem and Ashkelon).38 As such, Goliath may have been a metaphorical
personification of the size and strength of Gath’s defensive barrier. Chadwick
speculates: “The ancient writer used a real architectural metric from that time
to describe Goliath’s height, likely to indicate that he was as big and strong
as his city’s walls.”39 Although this theory has yet to catch on, it does resonate
with metaphoricalizing elsewhere in the Bible. For instance, the toppling of
the walls of Jericho by priest-blown horns (shofarot) in Joshua 6:1–27 is most
likely a narrative spin on an earthquake that leveled the city long before the
Israelites’ purported conquest. The power of the sacred horns was conceived
as equal to the force of an earthquake.40
Another much-commented-upon aspect of Goliath is his armor and weap-
onry. Both the Hebrew and Greek texts report (with slight variation): “He
had a bronze helmet on his head, and wore a breastplate of scale armor, a
bronze breastplate weighing five thousand shekels. He had bronze greaves on
his legs, and a bronze javelin slung from his shoulders. . . . [T]he iron head
of his spear weighed six hundred shekels; and the shield-bearer marched in
front of him” (1 Sam. 17:5–7). This eclectic assortment, essentially making
Goliath a “human tank,”41 does not match what is known of Philistine armor.
His headgear is unlike the feathered helmets seen in Egyptian reliefs, his scale
armor is Mesopotamian- or Syrian-style, and his large shield contrasts with
the typically small Philistine shield.42
Azzan Yadin sees Goliath’s panoply as a critique or satire of Greek con-
ventions and Homeric storytelling. The helmet, breastplate, greaves, and
shield-bearer are conventions of Greek culture, as are one-on-one cham-
pionship bouts and the legitimization of a future king through combat. In
contrast, biblical election usually involves divine anointment, angelic/pro-
phetic announcement, birth to a barren mother, or other non-violent means.43
Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein agrees, noting that the “standard [Greek]
hoplite’s accouterments were identical to Goliath’s, consisting of a metal hel-
met, plate armor, metal greaves, two spears, a sword, and a large shield,” and
adding that with “their heavy armor and aggressive tactics, the Greek hoplites
 Source Materials 31

embodied the image of a threatening, arrogant enemy that would have been
all too well known to many Judahites of the late seventh century BCE.”44
Furthermore, the passage’s literary style, with its descriptions of weights and
materials, mirrors Homer’s attention to detail, but is at odds with the Bible’s
more economical narrative style.45 (Erich Auerbach elucidated these stylistic
contrasts in his classic essay, “Odysseus’ Scar.”46)
David and Goliath could also be an intentional reversal of the single com-
bat between Paris and Menelaus, as told in the opening of Book Three of the
Iliad. Paris, the fair, unskilled, and unwarriorlike Trojan prince, precipitates
a war with the Achaeans by stealing the beautiful Helen from her husband,
Menelaus. In a show of mock bravery, Paris challenges to fight any of the
Achaean warriors, but when Menelaus steps forward, Paris shrinks back into
the Trojan ranks. Hector, the leader of the Trojan forces, chastises his brother
Paris for his cowardice. Paris finally agrees to duel Menelaus to decide which
of the men would have Helen as his wife. Paris and Menelaus face off, but
neither is able to drive the other with his spear. After breaking his sword over
Paris’ helmet, Menelaus grabs Paris by the helmet and drags him through
the dirt. The goddess Aphrodite, an ally of the Trojans, snaps the strap of the
helmet, releasing Paris. Menelaus retrieves his spear, but before he can strike
Paris, Aphrodite whisks the prince away. Yadin notes that Paris and David are
characterized in similar ways: young, untrained, and beautiful.47 Yet, unlike
Paris, a feeble challenger whose god facilitates his cowardly escape, David
courageously accepts the challenge from his vastly more experienced oppo-
nent and, fueled by faith, strikes him down.
It is also worth noting that single combat, as described by Homer, was pri-
marily devised to minimize bloodshed. It was a winner-take-all contest: two
representatives fought to the death in place of their armies, and to the win-
ner’s side went the victory. However, instead of surrendering, the Philistines
flee in horror after witnessing David’s triumph (1 Sam. 17:51–53). This break
with convention not only puts an exclamation mark on the surprise of David’s
feat, but also gives the Israelites cause to pursue the Philistines, kill them,
and loot their camp. Aside from adding insult to injury, these actions keep the
Israelite-Philistine war going throughout both books of Samuel.
According to Yadin, the appropriation and subversion of Greek ele-
ments—culminating with the youthful and inexperienced shepherd defeating
the heavily armored Greek-like warrior—were polemical choices reflecting
the growing Greek influence at the time the text was redacted, likely in the
sixth century BCE, rather than the time of David (eleventh century BCE),
with additions and revisions perhaps extending into the fifth century BCE.48
Philistia experienced a national awakening during this period, which involved
a search for non-Semitic roots, an interest in Homeric epics, and a revival
of their kinship with the Greeks on Cyprus. Greek culture was particularly
32 Chapter 2

pronounced in Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, and other Philistine cities.49 Read

in this context, David’s triumph over Goliath was an allegory for Israel’s
struggle against the emerging Greek cultural hegemony, which had taken
hold in Philistia.50
Not everyone agrees with this late dating, with some claiming that Goliath’s
armor, for instance, could have been pieced together during the period of
David.51 Archaeologist Jeffrey R. Zorn proposes that if Goliath is seen as a
chariot warrior rather an infantryman, then “all of his gear matches well with
what might be expected of an Aegean-Levantine chariot warrior of the Iron I
period [1200–1000 BCE].”52 Whatever the case, the story’s composite nature
resonates with the performance criticism view that orally transmitted sto-
ries—even those based on long-extant texts or written outlines—are subject
to accretions and anomalies as they are told and retold in different times and
settings. Stories continuously absorbed ingredients from the local geography,
social conditions, prevailing attitudes, regional folktales, and the like. This
organic process gives rise to collective memory: a reconstruction of the past
with relevance for current audiences, irrespective of the historicity or histori-
cal fidelity of the events recalled.53
The fluidity of storytelling helps explain other anachronisms in the text,
such as when David deposits Goliath’s severed head in Jerusalem, which was
not yet in Israelite hands but was its central city when the Bible version was
likely written. While this act could have been a warning to the Jebusites, who
controlled Jerusalem in David’s time—akin to declaring “You’re next!”54—it
was more probably a later addition. Thus, what the text preserves is a popular
literature blending history and legend, and through which audiences under-
stood their relationship to the past—much in the way that Homeric epics
informed Greek culture.55
An additional possibility not raised by Yadin is a resonance between
Goliath and Polyphemus, the Cyclops in Homer’s Odyssey. Although the cir-
cumstances involving Goliath and Polyphemus—the one-eyed, man-eating,
cave-dwelling giant who traps Odysseus and his men in a cave—differ
greatly, the manner in which they are defeated is worth comparing. In
Homer’s tale, Odysseus tricks Polyphemus into passing out drunk, at which
time the hero and three of his men drive a sharpened olive stake through
the giant’s single eye. When Polyphemus awakens, he shrieks for his broth-
ers who rush to his side and ask who blinded him. Polyphemus replies,
“Nobody,” the clever name Odysseus gave for himself. The next day, the
Greek heroes tie themselves to the bellies of Polyphemus’ sheep. As the sheep
exit the cave for grazing, the blinded Cyclops touches their wooly backs to
be sure the men are not among them. But they had hitched rides underneath
and escaped unnoticed.
 Source Materials 33

Setting other details aside, it seems uncoincidental that both Polyphemus

and Goliath fall as a result of an object striking the middle of their heads:
Polyphemus in his one eye and Goliath on his forehead. Viewing the epi-
sodes in light of the anti-Greek thesis, the Polyphemus-Goliath comparison
enhances David’s position in four ways. First, the mighty and masterful
Odysseus needs assistance from his men, while the young and untrained
David acts alone. Second, whereas Odysseus’ scheme involves forging a
weapon from a large and unwieldy tree, all David requires is a simple sling
and stone. Third, Odysseus and his men merely mutilate their enemy; David
kills his. Fourth and most important from the Bible’s vantage point, David’s
unlikely victory is aided by divine favor, thus proving the superiority of
Israelite over Greek/Philistine culture. These qualities combine to advance
the image of David as the antithesis of the classical Greek hero.
Many Bible stories appropriated themes, characters, and plot elements
from precursor and competing mythologies. As Bernard F. Batto observes in
his book, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition: “Texts
from all periods and the virtually every literary genre reveal that biblical
writers borrowed old myths and extended their meanings in novel ways for
the purpose of expressing new theological insights.”56 Drawing from the
Iliad would be similar to the Flood story’s use of the Epic of Gilgamesh,
Moses’s origin drawing from the birth legend of King Sargon of Akkad (d.
2279 BCE), or traces of the Babylonian deities Ishtar and Marduk in Esther
and Mordecai. In these and many other instances, older myths were appar-
ently extended, reinterpreted, and reformulated to include new cultural and
theological aspects relevant to the biblical agenda.57
The David and Goliath story contains general folkloric elements as well.
These include: the “heroic fairy tale” and “romantic epic” tropes of a young
boy rising from obscurity; an all-important battle between light and dark-
ness; the slaying of an imposing villain; and the hero being rewarded with
a princess (Saul’s daughter).58 Moreover, aspects of the story reflect “rags
to riches” tropes, as summarized by Christopher Booker in The Seven Basic
Plots. David-specific elements are inserted into Booker’s summary in brack-
eted italics:

The Rags to Riches story first introduces us to its hero or heroine in childhood,
or at least at a very young age before they have ventured out on the stage of the
world. [David is introduced as a shepherd of his father’s flock and an attendant
to Saul (1 Sam. 17:12–15).] As yet they are not fully formed, and we are aware
that in some essential way the story is concerned with the process of grow-
ing up. [David leaves the sheep and ventures onto the field of battle (1 Sam.
17:20).] When we first see them in this initial stage, it is always emphasized
how the little hero or heroine are at the bottom of the heap, seemingly inferior
34 Chapter 2

to everyone around them. [David’s oldest brother, Eliab, chastises him for
being on the battlefield (1 Sam. 17:28).] Often they are the youngest child, and
disregarded for being so. [David is the youngest of eight sons and is previously
overlooked by his father (1 Sam. 16:6–12)]. They thus begin in the shadows
cast by more dominant figures around them, who not only can see no merit in
them but are usually deeply antagonistic to them. [David’s three oldest brothers,
Saul, and Goliath.]59

Formulaic numbers are another folkloric feature of the story. Most obvious is
forty, the number of days Goliath calls out for a challenger (1 Sam. 17:16).
In folklore throughout the Ancient Near East, forty is a symbol for “many” or
“a long time.” The Flood is brought on by rain for forty days and forty nights
(Gen. 7:4)—a span repeated in Goliath stepping forward forty mornings and
evenings.60 Moses spends forty days on Mount Sinai with God (Exod. 24:18);
the Israelites sojourn forty years in the wilderness (Num. 14:33); Elijah takes
forty days and nights to walk to Mount Horeb (1 Kgs. 19:8); and so on. There
are also many occurrences of threes: David’s three oldest brothers (1 Sam.
17:13); Goliath’s weapons—sword, spear, and javelin (v. 45); three iterations
of Goliath’s speech (vv. 8–9, 16, 23); three mentions of the opposing camps
(vv. 2–3, 19, 21); and repeating Saul's offering of his daughter three times
(vv. 25, 26–27, 30).61
Viewed with a wider lens, the story is itself one of three seemingly inde-
pendent accounts of David’s entrance into Saul’s court. The first involves the
prophet Samuel visiting Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the future king.
Jesse presents seven of his sons, but all are rejected. Samuel asks if any sons
are missing, to which Jesse replies, “There is still the youngest; he is tend-
ing his flock” (1 Sam. 16:11). Samuel anoints the young shepherd, David,
in the presence of his brothers (v. 12). This scene is immediately followed
by another entrance story. Saul is suffering from intense mental anguish,
described as the divine spirit departing from him. In order to soothe their
king, the courtiers send for a “music therapist” who is skilled at the lyre.
That musician is David, whom Saul keeps in his court to play whenever the
“[evil] spirit of the Lord came upon him” (1 Sam. 16:23). David’s bout with
Goliath is a third entrance story. David is introduced to King Saul as if they
had never met before: “Saul said to him, ‘Whose son are you, my boy?’ And
David answered, ‘The son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite’” (1 Sam.
17:58). Readers and commentators have struggled to reconcile these stories.
Raymond-Jean Frontain and Jan Wojcik ask in their book, The David Myth
in Western Literature:

[D]id Saul first meet David only after he had killed Goliath, as is implied in
1 Samuel 17:55–56, or had he known him previously as the harpist who was
 Source Materials 35

sent to cure him of his evil spirit? And why does he seem unaware of Samuel’s
anointing the boy? Surely news like that would have spread quickly through all
Israel, despite whatever precautions Samuel might have taken.62

Did the author(s) or editor(s) include all three because they were uncertain
about what actually happened?63 Or were these three chosen from many other
folk traditions of David’s rise? In either case, why three? Booker observes
that many legends and fables include three as a “trigger for something impor-
tant to happen” or as a “number of growth and transformation.”64 As in the
Davidic narrative, sequences of three usually begin with a mild scene, con-
tinue with a more dramatic moment, and culminate with a climactic, transfor-
mative event. Booker cites the three treasure caves of Aladdin; three houses in
“The Three Little Pigs”; three wolf encounters in “Little Red Riding Hood”;
three ghostly visitors in A Christmas Carol; three visits to the giant’s castle
in “Jack and the Beanstalk”; and more. “Much as we say ‘Ready, steady, go’
to prepare and concentrate the runners at the start of a race,” Booker writes,
“so the process of three conveys the steady build up to the moment of trans-
formation which enables the hero or heroine to move on to the next stage.”65

AN OPEN STORY

The story of David has been described as an assemblage or patchwork of

larger story arcs, heroic legends, poetry, ancient lists, and prophetic materials
brought together by the Deuteronomist—a scribal “school” that compiled,
revised, edited, and possibly authored portions of the text, with other ele-
ments added later.66 The constituent details, comprising “obligatory, alterna-
tive and optional textual possibilities,”67 were themselves drawn from oral
“tradition pools,”68 including the legend of Elhanan, and affixed to a basic
outline. As times and circumstances changed, the elements were updated,
adjusted, and amended to speak to specific audiences, such as seventh- or
sixth-century BCE auditors/readers, who were hundreds of years removed
from the story’s setting. As such, the Greek and Hebrew accounts of David
and Goliath should be seen as two versions in a long and ever-morphing
stream of oral-written tradition, which both predates and extends far beyond
the biblical text—even into modern popular culture. Indeed, David’s story is
often held up as an example of how stories can “stretch.”69
Long before the legend of David and Goliath was a text proper (writ-
ten down and standardized), it was already an “open text”: a vessel into
which storytellers, writers, and interpreters could “pour their developing
concepts and formulations.”70 This is the essential meaning and method of
midrash, the multifaceted rabbinic exegetical process of rereading, reshaping,
36 Chapter 2

reinterpreting, fleshing out, relevantizing, elaborating, and drawing connec-

tions to the fixed text that was itself, in many instances, the product of a
similar creative process.
In Midrash Aggadah, a corpus of classical Jewish texts compiled between
around 200 and 1000 CE, a biblical word or verse is used as a starting point
for embellishments and expansions. One such augmentation has Goliath
appearing “morning and evening,” when the Israelites customarily recited
Shema (affirmation of faith), causing them to forgo the prayer.71 Another
builds Goliath into a blasphemer: “When David looked at Goliath and saw
that he was a mighty man armed with all kinds of weapons, he said, ‘Who
can prevail against such as he?’ But when David saw him reviling and blas-
pheming, he said: ‘Now I shall prevail against him, for there is no fear of God
in him.’”72 Another story states that, when Goliath fell, an angel pressed his
face into the ground, thus choking the mouth that had blasphemed God.73 The
same story imagines David casting an evil eye on Goliath, thereby afflicting
the giant with leprosy and rooting him into the ground.74
Islamic lore contends that many men claimed to have killed Goliath in
order to marry Saul’s daughter. Some brought Goliath’s weapons and some
brought body parts, but King Saul announced that the real victor was David,
who presented the giant’s head. Another commentary tells of David finding
three stones (another iteration of three), each of them begging to be the one
used to kill Goliath. A different source connects the three stones to the three
patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.75
Broadly speaking, midrash involves the rereading of old texts for new
times. Far from an isolated or ancient practice, this mode of engagement is an
ongoing, perpetual process. The biblical account—itself a post-exilic recount-
ing of earlier legends—bears considerable evidence of adaptation, updating,
and retooling. Rabbinic and Islamic commentaries elaborated on themes and
introduced new ones. The process continued through the medieval, early
modern, and modern periods, and has manifested across different formats:
religious texts, storybooks, children’s Bibles, comic books, television, film,
music, stage plays, and so on. Most post-biblical iterations and interpreta-
tions gravitate to the underdog theme. However, a few take a postmodern
approach, questioning the story’s black-and-white assertions and asking,
What if Goliath wasn’t such a bad guy?

NOTES

1. James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms

(Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994), 123.
2. b. Pesachim 117a.
 Source Materials 37

3. 11Q5 col. 27. John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed.
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014), 156.
4. Jonathan Kirsch, King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel (New
York: Ballantine, 2000), 58.
5. Joel Baden, The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (New York:
HarperOne, 2014).
6. David Wolpe, David: The Divided Heart (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2014).
7. Jonathan L. Friedmann, “Who Was Naamah? Insights from Robert Crumb’s
The Book of Genesis Illustrated,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 31:2
(2019): 167–76.
8. Jon D. Levenson, “Genesis,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and
Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19.
9. Robert D. Miller II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel (Eugene, OR: Cascade,
2011), 81.
10. Walter E. Stephens, “‘De Historia Gigantum’: Theological Anthropology
before Rabelais,” Traditio 40 (1984): 52.
11. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 23.
12. b. Niddah 61a; Yalqut Reubeni on Genesis 7:7.
13. Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:25.
14. Midrash Tehillim 136:11.
15. b. Berakhot 54a–b.
16. Daniel M. Gurtner and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, T&T Clark Encyclopedia of
Second Temple Judaism Volume One (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 165–69.
17. Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, ed., Dictionary of Judaism in the
Biblical Period, 450 B.C.E to 600 C.E., Volume 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1996), 251.
18. See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1997).
19. Joel M. Hoffman, The Bible Doesn’t Say That: 40 Biblical Mistranslations,
Misconceptions, and Other Misunderstandings (New York: Macmillan, 2016), 45–46;
Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 150–51.
20. Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Second Samuel,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele
Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 659.
21. Azzan Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israel’s Collective Memory,” Vetus
Testamentum 54:3 (2004): 376.
22. Stanley Isser, The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature (Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 35.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., 376–77.
25. Ibid., 376.
26. Shimon Bar-Efrat, “First Samuel,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin
and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 593.
27. See Benjamin J. M. Johnson, Reading David and Goliath in Greek and
Hebrew: A Literary Approach (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015); and Dominique
38 Chapter 2

Barthélemy, David W. Gooding, Emanuel Tov, and Johan Lust, The Story of David
and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (Fribourg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1986).
28. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Rewriting David and Goliath?,” in From Scribal Error
to Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could Not Be Changed, ed. Anneli
Aejmelaeus, Drew Longacre, and Natia Mirotadze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2020), 166.
29. Ibid., 165–80.
30. Ibid., 174, 178–79.
31. David Rhoads, “The Art of Translating for Oral Performance,” in Translating
Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies, ed. Ernst
Wendland (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 28.
32. Miller II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel, 121.
33. John Miles Foley, The Singer of Tales in Performance: Voices in Performance
and Text (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 50.
34. Miller II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel, 37.
35. See Benjamin J. M. Johnson, “Reconsidering 4QSama and the Textual Support
for the Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story,” Vetus Testamentum
62:4 (2012): 534–49.
36. See J. Daniel Hays, “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 48:4 (2005): 701–14.
37. Ibid., 710.
38. Bruce Bower, “The Biblical Giant Goliath May Not Have Been So Giant
After All,” Science News, November 23, 2020, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/
bible-warrior-goliath-david-not-giant-height-gath.
39. Ibid.
40. See Jonathan L. Friedmann, “The Fall of Jericho as Earthquake Myth,” Jewish
Bible Quarterly 48:3 (2020): 171–78.
41. Joan Comay, The Hebrew Kings (New York: William Morrow, 1977), 21.
42. K. Galling, “Goliath und seine Rüstung,” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1966): 150–
69; Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israel’s Collective Memory,” 376.
43. Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,” 379–80. See also
Israel Finkelstein, “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective,”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27:2 (2002): 127–67.
44. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon (New York:
Free Press, 2006), 197, 198.
45. Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,” 392.
46. “Odysseus’ Scar” is the first chapter in Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The
Representation of Reality in Western Culture, trans. W. R. Trask (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1953).
47. Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,” 389.
48. Ibid., 382; Isser, The Sword of Goliath, 99.
49. Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory,” 382.
50. Ibid., 385.
 Source Materials 39

51. See, for instance, James K. Hoffmeier, “David’s Triumph Over Goliath: 1
Samuel 17:54 and Ancient Near Eastern Analogues,” in Egypt, Canaan and Israel:
History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature, ed. S. Bar, D. Kahn, and J. J. Shirley
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 87–114; Philip J. King, “David Defeats Goliath,” in “Up
to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern
Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. Sidnie White Crawford and Amnon
Ben-Tor (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 350–57; Alan R. Millard,
“The Armor of Goliath,” in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of
Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. David Schloen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009),
337–43; and Moshe Garsiel, “The Valley of Elah Battle and the Duel of David with
Goliath: Between History and Artistic Theological Historiography,” in Biblical and
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, ed. Gershon Galil, Mark
Geller, and Alan Millard (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 391–426.
52. Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot
Warrior,” BASOR 360 (2010): 1.
53. Ibid., 386.
54. Hoffmeier, “David’s Triumph Over Goliath,” 108.
55. Isser, The Sword of Goliath, 44–45, 182–83.
56. Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition
(Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992), 1.
57. For more on interactions between the Bible and other mythologies, see
Northrop Frye and Jay Macpherson, Biblical and Classical Myths: The Mythological
Framework of Western Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004); Dexter
E. Callender Jr., ed., Myth and Scripture: Contemporary Perspectives on Religion,
Language, and Imagination (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014);
Bruce Louden, Greek Myth and the Bible (New York: Routledge, 2018).
58. See Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath,”41–47, for an application of V.
Propp’s Morphology of the Folklore (1968).
59. Christopher Booker, The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories (New York:
Bloomsbury, 2004), 54.
60. See Aron Pinker, “The Number 40 in the Bible,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 22:3
(1994): 163–72.
61. Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath,”47–48.
62. Raymond-Jean Frontain and Jan Wojcik, ed., The David Myth in Western
Literature (Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1980), 9.
63. Kirsch, King David, 58.
64. Booker, The Seven Basic Plots, 231.
65. Ibid.
66. Isser, The Sword of Goliath, 3–4.
67. Honko, “The Quest for Oral Text,” Folklore Fellows Newsletter 12 (1996): 1, 6.
68. Miller II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel, 38.
69. Frontain and Wojcik, The David Myth in Western Literature, 9.
70. Steven Bowman, “Sefer Yosippon: History and Midrash,” in The Midrashic
Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, ed. Michael Fishbane (New
York: State University of New York Press, 2012), 284.
40 Chapter 2

71. b. Sotah 42b.

72. Midrash Tehillim 36:2.
73. Vayikra Rabbah 10:7.
74. Ibid., 21:2.
75. Abraham I. Katsh, Judaism and the Koran: Biblical and Talmudic Backgrounds
of the Koran and Its Commentaries (New York: Perpetua, 1962), 170.
 3.‌‌

Xena’s Goliath
Grieving Avenger

The action-adventure supernatural fantasy series Xena: Warrior Princess

aired in first-run syndication from 1995 to 2001. Set in “a time of ancient
gods, warlords, and kings,” the show’s 134 episodes are a dizzying pastiche
of ancient cultures, world mythologies, and sundry belief systems. Xena, a
reformed evil warrior princess, and her young sidekick, Gabrielle, encounter
powerful beings and sacred symbols from various regions, time periods,
theologies, and mythologies, often entering well-known stories and interact-
ing with their legendary characters. The series plays on the audience’s “ste-
reotypical collective memory.”1 Familiar figures from myth and history are
thrown into the mix; but it is their Hollywood or cartoon iterations, not their
literary or scholarly versions, that appear in the anachronistic and anatopistic
landscape. Science fiction author and editor Gardner Dozois is not alone in
raising concerns about this feature of the series:

I sometimes worry that watching Xena—supposedly from Greece—meet Julius

Caesar or point out the direction of the Inn of Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph
will really screw up the next generation’s sense of history, but friends assure me
that only outdated dinosaurs like me are concerned about historical accuracy;
this is postmodernism, where everything is supposed to be jumbled together in
a bouillabaisse, the more eclectic the mix the better.2

Xena plays on American viewers’ vague recollections and simplistic under-

standings of world history and mythology: Romans are arrogant and orgiastic
imperialists; East Asians are wise and inventive martial artists; Israelites are
zealous adherents of a single god; and so on. Yet it also subverts and decon-
structs these clichés, often with a feminist twist. For example, in “The Debt,”
a two-part story from season three, Lao Ma, wife of Lao Tzu, is revealed as
the actual author of the Tao Te Ching.3 Xena herself plays a pivotal, though

41
42 Chapter 3

unrecorded, role in an assortment of fables and world events, such as the

Persian Wars, the fall of Troy, and, as we shall see, the battle of David and
Goliath. The series suggests that her involvement, like Lao Ma’s, was erased
from the patriarchal record—an obvious commentary on how real-life women
are frequently overlooked by androcentric storytellers and history writers.
Additionally, throughout the show, Xena effortlessly defeats male opponents
in combat, many of them legendary warriors and supernatural beings. Lao
Ma, a mighty woman, is among the few who can overpower her. Another
female-centric aspect is the complex and caring relationship between the
chief protagonists, Xena and Gabrielle, which fans refer to as “the subtext”:
an implied, but never explicitly shown, lesbian relationship. Lucy Lawless
(Xena) admitted thinking of her co-star Renee O’Conner (Gabrielle) as her
“screen wife.”4
Xena’s ahistorical reenactments can be compared to aggadic midrashim:
rabbinic legends that fill gaps in biblical narratives, sometimes with wildly
creative results. These excursions and embellishments are, in some sense,
a continuation of the oral-literary culture that gave rise to the Bible itself.
From a performance-criticism point of view, rabbinic expansions recognize
that what is preserved in the Bible is but a remnant of a larger, freer storytell-
ing tradition.5 The comparison between Xena and midrash is explored later
in this chapter. For now, it will suffice to highlight that midrash, like Xena,
tends to play loosely with temporal and physical space. Aggadists (rabbbinic
storytellers) regularly present scriptural characters and situations in contem-
porary terms, bringing them into the “narrative present,” thereby mediating
current events through biblical archetypes.6 The Passover seder, for instance,
is framed as a reenactment of the biblical myth: “In each and every genera-
tion, each person is obligated to look upon themselves as if they participated
in the Exodus from Egypt.”7 Xena’s journeys similarly invite viewers to
“relive” ancient stories as they unfold—all through a presentist prism of
“postmodern camp.”8
Midrashim are also Xena-esque in their general disregard for chrono-
logical and geographical constraints. This “midrashic license”9 is evident,
for instance, in the story of Adam composing Psalm 92,10 the Transjordan
kingdom of Edom being synonymous with Rome,11 Moses becoming a pupil
of the second-century Rabbi Akiva,12 and so forth. The mashing up of charac-
ters, locations, and periods gives the impression of unlocking “eternal truths,”
however far-fetched the tale. What was true in Adam’s or Moses’ or Akiva’s
day is still true today, so they might as well inhabit the same expansive time
and place. Xena, too, delivers messages through jumbled-together eras, set-
tings, and cultures—Sumerian, Norse, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Taoist, Greek,
Roman, Israelite, early Christian, and more—though its “eternal truths” are
innocuously presented as escapist entertainment.
 Xena’s Goliath 43

The Israelites appear most prominently in the second season episode,

“The Giant Killer,” written by Terence Winter and directed by Gary Jones.13
Loosely based on the biblical account, the Israelites believe that the One God
gave them the land of Israel, much of which has been lost to the Philistines.
In the episode, which explores Xena’s hidden role in the duel between David
and Goliath, David acknowledges the mixed-mythic setting, declaring his god
“greater than Zeus, Ares, all the lesser gods put together.” Most importantly,
the episode affords us a second look at Goliath, a character given short shrift
and a quick death in the Bible. Xena’s Goliath is fully formed: loyal, deter-
mined, tormented, remorseful, resolute, conflicted, virtuous, misguided. An
old friend of Xena’s, Goliath joins the Philistine army in order to track down
Gareth, a vile giant who murdered Goliath’s family ten years earlier. This puts
the grieving colossus on the wrong side of the Israelite-Philistine conflict and,
regretfully, Xena must help David stop him.
This chapter begins with an episode summary and analysis, followed by a
look at Xena as midrash, a comparison to other filmic depictions of Goliath,
and an appreciation of the episode’s emotional realism. Tellingly, it took a
series known for “good cheesy fun”14 to shrug off the restraints of biblical
literalism and “historical accuracy,” and give us a sympathetic Goliath.

“THE GIANT KILLER”

Because “The Giant Killer” draws so heavily and departs so interestingly

from the biblical text, it warrants a scene-by-scene summary with comments
on creative interpretations and divergences. As a richly detailed case study
in biblically inspired entertainment, the episode provides an opportunity to
examine popular culture as midrash under the microscope.
The episode begins with Xena and Gabrielle walking through a valley of
giant bones. Xena assures Gabrielle that it is not a site of some unspeakable
horror, but sacred ground where the giants lay their dead. Ten years earlier,
Xena made a promise to meet Goliath in the valley to “celebrate.” When
Goliath makes his entrance, he stands about ten feet tall—high and massive
enough to frighten Gabrielle. As the episode progresses, he grows taller and
taller, reaching nearly twenty feet in the climactic scene. It is hard to know
if these discrepancies were the result of the show’s “laughably bad” special
effects or an intentional representation of Goliath’s escalating threat. For
comparison, the makers of King Kong (1933) deliberately enlarged the gorilla
from eighteen to twenty-four feet for the concluding scene atop the Empire
State Building.15
Goliath tells Xena of his intention to track down and kill his family’s mur-
derer, Gareth, a cruel and especially large giant. “For the past ten years,” he
44 Chapter 3

confesses, “I’ve had to live with the nightmare of losing my family. The only
dream I’ve had is to kill the man that took them from me.” The Philistine
king Dagon has hired Goliath as a mercenary-protector in their conflict with
the Israelites. (In the Bible, Dagon is the chief Philistine god; here he is their
king. See Jdgs. 16; 1 Sam. 5; 1 Chron. 10.) Goliath explains, “This job will
give me the money to track [Gareth] down,” later adding that Dagon knows
where to find Gareth and will divulge the information once the Israelites are
defeated. Xena and Gabrielle next encounter a group of Philistine soldiers,
led by Dagon, who are holding Israelites captive. The teenage David is
among them.
At the Philistine encampment, we see a lineup of Israelites taken into
custody for being “criminals” and having “weapons,” David’s sling being
the primary evidence. The episode makes no mention of David’s shepherd
days; he is already a soldier in the Israelite army. Still, his possession of the
sling—a shepherd’s tool—points to his earlier occupation. Jonathan, stand-
ing next to David in the lineup, reveals that he is the son of King Saul, to
which Dagon snarks: “You call that petty criminal a king?” Accusations of
criminality aside, there is some truth to Dagon’s comments. Current archaeol-
ogy suggests that Saul, David, and Solomon were more like tribal chieftains
than grandiose kings; whatever “kingdom” they controlled was not nearly as
organized or powerful as the Bible recounts.16
Dagon invites Xena to dinner, where he explains that the Israelites are on
Philistine land and must abide by his rules. Xena counters that the Philistines
seem to be occupiers who have enslaved the Israelites and deprived them
of free will. Dagon replies, “We’re going to bring civilization to the
Israelites. . . . You don’t know the lengths I’ve gone to work with them in a
peaceful way. They just won’t listen to reason. Of course, what should you
expect from people who believe in only one god?” He also insists that the
land “was an unproductive desert when we got there, and now it’s a thriving
area.” On the surface, this comment explains away the fact that the episode,
and the series as a whole, was filmed in the lush lands of New Zealand—a
far cry from the semi-arid biblical locale. On a deeper level, it echoes the kib-
butz movement’s mythology of transforming Israel from swamps to civiliza-
tion. However, it is unclear if this “occupier knows best” ideology is meant
as a critique of modern-day Israel—the Israelites are, after all, the story’s
“good guys”—or perhaps a reference to the historical roots of the Philistines.
“Philistine” probably derives from the Hebrew term peleshet, meaning “roll-
ing” or “migratory,” referring to the Philistines’ origins as a non-Canaanite
people who took up residence in the region.17 Whatever the case, Xena
refuses Dagon’s invitation to join him in the conflict.
Meanwhile, Gabrielle brings food to David and the other Israelite prisoners
locked up in a Philistine dungeon. Gabrielle tells David that Xena will come
 Xena’s Goliath 45

to the Israelites’ rescue. David is suspicious, having only heard accounts of

Xena’s former life as a merciless warlord. He has even composed a song
about her savage escapades. This points to the biblical (and later Jewish,
Christian, and Islamic) tradition of David as a prolific songwriter. It also
recalls the existence of long-lost songs of ancient Israel, such as the Book of
Jashar (Sefer ha-Yashar), which is quoted and mentioned in the Bible, but has
not been discovered (see Josh. 10:12–13 and 2 Sam. 1:17–27).18
A guard uncovers a hole the prisoners have been digging and tells them that
the punishment for trying to escape is death. As David is positioned under
an executioner’s axe in the village square, Gabrielle rushes to him, puts her
neck on his, and yells, “You’ll have to kill the both of us!” “Alright,” Dagon
nonchalantly decrees. Just before the axe reaches Gabrielle’s neck, Xena’s
chakram (throwing disk) knocks it to the side. The prisoners escape, and
Dagon has one of his men sound a decorated shofar (ram’s horn) to summon
Goliath, who watches from behind a tree but decides not to intervene.
The escapees arrive at the Israelite camp on horseback, accompanied by
Xena and Gabrielle. King Saul asks, “What’s all the commotion?” to which
Jonathan replies, “Father, you’re sick, you should be resting”—an allusion to
Saul’s anguished condition (1 Sam. 16). Back at the Philistine camp, Dagon
reprimands Goliath, who resolves to kill Xena in exchange for desperately
needed money and information.
The Israelites learn that the Philistine army is approaching their camp.
Goliath is said to be “at the head of the army” and has already destroyed
two Israelite outposts. Xena proposes “a winner-takes-all contest: Me against
Goliath.” The others are dubious about her ability to defeat such an enormous
combatant. “Every opponent has a weakness,” she explains. “With giants,
it’s here, right above the bridge of the nose. All I need is one clear shot, and
then Goliath will be no more.” This adds a touch of “medical realism” to
the Bible’s assertion that the stone’s effectiveness owed to God’s interven-
tion. “But he’s your friend,” David says. “He’s fighting on the wrong side,”
Xena responds.
The scene cuts to David composing psalms in his room. Gabrielle enters
carrying a bowl of soup. A bard herself, she is infatuated with the young
psalmist. She asks him to share what he is writing. “It’s a record of Jonathan’s
exploits.” “Jonathan?” Gabrielle asks. “What about yours?” “Nobody wants
to hear about me,” David replies. “Jonathan’s going to be our next king.” (In
2 Samuel 1, David sings a song for Jonathan after he dies in battle—a song
reportedly written in the Book of Jashar.) Gabrielle shares a poem she has
been writing about David, extolling his courage on the battlefield, his gentle
nature in his home, his passion in his psalms, and all he would do for his fam-
ily and faith. Gabrielle here assumes the tone and tenor of the biblical narrator
(Deuteronomist), who similarly describes David as “skilled in music . . . a
46 Chapter 3

stalwart fellow and a warrior, sensible in speech, and handsome in appear-

ance, and the Lord is with him” (1 Sam. 16:18). David’s fiancé, Sarah—a
non-biblical character—suddenly enters the room, ruining the romantic atmo-
sphere. Gabrielle leaves the room feeling embarrassed.
Gabrielle finds Xena, deep in thought, looking out over a balcony. Xena
explains that ten years earlier, she and Goliath fought together in a campaign
against Gareth and his army. Goliath was taking his wife and children to
safety when he saw that Xena was surrounded and badly injured. The giant
came to her aid, leaving his family vulnerable to attack. It was then that
Gareth killed them.
We next see the Israelites and Philistines gathered on the field of battle.
“I received your message,” Dagon declares, “and accept your terms.” The
horn is blown for Goliath. As he stands facing Xena, the Philistines break the
agreed-upon rules and launch a surprise attack against the Israelites. Arrows
are shot, horses charge, and foot soldiers follow. Running from Goliath, Xena
throws her chakram, knocking down several Philistines. She slashes a few
others with her sword and throws a sack of salt in Goliath’s face, buying the
Israelites time to flee. Jonathan later dies from his wounds at the Israelite
camp, and Saul cries over him. In the Bible’s chronology, Jonathan does not
die in battle until the end of 1 Samuel, shortly before Saul is killed: “Thus
Saul and his three sons and his arm-bearers, as well as all his men, died
together on that day” (1 Sam. 31:6).
It is clear that the Philistines cannot be defeated with Goliath on their side.
Xena concludes that, now with Jonathan dead, she should not be the one to
slay the giant. “If I kill Goliath and then leave, what do they have left? They
need someone to believe in.” However, Goliath is invulnerable while wearing
his helmet. As Xena works on a plan, David approaches her with the same
realization: “My people need a leader. I can’t let you kill Goliath. I have to
be the one.” With this, David becomes the episode’s “stand-in” hero, stepping
into his biblical image.
The night before the second round of single combat, Xena meets Goliath in
the valley of bones. She makes a final plea: “Do you think your wife would
want you to hurt innocent people to avenge her?” Goliath pushes back tears,
“No, she wouldn’t. She was peace-loving and forgiving. And now she’s dead!
These innocent people of yours stand between me and Gareth. And if you
stand with them, you’ll be my main target. I’m sorry.” Xena replies somberly,
“You were a good friend, Goliath.” “So were you,” he says. “See you on the
battlefield.” In this scene, especially, Goliath’s pain, motivation, and emo-
tional depth expose the shallowness of the Bible’s depiction.
David practices his sling as a worried Gabrielle watches. “This is my best
weapon,” he assures her. “And besides, anything’s possible when you put
your faith in the Lord, Gabrielle.” “This one-god stuff is still a new concept
 Xena’s Goliath 47

for me,” Gabrielle says and shrugs. David explains that the Israelite god is
greater than all the other gods combined, and serves as a caretaker of the
world—like a shepherd. Whether or not this quasi-proselytizing is intended
as the writer’s own affirmation of biblical monotheism, as some have sug-
gested,19 David’s monologue is consistent with his scriptural statements.
David then shares a song he has been composing, which happens to be Psalm
23: “The Lord is my shepherd; I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in
green pastures; He leads me to still waters . . .” There is a long history of
interpreting biblical psalms, and especially the seventy-three attributed to
David, in light of David’s life story. Thirteen Davidic psalm headings allude
to specific incidents, such as Psalm 51: “A psalm of David, when Nathan the
prophet came to him after he had come to Bathsheba.”20 Psalm 23 does not
provide a specific context, but reading it in connection to David’s encounter
with Goliath is conventional. As Justin Z. DuBose, a pastor and U.S. Army
Reserves chaplain, states, “Everyone knows Psalm 23 and 1 Samuel 17 is
about David and Goliath.”21
This sets the scene for the duel between David and Goliath. Unlike the bib-
lical bout, which finishes almost as soon as it begins, this version has Goliath
swinging his sword and missing David several times. David misfires his sling
twice, once hitting Goliath’s heavily armored chest and once sending a stone
over the giant’s head. When the clouds open and the sun’s rays poke through,
Xena shouts, “Now!” Israelite soldiers raise their metal shields to reflect light
onto Goliath’s face, causing him to remove his reflective helmet. David slings
a perfect shot at Goliath’s exposed forehead, knocking him to the ground.
The Israelites attack the stunned Philistines as the fleeing Dagon yells: “This
is far from over!” Xena comes to the side of the dying Goliath, who is not
decapitated, and comforts him as he takes his final breaths.

XENA AS MIDRASH

“No Bible myths or icons were reportedly mangled during the production of
this motion picture.” So reads the tongue-in-cheek disclaimer during the end
credits of “The Giant Killer.” Each episode of the series features a humorous
disclaimer referencing some aspect of the story. For instance, the first season
episode “Altared States,”22 a spin on the Binding of Isaac from Genesis 22
in which Anteus (Abraham) is manipulated by his god-imitating son Mael
(Ishmael) to sacrifice his other son Ikus (Isaac), states: “No Unrelenting or
Severely Punishing Deities were harmed during the production of this motion
picture.” Humor aside, the disclaimer accompanying “The Giant Killer” is
arguably applicable to all forms of midrash: the Jewish practice of elaborat-
ing on the fixed biblical text to fill lacunae or resolve contradictions in the
48 Chapter 3

source material, develop or introduce characters, reaffirm or invent motiva-

tions, enhance emotional or dramatic content, and draw attention to latent
ideas of a text.
Rabbinic commentators were careful to retain the key plot points and nar-
rative framework of biblical tales, but at the same time allowed their imagi-
nations to run wild. Aspects of “The Giant Killer” are consistent with the
midrashic approach: adding characters (Sarah, Dagon, Xena, and Gabrielle);
building dramatic tension (taking the Israelites prisoner; two rounds of single
combat; elongating the bout between David and Goliath); deepening char-
acterizations (David practicing his sling and writing poetry; exploring the
Philistines’ motivations; Goliath’s backstory); and so on. Some elements are
glaringly out of sync with the Bible, most notably Jonathan’s early death and
the story’s compressed time frame. In place of Goliath’s forty-day challenge
is a story spanning just a few days, as evidenced by a wound above David’s
eye that stays fresh throughout the episode. Still, the Bible tale remains mostly
intact: Philistines square off against the Israelites; David duels Goliath; David
wins; the Philistines flee; David emerges as a heroic leader.
This mode of creative interpretation, whether classical or contemporary, in
no way threatens the sanctity or overall structure of the fixed scripture, thus
confirming Xena’s assertion that no biblical legend is irreparably “mangled”
in the process. The comments of William Sharlin, a leading twentieth-century
American cantor, are particularly relevant to Xena. Sharlin highlights how
“playful” midrashic excursions work to preserve the “serious” scriptural text,
of which the rabbis obsessively controlled “every word and every syllable”:

Throughout the evolution of our tradition there have always existed two oppo-
site streams flowing through our religious life. One is the sacred word; the other
is the “play” on the sacred word. The sacred word—the stable stream—can be
described as fixed, untouchable, unchanging, rigid, static. On the other hand, the
stream of the “play on words” can be described as free, creative, ever changing,
dynamic. These two opposing streams of the static and dynamic, coexisting,
and interplaying with each other, have served as the perfectly balanced ingre-
dients to support the process of preservation. The unchanging fixed word is the
anchor—the free play element embellishes and stimulates the fixed word, but
does so without tampering with it or modifying its original substance.23

Such exegeses serve to relevantize the Bible for the lives and circumstances
of later readers. Indeed, midrashim are central to Jewish culture and tradi-
tionalism because they enhance and extend the Bible’s wisdom and message;
they are a practical enactment of the desire for textual relevance. Ithamar
Gruenwald calls this the “midrashic condition,” or a “mental attitude or
disposition in which the interpretative attention expressed entails more than
 Xena’s Goliath 49

a concern for lexicological or plain-sense meaning of a text or piece of infor-

mation. What really matters . . . is not the mere act of understanding texts, but
the creation of the meaning that is attached to them.”24
For the writer of “The Giant Killer,” Terence Winter, the updated story of
David and Goliath serves three main functions. The first is the “retrieval”
of Xena’s participation in the duel. According to the episode, the real credit
goes to Xena, who not only orchestrated David’s victory, but also used it as a
means to propel David to leadership. This “correction” resonates with efforts
of feminist Bible critics to recover lost roles and identities of biblical women,
who were habitually minimized or written out of the patriarchal text.25 As
showrunner R. J. Stewart half-joked, “We were correcting the impression that
centuries of sexism has created by taking credit away from Xena and giving it
to all these pretender males.”26 Replace “Xena” with “women” and the show’s
feminist colors become obvious.
While certainly not commonplace, classical midrashim contain a few
examples of unrecorded women’s voices playing a crucial behind-the-scene
role. Most prominent is the rabbis’ treatment of Serah bat Asher, a name
that appears twice in the Torah: first in the list of seventy Israelites who go
to Egypt in Jacob’s time (Gen. 46:17), and again in a census of Israelites
who flee Egypt (Num. 26:46; 1 Chron. 7:30). These references, separated
by many generations, inspired stories of Serah as an eternal repository of
folk wisdom, unwritten history, and “family secrets.” In one midrash, Serah
informs Jacob that his son Joseph is still alive—an act for which she is
rewarded with immortality. She later convinces the Israelites that Moses is
their rightful leader, helps Moses find Joseph’s bones prior to the exodus,
saves the town of Abel of Beth-maacah from being sacked during David’s
reign (the “wise woman” in 2 Sam. 20:14–22), and more.27 Serah’s partici-
pation in these widely scattered events resembles Xena’s involvement with
David and Goliath and other legends retold in the series. She, too, is a driv-
ing force behind tales from different times and places, making her not only a
culture-crossing adventurer but also a de facto immortal. (A trilogy of fantasy
books for young readers by Ruth Tenzer Feldman further explores Serah as a
magical helper in different time periods.28)
A second function is Xena’s role as skeptical participant-observer. Set
against a vaguely Graeco-Roman backdrop, the series’ 134 episodes feature
a hodgepodge of human characters and supernatural beings from an assort-
ment of ancient cultures, belief systems, legends, and myths. Emily McAvan
describes Xena as an “ahistorical play” that maintains an “ironic distance
from the subject matter.”29 Xena navigates this eclectic and pluralistic land-
scape with a healthy skepticism, confronting numerous deities and devoted
adherents, but almost never worshiping at their altars.30 She battles gods
and supernatural beings, outsmarts them, and challenges their authority,
50 Chapter 3

simultaneously affirming their existence and exposing them as vulnerable,

capricious, and even comical. “The Giant Killer” is unusual in this regard,
as the Israelite god is mentioned but ostensibly absent. Although David is a
dedicated, proselytizing monotheist, the holy presence is only vaguely sug-
gested in the strains of a church organ heard as clouds part to reveal the glar-
ing sun; and it is Xena, not God, who directs the soldiers to reflect sunlight
onto Goliath’s face. Even as David insists that divine favor will ensure his
victory, Xena is the one calling the shots. The episode’s skepticism may have
also informed the demotion of Dagon the great god to Dagon the fallible king.
The third function of the episode is humanizing the “other,” as represented
by Goliath. Although the episode upholds the Bible’s view of the Israelites
as good and the Philistines as evil—so as not to “mangle” the myth—Goliath
assumes an independent presence. He is hired by the Philistines but belongs
to a race of giants (perhaps the Rephaim or Nephilim). He does not hate the
Israelites but is tasked with fighting them. His motivation is heartfelt, if mis-
guided, and his capacity for love and friendship are apparent. These added
layers expose the one-sidedness of the original myth. David is still the hero—
although less so than in the triumphalist Book of Samuel—and Goliath’s fall,
while perhaps necessary, becomes unsatisfying. He dies in vain.
In “A Day in the Life,”31 an episode later in the show’s second season,
Xena and Gabrielle learn that Gareth is threatening a village. Xena seizes the
opportunity to actualize Goliath’s quest for revenge. The ever-ingenious hero-
ine devises a kite affixed with a piece of metal (à la Benjamin Franklin) to
“Bring the power of Zeus to Earth.” Xena remarks, “I don’t have a name for
it. But if I can get it into the air, I think we can use it to nail Gareth.” Gareth
is described as the “biggest giant to ever walk the earth” and is every bit the
cruel villain that Goliath seems to be in the biblical account. Xena jumps on
his back, latches on the kite, and goads him to chase her, thus lifting the kite
into the air. As they run through the sacred valley of giant skeletons, Gareth
carelessly crushes bones beneath his feet. He throws one at Xena, she dodges,
and a lightning bolt strikes the kite. While Gareth is being electrocuted to
death, Xena quips, “Goliath says hello.” The satisfaction of witnessing the
fall of Gareth—a violent, oafish, uncaring brute—further humanizes Goliath.
Indeed, the contrast between Gareth and Goliath challenges the biblical
notion of giants as a wholly fearsome and depraved race or species. Their size
is surely intimidating, but they are not all the same.
Xena’s reimagining of Goliath runs contrary to the rabbinic tendency to
romanticize heroes and villainize antagonists. For example, Esau is turned
into the utterly wicked and unredeemable enemy of his twin brother, Jacob,
while David becomes a saint who studies Torah day and night—far removed
from the cunning military leader.32 This apologetic tendency is already pres-
ent in Chronicles, a later retelling of biblical events dating to around the
 Xena’s Goliath 51

third century BCE.33 In Joseph Heller’s novel, God Knows, David complains
that Chronicles is “a prissy white-wash in which the juiciest parts of my life
are discarded as unimportant or unworthy. Therefore, I hate Chronicles. In
Chronicles I am a pious bore, as dull as dishwater and as preachy and insipid
as that self-righteous Joan of Arc, and God knows I was never anything
like that.”34
Midrash conceives of Goliath as a model blasphemer and stand-in for all
who challenge God’s authority. He is of ignoble birth, boasts about slaying
two sons of the high priest Eli, and captures the Ark of the Covenant. He
stands in “arrogant countenance before even God” and has an image of the
deity Dagon engraved on his heart.35 Intriguingly, the Talmud transforms the
giant Ishbi-benob—who attacks David but is killed by his warrior-nephew
Abishai (2 Sam. 21:16–17)—into Goliath’s brother. Recalling Goliath’s mis-
sion in Xena, Ishbi-benob seeks revenge for the death of his brother:

One day David went to hunt with a falcon. Satan came and appeared to him

as a deer. He shot an arrow at the deer, and the arrow did not reach it. Satan
led David to follow the deer until he reached the land of the Philistines. When
Ishbi-benob saw David he said: This is that person who killed Goliath, my
brother. He bound him, doubled him over, and placed him on the ground, and
then he cast him under the beam of an olive press to crush him. A miracle was
performed for him, and the earth opened beneath him so he was not crushed by
the beam.36

The midrashic intent is not to humanize the giants or add nuance to the
one-sided biblical portrayal. After all, villains are also known to seek
revenge. Motivation matters: avenging from a place of love and heartache
(Xena’s Goliath) versus avenging out of hatred (Ishbi-benob). The aggadist
accomplishes two aims with this tale. First, the miraculous opening of the
earth gives further evidence of God’s favor for David—a common feature of
rabbinic lore, which often invents miracles and acts of piety to distract from
the moral lapses and shortcomings of the biblical David. Second, it further
connects Goliath from 1 Samuel 17 and verses about David’s men defeating
four giants in 2 Samuel 21:15–22. By making Ishbi-benob the brother of the
Goliath killed by David—and ignoring Elhanan’s Goliath (2 Sam. 21:19)—
the story removes any lingering doubts about David’s giant-killer status and
his Goliath’s association with the other giants (Rephaim). Further connecting
the narratives, the rabbis identified Orpah, Naomi’s daughter-in-law in the
Book of Ruth, as the mother of all four giants. Unlike Ruth, Naomi’s other
daughter-in-law, who goes off to Bethlehem and marries an Israelite, Orpah
stays in Moab. She is therefore treated unfavorably in rabbinic lore, including
52 Chapter 3

her transformation into the mother of giants and her death for trying to help
Ishbi-benob battle David and Abishai.37
Far from making Goliath likable or even relatable, these and other elabo-
rations double down on his wickedness. Although the Bile characterizes
Goliath’s challenge as defying Israel, “the ranks of the living God” (1 Sam.
17:25–26), he does not ridicule the Israelite deity or declare his devotion to
Dagon. Without a hint of theology, he calls for an Israelite challenger, states
the conditions of the fight, and, when confronted by David, mocks his oppo-
nent’s qualifications. In the few lines he speaks, Goliath professes neither
loyalty to the Philistines nor hatred of the Israelites. In fact, he comes across
more as the “hired gun” of “The Giant Killer” than as the desecrator of rab-
binic lore.

GOLIATH ON FILM

The story of David and Goliath has had numerous small- and silver-screen
adaptations, both as the main subject and as a component of a larger
David-centric saga. Like all iterations—biblical, rabbinic, and beyond—these
contemporary retellings have specific agendas, contexts, and audiences in
mind. For instance, the 1960 Italian-made film David and Goliath (David
e Golia) presents David as a muscular sword-and-sandal champion of lib-
erty, willing to risk his life to defend the downtrodden and uphold the social
order.38 David is a dedicated soldier for a just cause, “skilled but not blood-
thirsty,”39 while the film’s women serve as the moral foundation, steadfastly
supporting their husbands and sons who have gone off to war—even as this
means sacrificing a stable domestic life. Goliath, played by circus giant Aldo
Pedinotti, is a barbaric symbol of oppression whose defeat by a righteous
liberator seems preordained. As Kevin M. McGeough observes in his essay
analyzing David’s masculinity and morality in biblical cinema, “The paral-
lels for post-war middle-class American life in [Bible epics of the era] are not
subtle nor are they intended to be.”40
The Story of David, a three-hour television movie from 1976, had
“realism” as its primary goal.41 More archaeologically informed than its
Hollywood predecessors, the project was advised by David Noel Freedman,
a noted archaeologist, Bible scholar, and one of the first Americans to work
on the Dead Sea Scrolls.42 Its “fact-based” Goliath is a large man, but not a
true giant. Upon Freedman’s suggestion, Goliath speaks an indecipherable
language, described as a dialect of the Sea Peoples (without the benefit of
subtitles). This is meant to convey historical accuracy, but also serves to fur-
ther otherize the already one-dimensional, unrelatable, and only briefly seen
Philistine champion. A touch of rite-of-passage authenticity is added when
 Xena’s Goliath 53

David’s singing voice noticeably drops after killing Goliath, thus signifying
his transition from boyhood to manhood.43 (Many pubescent bar mitzvah
boys can attest to similar vocal changes.)
More recent filmic depictions have come from the evangelical Protestant
world, with predictable goals and messaging. Two independent Christian
films, David and Goliath (2015)44 and David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith
(2016),45 preach to the same choir in slightly different ways. The 2015 movie,
directed by Timothy A. Chey, claims to be “biblically correct,” which, for the
target audience, does not mean biblically accurate (let alone historically accu-
rate), but in accordance with the values and ideology of twenty-first-century
conservative American Christians, especially males.46 Chey explained to The
Christian Post:

I want [the audience] to be moved to tears and increase their faith in the true
and living God. I want them to stop being lukewarm. To make a stand for God.
To slay the demonic giants who beseech us in this life. I want them to leave the
theater and say “I will make a stand for the Lord” and tell those giants “You
come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in
the name of the Lord Almighty, the God.”47

Chey’s version, while indebted to the Book of Samuel, is even more

heavy-handed in emphasizing David’s unshakable faith. When David tries to
convince his fellow Israelites to let him fight Goliath, they tell him that his
devotion to God is no safeguard against the giant. The over-the-top Philistines
wear eyeliner and dark robes, assume maniacal poses, and express their fer-
vor for the god Dagon—all stereotypical allusions to Satanism. Blasphemy
is amplified in Goliath’s taunt, “You coward. You little maggot. You little
weasel. I am God. You are nothing.” Following David’s faith-fueled slaying
of Goliath, his friends profess that they now have faith as well. According to
McGeough, “David’s stance against Goliath here is not just the story of an
underdog standing up to Satan; it represents how an Evangelical man should
not be afraid to stake a public claim of faith and not be afraid that his faith
may separate him from the larger community.”48
David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith, produced by Faith Warrior Productions,
offers an absurdist version of this message. The film largely focuses on David
being trained for battle by the prophet Samuel, who is oddly depicted as a
retired warrior. David begins his drawn-out combat with Goliath wielding
a meteoric-metal sword given to him by Saul. David and Goliath are both
muscle-bound warriors, and their fight sequence “owes more to gladiator
spectacles, wrestling, and mixed martial arts than the book of Samuel.”49
Only when David nears defeat does he produce the sling that kills his adver-
sary. The film’s numerous and violent action sequences are interspersed with
54 Chapter 3

religious lessons. Here, the message is equally about having resolute faith
and reinforcing narrowly defined, conservative ideals of masculinity: build-
ing physical strength, solving problems with violence, and hiding “feminine”
emotions. There is none of the sensitivity, inner conflict, vulnerability, or
emotionality of the biblical David. Again quoting McGeough: “Despite the
arguably homoerotic subtext of half-naked men working out with their oiled
bodies on display, in the context of the community this film is intended for,
these scenes seem to offer athletics as a socially acceptable location of het-
eronormative engagement with other male bodies.”50
It is worth noting that several David films feature the reciting of Psalm 23.
In the 1951 epic David and Bathsheba, Gregory Peck’s King David recounts
his earlier battle with Goliath while reciting the psalm to himself.51 The Bible,
a miniseries broadcast on the History Channel in 2013, has David reciting/
composing Psalm 23 in the lead up to his bout with Goliath.52 In David and
Goliath (2015), David recites the psalm as he walks through the Valley of
Elah. Like David in “The Giant Killer,” these scenes connect Psalm 23 to cir-
cumstances surrounding the battle with Goliath: as the young shepherd walks
through a literal valley, haunted by the shadow of death, he imagines himself
being shepherded to safety by the “Great Shepherd” in the sky. What sets
Xena’s David apart is that no effort is made to connect David to his shepherd
roots. When we meet him, he is already a valued soldier and a close friend
of Jonathan, both of which occur in the Bible after he kills Goliath. This not
only helps condense the David story into a single episode, but also bypasses
the messy relationship between David and Jonathan’s father Saul, which is
nowhere alluded to and would have distracted from the battle-focused plot.
Of all the filmed portrayals of David and Goliath, “The Giant Killer” is
most resonant with King David from 1985, starring Richard Gere in the title
role.53 The film takes a cynical stance on the polarizing issues of religion and
politics. The Philistine king tells David, “In our country madmen are held to
be sacred. Grasp that and perhaps you have grasped the very essence of reli-
gion.” His critique of the Israelites’ unjust treatment of non-Israelites seems
like a veiled criticism of modern Israel, similar to what is implied in Xena.
During his battle with Goliath, David misfires twice—just as he does in “The
Giant Killer.” Later, when God rejects David’s plans for the Holy Temple,
David uses Goliath’s sword to smash a model temple to pieces—a thinly
veiled swipe at organized religion.
“The Giant Killer,” which aired ten years later, continues this cynical
outlook. The 1990s witnessed a shift in American religious life away from
religious “dwelling,” the acceptance of religious authority and organizational
structures, toward spiritual “seeking,” the construction of individualized
belief systems cherry-picked from a range of existing traditions.54 Although
the Xenaverse occupies several mythical realms simultaneously, Xena has
 Xena’s Goliath 55

doubts about them all. Her refusal to adopt any one tradition reflects the era’s
“spiritual-but-not-religious” ethos (which is still very much alive); but instead
of constructing a “do-it-yourself” spirituality, Xena enters ancient myths
as they unfold, usually to challenge authority, do battle with mythological
beings, or act as the moving force behind the scenes, as in “The Giant Killer.”
By the 1990s, too, some academics, notably Israel Finkelstein, were chal-
lenging the existence of a historical David and united monarchy.55 These
scholars came to be known as “minimalists,” as they avoided both the
“neofundamentalist ‘literary’” and “archaeological-harmonistic” presuppo-
sitions that characterized much of biblical scholarship.56 Instead of setting
out to prove the legitimacy of Bible stories, their collective, though largely
independent, efforts “downgrade” ancient Israel to the status of one people
among many.57 Archaeologist William G. Dever, who rejects both the extreme
credulity of fundamentalists and the extreme skepticism of minimalists, nev-
ertheless remarks:

The Hebrew Bible, written by elitists (and propagandists), is an ideal portrait,

not of what people actually believed and practiced, but of what they should have
believed and practiced—and would have, had these theologians, these national-
ist orthodox parties, been in charge. The Hebrew Bible is thus best considered
as a “minority report.” The real report—the more accurate portrait—is the one
that we can and must now derive from information supplied by archaeology.
Sometimes the two sources [archaeology and the Bible] converge, but often
they do not.58

Questions about the reliability of the biblical narrative have led to reevalua-
tions of its theocentric and ethnocentric agendas. Were Israel’s enemies truly
the heartless monsters described in the text? Was the “good versus evil” fram-
ing, which centuries of interpreters took for granted, historically sound? More
specifically for us, were the Philistines really just one-note villains?
Unsurprisingly, the realities were more complex. Some scholars, including
Hermann Michael Niemann of the University of Rostock, view the Bible’s
portrayal of an ongoing Israelite-Philistine war (1 Sam. 4 to 2 Sam. 5) as
the invented product of class envy and Davidic royal ideology. In its place
is a socioeconomic rivalry between contrasting cultures: wealthy coastal
merchants (Philistines) and less affluent hill people (Israelites). As Niemann
writes, “In Mediterranean history the coexistence of rich coastal merchants
with poorer hill people was the rule, and war was the exception.”59 Much
later, “Philistine” became a pejorative for a narrow-minded person devoid of
culture and indifferent to art. This new meaning, which developed in Europe,
creates an additional barrier to appreciating who these ancient people actu-
ally were. Indeed, material evidence of Philistine culture comes largely from
56 Chapter 3

finely wrought and intricately decorated pottery, which communicated the

user’s wealth and sophistication—hardly a sign of an uncouth lot.60
“Philistine” entered the modern vernacular in the late seventeenth century.
Students at German universities called local townspeople (non-students)
“philister,” meaning uncultured, anti-intellectual, and boorish. By the end of
the eighteenth century, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller
had adopted philister as a literary term.61 Matthew Arnold, a British poet
and cultural critic, expounded on the term in his 1883 book, On the Study
of Celtic Literature and On Translating Homer: “On the side of beauty and
taste, vulgarity; on the side of morals and feeling, coarseness; on the side
of mind and spirit, unintelligence—this is Philistinism.”62 In the twentieth
century, Vladimir Nabokov’s essay “Philistines and Philistinism” explained
that “Philistinism implies not only a collection of stock ideas but also the
use of a set of phrases, clichés, banalities expressed in faded words,” adding
that a “true Philistine has nothing but these trivial ideas of which he entirely
consists.”63 These distortions have nothing to do with the actual Philistines
of the biblical world, whose society was just as complex and advanced as
their neighbors, and perhaps even more so. Israel Finkelstein opines, “As
an archaeologist, when I look at the material culture of the Philistines, I see
nothing philistine about the Philistines.”64

EMOTIONAL REALISM

Xena’s siding with the Israelites against the Philistine “occupiers” is con-
sistent with the traditionalist view, although Dagon’s explanation of his
motives—however problematic—gives more justification for their show of
force than the Bible is willing to divulge. The portrayal of the Philistine king
in King David (1985) is similarly nuanced. The main departure is in the epi-
sode’s presentation of Goliath. He remains a humungous, fearsome opponent,
but his actions against the Israelites are not personal; they are a means to an
end. It is his love for his slain family and justified scorn for Gareth, not any
particular feelings about Israel, that put him on the “wrong side.”
To be sure, religious readers have little reason to view Goliath in a favor-
able light. According to their cherished text, he is a wicked, unintelligent,
overgrown encapsulation of all that is wrong with the Philistines. His death
at the hands of David, the anointed one of God, is unequivocally deserved.
Those seeking “historical accuracy” are likewise disinclined to redeem
Goliath in any way. Their interest lies in determining his height, identifying
aspects of his armor, and assessing his weaponry, not the human element.
Secular writers also tend to take the story at face value. Viewing Goliath
through an archetypal lens, the story becomes an underdog tale or a parable
 Xena’s Goliath 57

of “brains over brawn.” Goliath is reduced to the “bully type”: an insecure

antagonist who hides behind an impressive physique but is vulnerable to one
well-placed punch or strike from a sling (literally or figuratively).
In each case, the interpreter is beholden to the biblical bias. However, even
without altering details of the story, one can arrive at a different perspec-
tive. Christopher Booker demonstrates this with a comparison of Samson
and Goliath:

Because we are shown the story of Goliath, the strong man of the Philistines,
from a Jewish point of view, he is presented as an archetypal monster:
immensely strong, boastful, heartless and stupid. Everything about him is dark,
because he is the champion of the other side. But then we come to the story
of Samson, Israel’s own strong man. To his own people, Samson was seen as
nothing but a shining hero, prepared to sacrifice his own life in slaying 3000
Philistines. To the Philistines, however, he would have seemed a heartless and
murderous monster. They would have seen him exactly as the children of Israel
saw the Philistines’ own hero Goliath.65

Booker drives the point home with a parallel from modern times:

[W]e saw a striking echo of this thousands of years later when, at the start of
the twenty-first century, the people of Israel faced a horrifying challenge from
Palestinian suicide bombers. To the Israelites they were nothing but ruthless
terrorists. To the Palestinians they were selfless heroes. But when the great
Jewish hero Samson pulled down the pillars of the hall, to be crushed along
with all the Philistines, what was he himself but the historical equivalent of a
suicide bomber.66

Notwithstanding Booker’s interchangeable use of Israelites and Jews (a much

later designation) and his possible suggestion that Philistines were ancestors
of today’s Palestinians (the names share a linguistic root but they are distinct
people), his observation adds important nuance to the simplistic narrative.
“Hero” and “villain” are subjective categories. As psychologists Scott T.
Allison and George R. Goethals remind us: “Both our scheme or template
for ‘a hero’ and our schema or opinion of the specific person we potentially
see as a hero are flexible. When they sufficiently mesh or match, the person
becomes a hero to the perceiver. Heroism exists on the eyes of beholders.”67
A satirical allusion to the interchangeability of Goliath and Samson occurs
in “Simpsons Bible Stories,” an tenth-season episode of The Simpsons (1999)
written by Tim Long, Larry Doyle, and Matt Selman, and directed by Nancy
Kruse.68 Bart Simpson, playing the part of David, cuts the hair of Goliath II,
son of the famous giant, played by Bart’s nemesis, Nelson. Bart/David scoffs,
“What do you say now, Goliath? Without your precious hair you no longer
58 Chapter 3

possess your fantastic strength.” Nelson/Goliath II replies, “That’s Samson,

you idiot!”
The episode begins with the Simpson family falling asleep in church dur-
ing a sermon. Marge dreams that she and Homer are Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden. Their daughter Lisa dreams that she guides Moses to lead
her schoolmates, the Hebrew slaves, out of Egypt (her wise guidance recalls
that of Xena and Serah bat Asher). Homer dreams of being King Solomon
seeking to resolve a dispute between his coworkers, Lenny and Carl, over the
ownership of a pie.
Ten-year-old Bart dreams that he is King David in “Jerusalem 970 BC.”
Nelson/Goliath II has avenged his father’s death by killing David’s “old-
est friend” Methuselah (Grandpa Simpson). (There are echoes here of
Ishbi-benob’s attempt to avenge Goliath, although likely unintentional.) Bart/
David challenges Nelson/Goliath II to single combat, but loses when he can-
not find any stones to sling. Nelson/Goliath II catapults the king from the
city, picks up the royal crown, places it on his massive finger, and declares
himself king. Meanwhile, Bart/David has landed in a muddy field, where he
meets his classmate Ralph, playing a simple shepherd. “You’re King David,”
Ralph says, “I love you because you kill people.” This casual acknowledg-
ment of David’s blood-soaked heroics could only happen in a spoof of chil-
dren’s programming; Bible cartoons uniformly avoid the subject. Bart/David
tells Ralph to find a new hero, to which he naïvely replies, “I guess it’s up to
Ralph to stop Goliath.” The scene cuts to Ralph’s tombstone and Bart/David
resolutely vowing to defeat the giant.
Bart/David reaches the Tower of Babel, which is strangely located in
Jerusalem. He dodges a whale skeleton thrown from the top floor by a dining
Nelson/Goliath II. There is a human skeleton inside the whale. “Jonah,” Bart/
David laments. “You died the way you lived: inside a whale.” Bart/David
then scales the tower and hurls a lit lantern down Nelson/Goliath II’s throat.
The top of the tower explodes, but Nelson/Goliath II somehow survives. Just
as the giant emerges from the smoke, he is struck by Ralph’s gravestone,
thrown by a resurrected Ralph, and falls from the tower to his death. Much
to Bart/David’s surprise, the Israelites mourn the death of Nelson/Goliath II,
whom they consider Israel’s greatest king: “He built roads, hospitals, librar-
ies.” Bart/David is arrested for “megacide.” As he is being handcuffed, Police
Chief Wiggum scoffs, “Where’s your messiah now?”
Beneath the segment’s silliness are insightful layers. Using the dreamscape
of a below-average Sunday school student, the writers poke fun at how the
general public tends to mix and match Bible references without awareness
of narrative details, chronological placement, or disparate settings. Just as
Bart’s dream conflates Methuselah, Samson, Goliath, David, Jonah, resurrec-
tion, the messiah, Jerusalem, and Babylon (the presumed home of the Tower
 Xena’s Goliath 59

of Babel) as time-and-place-independent biblical signifiers, so too does

Western culture preserve these simplified, largely “disembodied” references.
“Even if sections of the audience are unfamiliar with the Bible,” observes
New Testament scholar Robert J. Myles, “most know to associate the figure
of Jonah with the whale, given the pervasiveness of the image across wider
popular culture.”69 The same goes for Samson’s hair, Methuselah’s advanced
age, the Tower of Babel’s great height, and David and Goliath’s duel.
The segment also interrogates the one-sided nature of the biblical text. After
Bart/David lands in the shepherd’s field, he remarks, “I hope this doesn’t get
into the Bible.” The fact that this embarrassing episode is not in the Bible is,
of course, due to its invention by late-twentieth-century television writers.
However, if such stories did circulate in biblical times, they would have been
rejected in light of the text’s heroic-invincible image of David. Likewise,
the people praising Goliath II as Israel’s greatest ruler clashes with the bibli-
cal (and later Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) view of David as the ideal,
God-anointed king. A subtext of the segment could be that, under real-life
conditions, the populace might not have been so overwhelmingly in awe of
David, a violent monarch whose moral judgment was, at best, inconsistent.
Instead, they might have appreciated a ruler like Goliath II, who built roads,
schools, and libraries. King David failed to build a temple in Jerusalem—a
feat achieved by his son, King Solomon (1 Kgs. 6). David told Solomon, “My
son, I wanted to build a House for the name of the Lord my God. But the word
of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and fought great
battles; you shall not build a House for My name for you have shed much
blood on the earth in My name’” (1 Chron. 22:7–8).
Despite acknowledging David’s shortcomings, biblical propagandists
propped him up and denigrated many of the later kings. But does the text
reflect actual circumstances? For example, Ahab, who ruled the northern
kingdom of Israel from 871 to 852 BCE, is despised in the Bible for alleg-
edly following the counsel of his idolatrous wife Jezebel, daughter of the
king of Tyre (1 Kgs. 16:29–22:40). In reality, Ahab’s devotion to Yahweh, the
Hebrew God, is indicated in the Yahwistic names he gave three of his chil-
dren: sons Johoram and Ahaziah, who became northern kings, and daughter
Athaliah, who became queen of the southern kingdom of Judah. Most signifi-
cantly, Ahab engaged in extensive and highly successful building projects.70
However, because the Books of Kings, like those of Samuel, were written
from a Judean perspective, they generally view the wealthier and more pow-
erful kingdom of Israel with jealousy.71 In their skewed records, the northern
kings are evil and degenerate idolaters, while David is their glowing opposite.
“The Giant Killer” is even more contrarian than The Simpsons, which,
despite making Goliath’s son an effective king, nevertheless puts him in the
body of Nelson, the series’ unrelenting bully. In the Xena episode, Goliath
60 Chapter 3

is on a heroic quest for revenge. It is, in essence, a revenge tragedy: a genre

rooted in Roman drama and re-popularized in Elizabethan and Jacobean the-
ater. The English revival is credited to Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy
(c. 1587), which centers on Hieronimo’s ingenious plot to avenge the murder
of his son. Hieronimo casts himself and the murderers in a play and, while
enacting his role, actually kills them and then himself. Numerous revenge
tragedies followed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, includ-
ing William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus and Hamlet, John Marston’s
Antonio’s Revenge, George Chapman’s Revenge of Bussy d’Ambois, and
Thomas Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy.72 In these stories, as in “The
Giant Killer,” the protagonist’s obsession with revenge leads to his/her own
death, and additional murders occur along the way.73 Goliath is morally blind
to the destructiveness of his quest and, as a result, must die before achieving
his goal. For David and the Israelites, this is a cause for celebration. For Xena
and the viewers, it is the tragic demise of a fundamentally decent giant driven
irrational by grief.
This characterization imbues Goliath with “emotional realism,” a term
coined by Ien Ang in her study of viewers of the 1980s soap opera Dallas.74
Ang wanted to understand the contradiction between the viewers’ judgment
of the series’ believability and the fact that its characters, settings, themes,
and situations bore little resemblance to lived realities. The “truth” of Dallas
and other such shows is emotional, or a “structure of feeling,” rather than
cognitive. Viewers relate to the personalities on the screen, not because they
share similar lifestyles or experiences, but because the characters respond to
events and relate to one another in plausible ways. Dallas fans are fully aware
of the show’s many unrealistic aspects, but the actors and the roles they play
are recognized as utterly human, however exaggerated.
This sort of emotional realism is largely what makes the biblical David
such a compelling figure. Despite the idealized image of a humble shepherd
who matures into a royal composer of psalms, David’s flaws and lapses are
many. As Joel Baden describes in his scholarly biography of David, the cel-
ebrated king is an opportunistic warrior and practitioner of realpolitik who
engages in murder, deceit, bribery, infidelity, and even treason, and yet is also
an exemplar of repentance: “David made mistakes—and suffered the conse-
quences. Everyone can relate to this, which is why the story has had such
an effect on readers over the centuries.”75 In contrast, nothing is revealed of
Goliath’s backstory or inner life; he is basically a cameo villain whose only
purpose seems to be brutalizing opponents. “The Giant Killer” fills the char-
acter’s void with David-like details: he is capable of great violence and prone
to fits of rage, yet is also passionate, caring, tormented, and vulnerable. He
may not be believable in the empirical sense—he is, after all, a mythical giant
 Xena’s Goliath 61

guest starring in a television series about a fictional warrior princess—but he

is emotionally realistic.
It might seem odd that a series known for quirky characters, intentional
camp, and corny dialogue would be among the few efforts to give Goliath
depth. However, it is mainly because Xena: Warrior Princess did not take
itself too seriously that it could gleefully veer into “sacrilegious” territory.
McAvan correctly labels Xena as “myth, religion and history refracted
through a postmodernism more versed in B Grade movies than in clas-
sics.”76 Indeed, if melodramas like Dallas are considered “fantastical and
farfetched,”77 then Xena is hyper-fantastical and ultra-far-fetched. This liber-
ating vantage point provided opportunities to explore familiar myths and leg-
endary figures in imaginative and unimpeded new ways. Beholden to neither
classicists, historians, nor religionists, it was free to shine a sensitive light on
the much-maligned giant.

NOTES

1. Wim Tigges, “‘Forget Me Not’: The Performance of Memory in Xena: Warrior

Princess,” in Performing Memory in Art and Popular Culture, ed. Liedeke Plate and
Anneke Smelik (New York: Routledge, 2013), 171.
2. Gardner Dozois, ed., The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Fifteenth Annual Edition
(New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998), viii.
3. Oley Sassone, dir., “The Debt,” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 3, episode
6, 1997; Oley Sassone, dir., “The Debt II,” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 3, epi-
sode 7, 1997.
4. Lucy Lawless and Renee O’Conner, “Cast of Xena: Warrior Princess,” Fan Expo
Canada, Toronto, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etmATtTyPNE&t=1075s.
5. See Terry Giles and William Doan, “Performance Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible,” Religion Compass 2:3 (2008): 273–86.
6. See Marc Bregman, “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature,” Hebrew Annual
Review 2 (1978): 45–59.
7. Haggadah for Passover.
8. Rikke Schubart, Super Bitches and Action Babes: The Female Hero in Popular
Cinema, 1970–2006 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2007), 238.
9. Bregman, “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature.”
10. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews: Notes to Volumes I and II: From
Creation to the Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1947), 112.
11. Ibid., 272.
12. Jean-Christophe Attias, A Woman Called Moses: A Prophet for Our Time
(London: Verso, 2020), 149.
13. Gary Jones, dir., “The Giant Killer,” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 2, epi-
sode 3, 1996.
14. Dozois, The Year’s Best Science Fiction, viii.
62 Chapter 3

15. George E. Turner, Orville Goldner, and Michael A. Price, The Making of Kong
(New York: Pulp Hero, 2018), 169–70.
16. See, for instance, Lester L. Grabbe, “Iron Age: Tribes to Monarchy,” in The
Oxford Illustrated History of the Holy Land, ed. H. G. M. Williamson and Robert G.
Hoyland (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 33–60.
17. David Abulafia, The Great Sea: Human History of the Mediterranean (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 55.
18. Terry Giles and William J. Doan, Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism
and the Songs of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 25–44.
19. Ivar Kvistad, “Xena’s Double-Edged Sword: Sapphic Love and the Judeo-
Christian Tradition,” Refractory 8:1 (1998): n.p.
20. Other psalms with contextualized Davidic superscriptions are: Pss. 3, 7, 18, 34,
52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 142. See Harry S. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs:
Genre, Tradition, and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1999), 128–62.
21. Justin Z. DuBose, I & II Samuel: A Devotional Look (Morrisville, NC: Lulu,
2013), 31.
22. Michael Levine, dir., “Altared States,” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 1, epi-
sode 19, 1996.
23. William Sharlin, “The Static and Dynamic in Synagogue Song,” in Jewish
Sacred Music and Jewish Identity: Continuity and Fragmentation, ed. Jonathan L.
Friedmann and Brad Stetson (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008), 58.
24. Ithamar Gruenwald, “Midrash and the ‘Midrashic Condition’: Preliminary
Considerations,” in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and
History, ed. Michael Fishbane (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 7.
25. Among many examples of feminist biblical criticism, see Ellen Frankel, The
Five Books of Miriam: A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah (New York: Putnam’s
Sons, 1996).
26. Valerie Estelle Frankel, “Hercules, Xena and Genre: The Methodology Behind
the Mashup,” in The New Peplum: Essays on Sword and Sandal Films and Television
Programs Since the 1990s, ed. Nicholas Diak (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2018), 126.
27. See: Midrash ha-Gadol on Genesis 45:26; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on
Genesis 46:17; Genesis Rabbah 94:9; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 9:18:2.
28. Ruth Tenzer Feldman, Blue Thread (Portland, OR: Ooligan, 2012); The Ninth
Day (Portland, OR: Ooligan, 2013); Seven Stitches (Portland, OR: Ooligan, 2017).
29. Emily McAvan, The Postmodern Sacred: Popular Culture Spirituality in the
Science Fiction, Fantasy and Urban Fantasy Genres (Jefferson, NC: McFarland,
2012), 80.
30. Ibid., 82.
31. Michael Hurst, dir., “A Day in the Life,” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 2,
episode 15, 1997.
32. Joseph Heinemann, “The Nature of the Aggadah,” in Midrash and Literature,
ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1986), 45.
 Xena’s Goliath 63

33. Ming Him Ko, The Levite Singers in Chronicles and Their Stabilising Role
(New York: T&T Clark, 2017), 113.
34. Heller, God Knows, 4.
35. Emil G. Hirsch, “Goliath,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6, ed. Isidore
Singer (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906), 38.
36. b. Sanhedrin 95a.
37. Ibid.
38. Ferdinando Baldi and Richard Pottier, dirs., David e Golia, ANSA, 1960.
39. Kevin M. McGeough, “The Problem with David: Masculinity and Morality in
Biblical Cinema,” Journal of Religion & Film 22:1 (2018): 28.
40. Ibid., 7.
41. David Lowell Rich and Alex Segal, dirs., The Story of David, Columbia
Pictures Television, 1976.
42. McGeough, “The Problem with David,” 5.
43. Ibid., 20.
44. Timothy A. Chey, dir., David and Goliath, RiverRain Productions, 2015.
45. Wallace Brothers, dirs., David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith, Faith Warrior
Productions, 2016.
46. McGeough “The Problem with David,” 10.
47. Stoyan Zaimov, “CP Exclusive: ‘David and Goliath’ Director Assures Big-
Budget Movie Will Be ‘Biblically Correct in Every Way,’” The Christian Post,
April 25, 2014, https://www.christianpost.com/news/cp-exclusive-david-and-goliath-
director-assures-big-budget-movie-will-be-biblically-correct-in-every-way-118614/.
48. McGeough, “The Problem with David,” 31.
49. Ibid., 32.
50. Ibid., 26.
51. Henry King, dir., David and Bathsheba, 20th Century Fox, 1951.
52. Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, dirs., The Bible, Lightworkers Media, 2013.
53. Bruce Beresford, dir., King David, Paramount Pictures, 1985.
54. Robert Wuthnow, After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 3–4.
55. See: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed:
Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New
York: Simon and Shuster, 2001); Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian Schmidt,
eds., The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of
Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); and Israel Finkelstein, “A Great
United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives,” in One God—One
Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, ed. Reinhard G.
Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 3–28.
56. Norman K. Gottwald, “Triumphalist Versus Anti-Triumphalist Versions of
Early Israel,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997): 30.
57. Megan Bishop Moore, Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient
Israel (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 76.
64 Chapter 3

58. William G. Dever, The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: Where
Archaeology and the Bible Intersect (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,
2012), 287.
59. Hermann Michael Niemann, “Neighbors and Foes, Rivals and Kin: Philistines,
Shepheleans, Judeans Between Geography and Economy, History and Theology,”
in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, ed. Ann
E. Killebree and Gunner Lehmann (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature,
2013), 264.
60. Brian R. Doak, Ancient Israel’s Neighbors (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2020), 152.
61. Caitlin Yoshiko Kandil, “How Philistine Became a Dirty Word,” Moment,
February 6, 2014, https://momentmag.com/jewish-word-philistine.
62. Matthew Arnold, On the Study of Celtic Literature and On Translating Homer
(London: MacMillan, 1893), xi.
63. Vladimir Nabokov, “Philistines and Philistinism,” in Lectures on Russian
Literature, ed. Fredson Bowers (Orlando, FL: Harvest, 1981), 310.
64. Israel Finkelstein, quoted in Kandil, “How Philistine Became a Dirty Word.”
65. Booker, The Seven Basic Plots, 584.
66. Ibid.
67. Scott T. Allison and George R. Goethals, Heroes: What They Do and Why We
Need Them (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 196.
68. Nancy Kruse, dir. “Simpsons Bible Stories,” The Simpsons, season 10, epi-
sode 18, 1999.
69. Robert J. Myles, “Biblical Literacy and The Simpsons,” in Rethinking Biblical
Literacy, ed. Katie Edwards (New York: T&T Clark, 2015), 159–60.
70. Siegfried H. Horn, “The Divided Monarchy: The Kingdoms of Judah and
Israel,” in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, ed.
Hershel Shanks (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999), 142.
71. David Bokovy, “Ahab,” Bible Odyssey, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/
people/main-articles/ahab.
72. See the anthology: Thomas Kyd, Thomas Middleton, William Shakespeare,
John Marston, and Henry Chettle, Five Revenge Tragedies: The Spanish Tragedy,
Hamlet, Antonio’s Revenge, The Tragedy of Hoffman, The Revenger’s Tragedy (New
York: Penguin, 2012).
73. Patrick Colm Hogan, Effective Narratology: The Emotional Structure of Stories
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011), 223.
74. Ien Ang, Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination
(London: Methuen, 1985).
75. Ibid., 221.
76. McAvan, The Postmodern Sacred, 80.
77. Royce Mahawatte, George Eliot and the Gothic Novel: Genres, Gender,
Feeling (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2013), 11.
 4.‌‌

Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath

Frail Fighter

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2013 nonfiction bestseller, David and Goliath:

Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, begins with a reassess-
ment of the famous bout. Building on historian Robert Dohrenwend’s obser-
vation that “Goliath had as much chance against David as any Bronze Age
warrior with a sword would have had against an adolescent armed with a .45
automatic pistol,”1 Gladwell argues that Goliath, not David, was the story’s
true underdog: “It is good to be bigger and stronger than your opponent. It
is not so good to be so big and strong that you are a sitting duck for a rock
fired at 150 miles per hour. Goliath didn’t get what he wanted, because he
was too big.”2
This counterintuitive conclusion is consistent with Gladwell’s reputation
as “the greatest contrarian journalist of his generation.”3 Through his pop
psychology bestsellers, top-ranking podcast (Revisionist History), and regular
media appearances, “Gladwellian” takes have transcended the nonfiction silo
to permeate mass culture. His popularization of the “10,000-hour rule,” for
instance, which explains expertise in any skill as 10,000 hours of “deliberate
practice,” is firmly entrenched in the public’s imagination, whether or not it
holds up to scrutiny.4 In a similar way, his persuasive depiction of a disad-
vantaged Goliath is undoubtedly the most widely accessible and potentially
influential of all the sympathetic portrayals. Beyond presenting a nuanced
image of the giant to a wide audience, Gladwell’s Goliath also lends itself
to comparisons to figures in popular entertainment, notably from old horror
films and professional wrestling. These comparisons are explored below.

65
66 Chapter 4

DAVID AS OVERDOG

Gladwell opens David and Goliath with an examination of the biblical bout.
He observes that slings and stones were common tools for shepherds like
David, who used them to fend off predators and protect their flocks.5 David
alludes to this when he explains to King Saul: “Your servant has killed both
lion and bear; and that uncircumcised Philistine will end up like one of them”
(1 Sam. 17:36). In the hands of skilled slingers, stones can be formidable pro-
jectiles. The Israelite leader in Gibeah hand-picked 700 soldiers who “could
sling a stone at a hair and not miss” (Jdgs. 20:16). The Romans had special
tongs for removing stones embedded in soldiers’ bodies. Medieval paint-
ings depict slingers striking birds in mid-flight. Irish slingers could hit coins
tossed high in the air.6 According to archaeologist Baruch Halpern, ancient
slingers were especially effective against infantrymen, whose heavy armor
made them slow-moving targets.7 In Gladwell’s reading, David’s refusal to
wear Saul’s armor owed less to it being oversized and more to it being a
hindrance to his specialized skill.8 David’s confidence, then, was not simply
youthful naivety, misplaced arrogance, or pious certainty. Goliath had virtu-
ally no chance against a weapon that plagued infantry on the battlefield. If a
slinger could shoot down a marching soldier at a great distance, how much
more so when they came face to face? David had the advantage all along.
Gladwell was not the first popular author to make this observation. Joseph
Heller’s novel God Knows (1984), a bitingly satirical and raucously confes-
sional autobiography of the aging King David, imagines what David thought
when he laid eyes on Goliath:

[I]n no other brain but mine did the obvious consideration arise that Goliath
might be successfully met in single combat on conditions different from those
implied in his own preparations for the fray. Frankly, the way I saw it, Goliath
didn’t stand a chance. The poor fucker was a goner. With either hand, every
one of those chosen men of Benjamin could sling stones at a hairbreadth fifty
yards away and never miss. . . . I could blast the pomegranate itself to a splash-
ing pulp just about every time I tried. And the face of Goliath was larger than a
pomegranate. Between the brass of his chest and the brass of his helmet, from
his neck to his hairline, was exposed an area of bare flesh as large as a good-
sized Persian melon.9

The Philistines must have been shocked by how quickly Goliath was toppled;
when they “saw that that their warrior was dead, they ran” (1 Sam. 17:51).
Single combat was usually a violent dance with attacks, defenses, and
counterattacks. But, instead of the usual clanging swords and clashing
shields, “David put his hand into the bag; he took out a stone and slung it. It
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 67

struck the Philistine in the forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he
fell face down on the ground” (1 Sam. 17:49). The fight was over before it
even began. Gladwell quotes Eitan Hirsch, a ballistics expert for the Israeli
Defense Forces: “We find that David could have slung and hit Goliath in a
little more than one second—a time so brief that Goliath would not have
been able to protect himself and during which he would be stationary for all
practical purposes.”10
According to Gladwell, Goliath’s size made his defeat all the more inevita-
ble. Not only was the Philistine champion accustomed to fighting grown sol-
diers—making him especially unprepared for a puny, unarmored, swordless
challenger—but he also likely suffered from acromegaly: a pituitary gland
disorder, usually caused by a benign tumor, which results in the excessive
production of growth hormone. Acromegalics experience abnormal enlarge-
ment of bones of the hands, arms, feet, legs, and head, as well as thickening
of soft tissues of the body, including the heart, lips, and tongue. Deterioration
of mobility, bone thinning, and vision problems (the pituitary tumor com-
presses nerves leading to the eyes) are also common. Goliath’s labored
movement is juxtaposed with David’s spryness: “When the Philistine began
to advance toward him again, David quickly ran up to the battle line to face
the Philistine” (1 Sam. 17:48). Radiologist Stanley Sprecher suggests that
the slung stone entered Goliath’s cranial vault through a thinned frontal bone
that resulted from an enlarged frontal paranasal sinus: “The stone lodged in
Goliath’s enlarged pituitary and caused a pituitary hemorrhage, resulting in
transtentorial herniation and death.”11 Additionally, Goliath insists that David
come closer to him, implying a weakness of vision. When Goliath finally
sees David he yells, “Am I a dog that you come against me with sticks?”
(v. 43)—an odd statement given that David is holding a single stick (v. 40).
Gladwell further asserts that Goliath’s shield-bearer, who walks in front of
him, is essentially his “visual guide.”12 Vladimir Beringer and Chaim Cohen
make the same point in their article, “The Nature of Goliath’s Visual Disorder
and the Actual Role of His Personal Bodyguard,” arguing that the guard car-
ried a shield to mask his real purpose and preserve the giant warrior’s military
reputation.13
It is worth noting, too, that Polyphemus the Cyclops was also visually
impaired. Even before being blinded by Odysseus and his men, Polyphemus
relied on touch more than vision in choosing his human victims, milking
his flock, and repositioning the rock door of his cave.14 Was poor eyesight a
widely known condition of giants?
Extrapolating from the above, Goliath appears to have been an
advanced-stage acromegalic. Increased height associated with the disorder,
known as gigantism, occurs in childhood but stabilizes by adulthood. In
Goliath’s case, he was left with an impressive 6-foot, 9-inch frame (according
68 Chapter 4

to the Greek Septuagint and Qumran scroll). As an adult, abnormal growth

continued in his hands, feet, face, soft tissue, and overall body mass, degrad-
ing his health and agility. When we meet Goliath in 1 Samuel, he is a legend-
ary champion well past his prime. His size and reputation strike fear, but his
eyes are weak, his joints are stiff, and his muscles are aching. He still has
enough strength to dispatch a normal opponent, which explains why no such
challenger emerges from the Israelite camp. But David, who would develop
into a strategic and cunning warrior, sees an opening and exploits it. From a
certain perspective, he cheats his way to victory. It is an undignified, embar-
rassing end for a once-great champion.
In the biblical storyline, Goliath’s death sets David on his meteoric rise to
kingship. Much like the Wild West trope of a younger challenger who shoots
a legendary quick-draw and assumes the title of “fastest gun,” David instantly
becomes a feared champion. This convention is satirized in the Coen brothers’
anthology film, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018). At the end of the film’s
first segment, a young singing cowboy rides into town and politely chal-
lenges Buster Scruggs, an accomplished gunslinger, to a duel. Buster happily
obliges, but learns too late that the young man is an even faster draw. Perhaps
recalling Goliath’s demise, Buster is shot through the forehead. After being
killed, Buster’s spirit sprouts angel wings, floats heavenward, plays a lyre,
and sings a reflective song, “When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings.”
In style, if not in substance, the scene recalls Richard Howard’s poem, “The
Giant on Giant-Killing,” told in Goliath’s voice post-decapitation. In both
cases, afterlife utterances deepen sympathies for these ostensibly villainous
characters. Gladwell’s portrayal of David and Goliath gives a similar impres-
sion. Without seeing Goliath in an overtly positive way, we nevertheless get
the sense that he deserved a better and more honorable death.
Gladwell leaves the literal Goliath behind after the introductory chapter.
He attempts instead to apply lessons from the story to wide-ranging anec-
dotal subjects and, from those, to prove two main points: “much of what we
consider valuable in our world arises out of these kinds of lopsided conflicts,
because the act of facing overwhelming odds produces greatness and beauty”;
and “Giants are not what we think they are. The same qualities that appear
to give them strength are often the source of great weakness.”15 Like many
authors before and since, he sees “giants” as “powerful opponents of any
kind,” and “Davids” as those whose perceived disadvantages are actually a
source of strength, resolve, and creative problem solving.16
Critics have highlighted numerous fallacies and insufficiently supported
claims in Gladwell’s conclusions and methodologies, some of which are
presented in the next section. Following that, we will return to the more
solid and, for our purposes, more relevant aspect of his book: the challenges
faced by real-life giants. Whether or not it was Gladwell’s intention, his
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 69

analysis of Goliath’s hidden vulnerability cuts through the Bible’s nationalistic-

theological agenda to reveal a pitiable character whose size and reputation
forced him to be a warrior even when his body was failing.

GLADWELL AND HIS CRITICS

Malcolm Gladwell was born in 1963 in Fareham, Hampshire, England to a

British mathematics professor father and a Jamaican psychotherapist mother.
His family relocated to Ontario, Canada, when he was six. Lacking the high
grades needed for a graduate program, Gladwell pursued an advertising
career after graduating from the University of Toronto.17 Rejected by adver-
tising agencies, Gladwell turned to journalistic writing, first for the American
Spectator in Indiana, then for the Washington Post, where he covered busi-
ness and science, and later for the New Yorker. He parlayed his popularity
as an essayist into a remarkable string of lay-friendly bestsellers marketed
variously as popular culture, self-help, social science, popular science, and
pop psychology: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference
(2000), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Outliers: The
Story of Success (2008), What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures (2009),
and‌‌ David and Goliath (2013).
This biographical sketch, drawn from Gladwell’s own self-story, presents
the author in a Davidic light: an unlikely “hero” who was not quite graduate-
school material and not quite suited for the world of advertising, yet who
possessed an unyielding drive and hidden talents that would eventually
make him a champion. Critics point out that Gladwell’s view of himself as a
“self-made man”—whose struggles on the margins caused him to see society
through contrarian eyes and reevaluate the “laws” of success—has attracted
him to stories of kindred spirits. But there are limits to these inspirational
examples, especially as Gladwell tends to turn them into general rules.
Science and culture journalist Daniel Engber wonders, how can the forces
described in Outliers, which dictate that “strength breeds further strength, and
weakness further weakness” (such that the biggest kid on a sports team gets
disproportionate attention from the coach and thus becomes the best player),
and the premise of David and Goliath, where the poor become rich, exist in
the same universe?18 Is dyslexia truly the cause of success for certain people,
as Gladwell argues in David and Goliath, or is it more likely to increase a
person’s chances of landing in jail, as the data supports? Engber sees this as
the problem of extracting principles from a small sample of human-interest
stories, as opposed to relying on rigorous evidence. “The notion that a rule
holds true except for when it doesn’t runs through David and Goliath, and
insulates its arguments from deep interrogation.”19
70 Chapter 4

Engber joins several critics in seeing Gladwell as more Goliath (top

dog) than David (underdog), using his position at a prestige publication
(the New Yorker) to land a lucrative book deal (Tipping Point is based on
two New Yorker articles), and sticking with the comfortable “weapons”
employed in that book—namely, generalizations derived from clever takes
on “unexpected” success stories—to write other surefire hits. Engber opines:
“He’s the New York Yankees of nonfiction. The bruising, brilliant genre he
created—smarty-pants self-help—has a way of turning even its most thought-
ful would-be critics into underdogs. Do you dare to challenge Gladwell’s
nifty rules of thumb? Have you any doubts about his anecdotes? Then best
of luck to you, my friend. You’re wrestling a titan.”20 Research psycholo-
gist Christopher F. Chabris, writing in the Wall Street Journal, adds: “What
[Gladwell] presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about
human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers
may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the
world really works.”21
A cheeky review of David and Goliath appeared in the Guardian in
October 2013. Written by John Crace, the “digested read” begins: “In the
heart of ancient Palestine stood a six-foot-nine-inch giant. Against him was a
five-foot-nothing midget. No one gave the midget a prayer. The giant’s name
was Goliath. The midget’s name was David. You might have read about their
battle in the Old Testament. But the Bible got it wrong. David was not the
underdog.”22 Crace proceeds to summarize the book’s chapters before taking
a parting shot at Gladwell, aiming at the author’s insistence on seeing himself
as an “outsider” or “underdog,” despite attaining a level of celebrity and suc-
cess rarely achieved by nonfiction writers.

There was once a boy who looked a bit different. We’ll call him Leo Sayer.
Because that’s his name. Some people laughed at Leo because he had silly hair.
Others didn’t want to be his friend because he was always telling them that he
was right and they were wrong. Leo decided to use his odd hair and off-putting
mannerisms to his advantage and changed his name to Malcolm. Malcolm
wrote a book telling people how everything they knew was wrong. It became a
bestseller. So Malcolm wrote another book just the same. And another. He even
rewrote Aesop’s Fables. Still no one noticed. Malcolm cultivated a persona of
being an outsider while earning huge amounts of money from banks, tobacco
and pharmaceutical companies. Malcolm earns more for a one-hour talk than
you will earn in a year. So who is laughing now?23

Whether Gladwell is illustrating general trends with anecdotes, as he does

in Outliers, or deriving general trends from anecdotes, as he does in David
and Goliath, he tends to mythologize his subjects—or repeat the subject’s
self-mythology, as in the case of the entrepreneur who attributes his success
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 71

to dyslexia (rather than, say, a risk-taking personality, nurturing mentors,

and/or a supportive network of family and friends). Readers are obviously
attracted to such yarns; we want underdogs to succeed, even if they are not
really underdogs. As Tina Rosenberg writes in the Atlantic, Gladwell’s own
“tried-and-true formula” for answering “Who gets ahead, and how?” is to
“keep asking that question and offering inspirational anecdotes as answers.”24
Gladwell’s defenders are quick to note that he is not a scientist, nor is he a
traditional journalist. “Insofar as he has a beat,” writes Ezra Klein of Vox, “it’s
modern fables. Stories with a point. He’s like Aesop for the corporate class.”25
Commenting on a basketball piece Gladwell wrote for the New Yorker—and
which later appeared in David and Goliath—Klein acknowledges that the
full-court press is not always a winning strategy for weaker teams, or else
more of them would be using it. Yet, the larger lesson holds: “weak agents
need asymmetric tactics.” Culture critic Jason Kehe notes that Gladwell is
well aware that his work is essentially “one long rhetorical rinse/repeat”:
begin with a story about a difficult societal problem, interject a seemingly
unrelated science lesson, and then bring the two together.26 To Kehe, this is
not so much intellectual dishonesty as intellectual play.
As with the Bible, Gladwell’s storytelling can be picked apart from many
sides. Agendas, whether theological or commercial, shape the stories being
told. Still, kernels of truth reside within Gladwell’s book, just as they do
within the Bible tale that inspired it. In both cases, narrative is essentially
a vehicle for a moral lesson, however imperfect the story or the teaching it
presents. This chapter has its own agenda. Rather than debating the reliability
of Gladwell’s case studies or the accuracy of his analyses, our concern is his
framing of David and Goliath. As we shall discover, his depiction of Goliath
as a physically compromised and tactically outmatched giant opens the door
to a sympathetic view.

REAL GIANTS

Gladwell pushes us to imagine Goliath as a real person. Regardless of the

story’s mythological or folkloric elements, the medicalized perspective is
profoundly humanizing. By comparing Goliath’s actions and vulnerabilities
to those of an acromegalic, the giant is, in a sense, de-mythologized. This
approach is aided by Gladwell’s decision to view Goliath as “four cubits
and a span,” or about 6 feet, 9 inches (Greek and Qumran texts), rather than
“six cubits and a span tall,” or roughly 9 feet, 9 inches (Hebrew Bible). As
discussed previously, whereas Elhanan’s Goliath is a true giant (Raphah),
David’s Goliath is called a “Philistine champion.” He certainly towered over
the average man, and his impressive height—approaching the upper limits
72 Chapter 4

of human height—likely singled him out for grooming as a warrior. Yet,

he was not of superhuman proportions. Goliath’s acromegalic features—
protruding brow bone and lower jaw, abnormally large nose and lips, and
massive hands and feet—would have contributed to his “monstrous” appear-
ance and the Israelites being “dismayed and terror-stricken” when he called
for a challenger (1 Sam. 17:11).
Of course, one can be very tall without having gigantism or acromegaly.
Just look at the sport of basketball. Alternatively, acromegalics are not always
of great stature. For example, the French Angel (Maurice Marie Joseph
Tillet), a professional wrestler from the 1940s–1950s billed as “The World’s
Ugliest Man” (and possibly the model for the animated character Shrek),
stood just 5’8.”27 It seems that in ancient times, as in the more recent past,
acromegaly led to a sort of typecasting: perceptions of brutishness and violent
tendencies, irrespective of the person’s inner nature. This unfortunate (mis)-
perception is apparently rooted in human evolution. Our species evolved
to detect physical threats, and knee-jerk assessments of another’s physical
size, strength, or deformities helped us determine the level and type of threat
posed, rightly or wrongly.28 Freak shows of an earlier era exploited these
pre-rational responses. Attendees gazed in fear and awe at giants, dwarfs,
bearded ladies, “pinheads” (microcephalics), limbless people, Siamese
twins, “savages,” snake charmers, fire eaters, and other human oddities. As
Robert Bogdan explains in his social history, Freak Show: Presenting Human
Oddities for Amusement and Profit, “By today’s standards such displays
would be considered cruel and exploitative—the pornography of disability.
Yet for one hundred years [1840–1940] the freak show was widely accepted
as one of America’s most popular forms of entertainment.”29 Facing a “mon-
ster” in a controlled environment was one thing; confronting one in the valley
of Elah was another.
Circus sideshows, like the horror genre, profited from the culture’s fixation
on the supposed danger of physical anomalies.30 The “monsters” displayed
in shows and projected on screens blurred boundaries between “human”
and “animal,”31 occupied a “marginal place, neither outside nor inside,”32
and destabilized the viewer’s understanding of self and the natural order.
Yet, at the same time, these entertainments provided a “cathartic effect”: the
otherizing of the monster worked to affirm what was “normal.”33 As medical
knowledge advanced, “human curiosities” went from being marvels to being
pathological specimens, and public sentiment shifted from fear and disdain
to pity and compassion. This spelled the end of the freak show in the 1940s,
but film and television have continued to capitalize on old assumptions that
abnormal appearances signal dangerous personalities. Movie villains, for
instance, are very often marked by facial scars.34
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 73

Although acromegaly is exceedingly rare—occurring in just fifty to sev-

enty people per million—acromegalics are disproportionately represented
among Hollywood’s “brute men.” They include Ted Cassidy (6’9”), best
known as Lurch on television’s The Addams Family; Carel Struycken (7’0”),
who played Lurch in The Addams Family movies; Richard Kiel, best known
as Jaws in the James Bond films The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker;
Neil McCarthy (6’1”), who played Calibos in Clash of the Titans; Lock
Martin (7’4”), best known for playing Gort in The Day the Earth Stood Still
and a mutant Martian in Invaders from Mars; and Rondo Hatton (5’11”),
famous for his Creeper character for Universal Pictures.35
More often than not, these frightening roles bore no resemblance to the men
playing them. They instead took advantage of preconceived notions and ste-
reotypes associated with their appearance. This is perhaps best illustrated by
Rondo Hatton. An affable high school track and football star in Hillsborough
County, Florida, Hatton worked as a sportswriter for the Tampa Tribune
before being deployed to France in late September 1918, just weeks before
the armistice ended World War I. Hatton developed symptoms of acromegaly
shortly after the war, hence his normal height (he did not have gigantism as a
youth). Film studios would later attribute his unique facial features to mustard
gas exposure during the war, but that was Hollywood marketing, not medi-
cal fact.36 While covering the filming of Hell Harbor (1930) for the Tampa
Tribune, Rondo was spotted by director Henry King, who was struck by his
unique features. King persuaded Rondo to play the proprietor of a shabby
dive in the film.37 The bit part led to several others, notably as convicts in
Captain Fury (1939) and The Big Guy (1939), a “contestant” in the ugly man
contest in The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939), a leper in The Moon and
Sixpence (1942), and a hunchback in Sleepy Lagoon (1943). These exploit-
ative roles—silent and creepy—drew on viewers’ increasing fascination with
the “human monster” who “needed no makeup.”38 Hatton’s movie career cli-
maxed with several stand-out roles at the tail end of Universal’s second horror
cycle: Hoxton Creeper in The Pearl of Death (1944), a Sherlock Holmes film;
Moloch the Brute in The Jungle Captive (1945); Mario the Monster in The
Spider Woman Strikes Back (1946); and Creeper in House of Horrors (1946)
and The Brute Man (1946).
Hatton died on February 2, 1946, at age fifty-one. The cause of death
was chronic myocarditis, an inflammation of the middle muscular layer of
the heart wall, which developed as a result of acromegaly.39 Although crit-
ics derided his acting as wooden, listless, lethargic, and void of talent,40 his
admirers have grown more numerous in recent years, reviving Hatton as a
cult icon. In 2002, he became the namesake of the Rondo Hatton Classic
Horror Awards—annual fandom awards with trophies shaped as the actor’s
head (based on a sculpture from House of Horrors).41
74 Chapter 4

In large part, this posthumous interest stems from an appreciation of who

Hatton was off screen. Hatton’s likeness inspired Lothar the henchman in
Dave Stevens’ 1980s Rocketeer comic book series and the 1991 Disney film
version.42 Cartoonist Drew Friedman’s 1986 biographical sketch, “The Rondo
Hatton Story,” an early effort in this revival, sensitively shows Rondo’s early
days as a handsome and popular high school athlete, his wartime injuries, the
progression of acromegaly, his move to Los Angeles for the “dry climate,”
and his Hollywood career, which briefly allowed him to turn his misfortune
into an asset.43 (Another Friedman illustration shows Hatton in a nightclub
surrounded by similar-looking men. The caption reads: “Just then it hit
me . . . EVERYBODY in the joint had Acromegaly.”44) Accounts of Hatton
invariably comment on contrasts between his real-life and on-screen perso-
nas. A reporter for the Tampa Bay Times wrote, “He is a cross between Lon
Chaney in his worst makeup and Bull Montana a la natural. You think you
would dislike to meet him alone in a dark alley. As a matter of fact, he is one
of the most gentle of human beings.”45 Pageant magazine observed in July
1946, “when you finally got past the face, you found there was a swell per-
son underneath, without pretense and without bitterness. Rondo had suffered
too much ever to hold such barriers between himself and any other human
being.”46 In an essay on Hatton, filmmaker Fred Olen Ray recounts:

Everyone kept asking me why would I want to go to all this trouble to record
the life of a talentless, grossly exploited freak? A man whose best filmic efforts
had been termed as “extremely bad taste,” a man who could find no acclaim dur-
ing his lifetime and even less in death. I think it is important that we remember
that there was a lot more to Rondo Hatton than an ugly, sad face on a motion
picture screen. Beneath the face was a man, a real man living the role. Hatton
was a deeply religious, caring, gentle human being. He was not oblivious to his
misfortune—it hurt him terribly—but he lived simply and is remembered fondly
by those who knew him.47

Scott Gallinhouse, who recently published a book-length tribute to

Hatton, adds:

More than a few biographies devoted to Rondo’s more beautiful contemporaries

make it clear that real ugliness and moral corruption lay behind those attractive
Hollywood faces. In stark contrast, Rondo’s “horrible” countenance concealed
a tender, kind, charitable soul—an intelligent man beloved by his co-workers,
family and friends; a deeply spiritual man who always thought of others while
he was engaged in a courageous but doomed struggle against an incurable and
ultimately fatal disease. Who, then, is more deserving of the sobriquet “Monster
Without Makeup”—Rondo Hatton, or some of his “conventionally” attractive
contemporaries?48
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 75

Was Goliath similarly playing a role in the theater of war? His antics in
the biblical text are familiar to followers of professional wrestling, where
the ring is the stage and wrestlers are the actors.49 Much like a wrestler’s
costume, Goliath’s flamboyant armor immediately signals his “invincible
warrior” character, and his assorted metals serve as a “championship belt.”
His intimidating shouts and mocking barks resemble “cutting promos”: short
monologues or dialogues used to advance a wrestling storyline, denigrate an
opponent, and boast about one’s dominance. As the story’s heel, Goliath’s
words, repeated morning and evening for forty days, are intended to foment
disdain among readers. When the match arrives, David has been sufficiently
hyped as a “babyface” (wrestling protagonist), and, like his wrestling coun-
terparts, he is determined to fight injustice (represented by Goliath). Yet, in a
twist on the wrestling structure, David resorts to heel tactics. Ordinarily, it is
the “bad guy” who upends the rules of engagement, brings in foreign objects,
or uses illegal moves, often for an extended period (“heat sequence”) devised
to build sympathy for the babyface.50 But here, David is the cheater and his
maneuvers end the match very quickly. In wrestling parlance, this in-ring
surprise is a variation of “turning heel”: the good guy’s sudden change into
a villain.
Of course, the purpose of the story is to set David up as a hero. But he
is a complicated hero with no compunction about bending the rules. In the
words of Israeli writer Ruth Margalit, David is “humanity’s first antihero.”51
His bout with Goliath foreshadows the morally inconsistent man he will
become. Likewise, Goliath is not merely a simplistic villain. There is noth-
ing “evil” about being a skilled fighter. The Israelites boasted many prolific
warriors: Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Joab, Jehu, etc. After battling
the Philistines, David and Saul are greeted by women singing: “Saul has
slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands!” (1 Sam. 18:7). In this
blood-drenched setting, both sides would have loved having a warrior of
Goliath’s size and ability to “work the mic.” What makes him a heel is that
he is “an uncircumcised Philistine” (1 Sam. 17:26).
The Bible tells us nothing about Goliath outside of 1 Samuel 17. What was
he like as a person? Did he have friends? Was he married? How old was he?
How long had he been a champion? What motivated him? In contrast, David
is arguably the Bible’s most well-developed and multifaceted character. He is
sometimes good and sometimes bad; he triumphs, suffers, grows, regresses,
softens, and hardens. As Bible scholar Yael Ziegler puts it, “David can be
gracious or harsh, restrained or passionate, ambitious or selfless, politically or
ideologically motivated, depending on the situation.”52 In other words, he is a
human being. Much less so Goliath, who shows up as a towering, showy, and
arrogant barbarian—a monster to be slain on David’s journey to greatness. He
76 Chapter 4

is no doubt good at what he does; the Israelites fear him and the Philistines
cheer him. But, by the time he faces David, the physical prowess that made
him a legend seems to have faded. He still looks and speaks the part, but his
eyes are weak and he is much frailer than he appears.
The demands of single combat surely exacerbated the symptoms of acro-
megaly, which, if left untreated, can lead to rapid deterioration and premature
death. While some modern-day acromegalics can live to old age, many others
experience shortened lifespans. Of the actors listed above, Peter Kiel died
at seventy-two and Carel Struycken is still alive in his seventies, but Ted
Cassidy died at forty-six, Neil McCarthy at fifty-two, Lock Martin at forty-
two, and Rondo Hatton at fifty-one. Death may have come even sooner in
the biblical period, when anatomically normal men lived an average of forty
years and women only about thirty, with many dying in childbirth.53
The pressure on Goliath to perform through chronic pain and strain recalls
the career of world-famous acromegalic wrestler André the Giant, who died
of congestive heart failure at age forty-six. Standing 6 feet and weighing 216
pounds by age twelve and billed at 7’4” and 520 pounds when he was body-
slammed by Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania III (1987), André the Giant—born
André René Roussimoff in a quaint French village—was not diagnosed
with acromegaly until 1970, when he was twenty-four. As cartoonist Box
Brown relates in his graphic biography, Andre the Giant: Life and Legend,
the diagnosis came prior to his Japanese wrestling debut. Brown illustrates
the doctor’s assessment in a two-page diagram: “As big as he is now, he’ll
continue to grow. He’ll age prematurely. His brow and jaw will grow more
pronounced. His heart and organs won’t be able to keep up with his body. His
joints, too. He’ll be a cripple.” Outwardly unphased, André insists, “I don’t
care what he says . . . I’m clear to go tonight, right? . . . Let’s have a good
show, then.”54 Later in the book, André is standing shirtless in an idyllic coun-
tryside. Reflecting on his mortality, he resolves to live his life to the fullest:
“I have had good fortune in my life. If I were to die tomorrow, it would be
with the knowledge that I’ve eaten more good food, drunk more beer, more
fine wine. I’ve had more friends. And I’ve seen more of the world than most
ever will.”55
Brown’s illustrated book, published in 2014, has been joined by other
appreciations, notably Brandon M. Easton and Denis Medri’s graphic biog-
raphy, Andre the Giant: Closer to Heaven (2016); an HBO documentary
(2018); and Bertrand Hébert and Pat Laprade’s biography, The Eighth Wonder
of the World: The True Story of André the Giant (2020). Each treatment is
sensitive to the brutal toll inflicted by acromegaly and the wrestling lifestyle.
“Condemned to be André the Giant 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” write
Hébert and Laprade, “he was likely depressed—at very least, sad that he
couldn’t go anywhere without being stared at, pointed at, or touched. He was
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 77

40 years old and knew he wouldn’t live to see 50.”56 Closer to Heaven begins
with André in a quiet moment toward the end of his life:

The internal struggle within all people isn’t between good and evil . . . it’s
between optimism and pessimism. I learned this lesson far too late in life. I’ve
heard that a pessimist believes that memories are only regrets organized in
chronological order . . . The optimist says that you should be lucky to live long
enough to have regrets. Neither view is correct. We live on the border between
optimism and pessimism. The darkness and the light. But when you’re at the end
of the road, you have to learn to let the light in, no matter how much it hurts.
Lord knows, there’s been a lot of pain. And Lord knows how often I’ve smiled
through it.57

Much like Rondo Hatton, André the Giant was known to be friendly despite
his imposing physique and an affliction that could have turned him sour.
William Goldman, who authored the novel and screenplay for The Princess
Bride (1987), wrote the part of Fezzik specifically for André. Goldman
remarked that the giant was as kind and lovable as the character he por-
trayed.58 Although his size and features should have made him a wrestling
heel and Hollywood villain, Rob Reiner, director of The Princess Bride,
recalls, “He did not do bad guy well. That was not his thing.”59
André briefly turned heel in early 1987 to build his feud with Hogan.
Behind the scenes, André’s health was quickly declining. For the main event
of WrestleMania III, he entered the Pontiac Silverdome on a motorized cart
because he could not walk to the ring. The feud storyline was contrived
to “pass the torch” to Hogan, an ascendant star in the World Wrestling
Federation, and to allow André to take a step back. But he was not a natural
villain. As he reflects in Closer to Heaven: “People are hungry for a story.
Every match, no matter how poorly constructed, tells a story. My story was
always ‘David v. Goliath’ except that Goliath was the hero.”60
A more recent example is The Great Khali (Dalip Singh Rana, b. 1972),
a 7’1”, 347-pound Indian-born acromegalic wrestler. During his career with
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), Khali went back and forth between
being a heel (Apr. 2006–Oct. 2008; May 2011–Jan. 2012) and a face (Oct.
2008–May 2011; Jan. 2012–Nov. 2014). Formerly an officer with the Punjab
Police, Khali trained at local gyms before being recruited to train in a special-
ized wrestling program in the United States. His massive size and menacing
facial features aided his quick rise through various wrestling promotions. He
became the WWE World Heavyweight Champion in 2007, making him the
first Indian to hold that title. Out of the ring, Khali, whose character name
honors the Hindu goddess Kali, is a devoutly religious man who meditates
78 Chapter 4

daily, abhors alcohol and tobacco, and studied under the guru Ashutosh
Maharaj.61
In 2012, Khali’s pituitary tumor was removed to stop the progression of
acromegaly and prolong his life. (Another acromegalic wrestler, Paul Wight,
aka Big Show, also halted the disorder with surgery in the 1990s.) Still,
Khali remains at greater risk of heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes.
ABC News interviewed several endocrinologists following Khali’s surgery,
a few of whom raised ethical concerns. Dr. Glenn Braunstein of Cedars-
Sinai Medical Center wondered how long WWE had known about Khali’s
condition, and whether treatment was put off because his affliction was good
for business. “The prominent eyebrows, the bulbous nose, the chin protrud-
ing, the massive ears—this is quite typical of patients with acromegaly,”
Braunstein said, adding that anyone with access to Google could have made
the diagnosis.62 Wrestling promotions of all types—big, small, regional,
national, televised, non-televised—are notorious for prioritizing the interests
of the organization, controlling the wrestling talent, and making it difficult
for wrestlers to decline matches, regardless of their physical or mental state.63
Stories of chronic injury, painkiller addiction, and early death are all too
common.64 The “old-school show must go on” mentality is deeply embedded
in wrestling culture,65 as it must have been in the combat culture of ancient
times. Goliath—like André the Giant and Khali—had no choice but to fight
through his ailments. Other incredibly large wrestlers, including Yokozuna,
Umaga, and Bam Bam Bigelow, died early as a result of drug abuse, enlarged
hearts, and accumulated stress on their bodies.
It should also be noted that André the Giant, The Great Kahli, and other
oversized wrestlers are known to have small repertoires of basic moves. Most
common are clawholds showcasing their massive hands, stationary kicks
showing off their impressive height, chokeslams displaying their raw power,
and belly splashes emphasizing their great weight—none of which require
exceptional skill. Their in-ring gimmicks are almost entirely rooted in them
being large and hard to budge.66 The giants’ slow and clunky movements only
get worse with time and grind. Goliath’s “wrestling psychology” followed the
same pattern: he used his size and bravado to intimidate opponents, but his
limited physicality did not match the hype.

GOLIATH THE HERO?

It might seem like a stretch to compare single combat in the ancient world—
death matches that determined the outcome of battles—and professional
wrestling—scripted displays of sports entertainment. Literary theorist Roland
Barthes’s comments on professional wresting would not apply to mortal
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 79

combat: “[T]he function of the wrestler is not to win; it is to go exactly

through the motions which are expected of him.”67 But this observation is not
wholly accurate. While the winners, standard sequences, and finishing moves
are typically agreed to in advance, the in-ring action is not choreographed or
rehearsed as such.68 Matches involve improvisation within guidelines, similar
to a jazz performance. Yet, Barthes’s point is well taken: even with the risk of
serious injury or worse, professional wrestling is a far cry from life-or-death
single combat.
Or is it? Cultures that used single combat also had athletic competitions
rooted in battlefield duels. For instance, the ancient Greek sport of pankration,
which combines boxing, wrestling, and street fighting, was like professional
wrestling “except that it was real rather than staged.”69 Greek mythology
describes Theseus, founding king of Athens, using pankration to defeat the
half-human, half-bull Minotaur. Fighting contests (or “heavy sports”), such
as boxing, pankration, and Greco-Roman wrestling, were among the most
popular contests at the ancient Olympics. Roman gladiator matches offered a
more brutal form of state-controlled mass entertainment.70 For these reasons,
modern-day professional wrestling has been traced to ancient martial arts,
blood sports, and single combat.71
Optics further united heavy sports and battlefield duels. Whether the audi-
ence was a roaring crowd or an opposing army, appearances greatly shaped
perceptions. The Israelites cowered at the sight of Goliath’s size and armor,
which were no doubt made more terrifying by stories of his past battles (real
or imagined). His intimidating presence was underscored by the Israelites’
uniform reluctance to face him despite the promise of riches, exemption from
royal levies, and marriage to Saul’s daughter. However, as Gladwell vividly
describes, Goliath was not the unstoppable force he used to be. Time had
taken a brutal toll, leaving him particularly vulnerable to a shepherd’s sling.
A quotation from Floyd Ruch’s classic textbook, Psychology and Life, lays
bare the realities of acromegalic gigantism: “He may give the appearance of
strength but is usually much weaker muscularly than the average man. It usu-
ally happens that the anterior lobe of the pituitary body declines in function
after a period of overactivity, leaving the person with a huge bulk but with
flabby muscles which are inadequate to the execution of the simplest tasks.”72
Applied to Goliath—whose vision was weak and mobility hampered—we
realize that his battlefield bark was stronger than his bite. He was an underdog
playing the role of an overdog.
To be sure, this tells us nothing of Goliath’s emotional life or true nature.
Was he really a brute, or did his abnormal size and bone structure typecast
him for the role? Did he have an innate thirst for blood, or did his physical
features single him out for combat? Was he truly a boastful braggart, or was
that just part of the “show”? Were his battlefield taunts a sign of confidence,
80 Chapter 4

or a cover for his weakening state? Did he expect to face a challenger, or

did he assume his presence would send the Israelites running? Was he a
one-dimensional fiend, or did the Philistines know a different side of him?
Did his affliction make him violent and angry, or did it soften his outlook as
it did for Rondo Hatton, André the Giant, and The Great Khali?

NOTES

1. Robert E. Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend’s Masterwork: On the Spear, Sling, Sai,

and Walking Stick, ed. Michael DeMarco (Santa Fe, NM: Via Media, 2015), 13.
2. Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of
Battling Giants (New York: Back Bay, 2013), 62.
3. Ezra Klein, “Malcolm Gladwell on the Danger of Joining Consensus Opinions,”
Vox Conversations (podcast), August 2016, https://open.spotify.com/episode/0kOZI4
l6GTc3tTPL8tCLXS.
4. Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York: Back Bay, 2011),
35–68. For a major critique of the 10,000-hour rule, see Brooke N. Macnamara, David
Z. Hambrick, and Frederick L. Oswald, “Deliberate Practice and Performance in
Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological
Science 25:8 (2014): 1608–18.
5. See Ana M. S. Bettencourt, Manuel Santos-Estévez, and Hugo Aluai Sampaio,
ed., Weapons and Tools in Rock Art: A World Perspective (Oxford: Oxbow, 2021).
6. Gladwell, David and Goliath, 9.
7. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 11.
8. Gladwell, David and Goliath, 8.
9. Heller, God Knows, 64.
10. Gladwell, David and Goliath, 11, quoting Eitan Hirsch, Jaime H. Cuadros, and
Joseph E. Backofen, “David’s Choice: A Sling and Tactical Advantage,” International
Symposium on Ballistics (Jerusalem, May 21–24, 1995).
11. Stanley Sprecher, letter to Radiology (July 1990), quoted in Gladwell, David
and Goliath, 300.
12. Gladwell, David and Goliath, 14.
13. Vladimir Berginer and Chaim Cohen, “The Nature of Goliath’s Visual Disorder
and the Actual Role of His Personal Bodyguard,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 43 (2006): 27–44.
14. Mercedes Aguirre and Richard Buxton, Cyclops: The Myth & Its Cultural
History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 115, 117.
15. Gladwell, David and Goliath, 11.
16. Ibid., 6.
17. “Malcolm Gladwell,” Famous Authors, https://www.famousauthors.org/
malcolm-gladwell.
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 81

18. Daniel Engber, “Gladwell Is Goliath: Do puny readers stand a chance against
his latest book?,” Slate, October 7, 2013, https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/
malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-reviewed.html.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Christopher F. Chabris, “Book Review: ‘David and Goliath’ by Malcolm
Gladwell,” Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2013.
22. John Crace, “David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell—digested read,”
Guardian, October 6, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/06/
david-goliath-malcolm-gladwell-digested-read.
23. Ibid.
24. Tina Rosenberg, “Malcolm Gladwell: Guru of the Underdogs,” Atlantic,
October 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/
the-underdogs-guru/309458/.
25. Ezra Klein, “In Defense of Malcolm Gladwell,” American Prospect, May 7,
2009, https://prospect.org/article/defense-malcolm-gladwell/.
26. Jason Kehe, “The Lovability of Malcolm Gladwell: A Gladwellian
Analysis,” Wired, September 9, 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/
gladwellian-review-malcolm-gladwell/.
27. John Grasso, Historical Dictionary of Wrestling (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow,
2014), 27.
28. Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes
What We See, Think, and Do (New York: Penguin, 2020), 61.
29. Robert Bogdan, Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and
Profit (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 323.
30. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical
Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1997), 36.
31. Keith Brown, “Notes on the Terror Film,” Forum 2 (2006): 3–4.
32. Diane Long Hoeveler, “Frankenstein, Feminism, and Literary Theory,” in The
Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelly, ed. Esther H. Schor (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 54.
33. Petra Kuppers, Contemporary Performance: Bodies on Edge (New York:
Routledge, 2004), 45.
34. Jacob Johanssen and Diana Garrisi, “Media and the Skin,” SKINmed 16:1
(2018): 11–12.
35. George Chastain, “The Brute Men: Medical Marvels! Giants of the Genre!
Monsters of the Ring! And Other Awesome Brutes!,” in Scott Gallinghouse, Rondo
Hatton: Beauty Within the Brute (Orlando, FL: BearManor, 2019), 171–84.
36. Gallinghouse, Rondo Hatton, 14–17.
37. Ibid., 18.
38. Cory Legassic, “‘The Perfect Neanderthal Man’: Rondo Hatton as The Creeper
and the Cultural Economy of 1940s B-Films,” in Recovering 1940s Horror Cinema:
Traces of a Lost Decade, ed., Charlie Ellbé, Kristopher Woofter, and Mario DeGiglio-
Bellemare (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2014), 299.
82 Chapter 4

39. Gallinghouse, Rondo Hatton, 71.

40. Fred Olen Ray, “Rondo Hatton: Monster Man,” Midnight Marquee, Fall 1988, 88.
41. For more on the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards, see: https://rondoaward.
com/rondoaward.com/blog/.
42. Dave Stevens, The Rocketeer: The Complete Adventures (San Diego, CA: IDW,
2009); Joe Johnston, dir., The Rocketeer, Disney, 1991.
43. Drew Friedman, “The Rondo Hatton Story,” reprinted in Gallinghouse, Rondo
Hatton, 193.
44. Drew Friedman, “Just then it hit me . . . ,” reprinted in Gallinghouse, Rondo
Hatton, 192.
45. Tampa Bay Times, October 29, 1929, quoted in Gallinghouse, Rondo Hatton, 31.
46. Erma Taylor, “Hollywood’s Strangest Love Story,” Pageant, July 1946, 10.
47. Ray, “Rondo Hatton,” 88.
48. Gallinghouse, Rondo Hatton, 79.
49. Nicholas Ware, “Wrestling’s Not Real, It’s Hyperreal: Professional Wrestling
Video Games,” in Performance and Professional Wrestling, ed. Broderick Chow,
Eero Laines, and Claire Warden (New York: Routledge, 2017), 50.
50. Tyson L. Platt, “The Transmission of Cultural Values through Professional
Wrestling: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,” in Identity in Professional Wrestling:
Essays on Nationality, Race and Gender, ed. Aaron D. Horton (Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2018), 188.
51. Ruth Margalit, “In Search of King David’s Lost Empire,” New
Yorker, June 22, 2020, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/
in-search-of-king-davids-lost-empire.
52. Yael Ziegler, Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative (Leiden: Brill,
2008), 195.
53. Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (New York:
Paulist, 1984), 249; Jennie R. Ebeling, Women’s Lives in Biblical Times (New York:
Bloomsbury, 2010), 132.
54. Box Brown, Andre the Giant: Life and Legend (New York: First Second,
2014), 50–55.
55. Ibid., 140–41.
56. Bertrand Hébert and Pat Laprade, The Eighth Wonder of the World: The True
Story of André the Giant (Toronto: ECW, 2020), xiv.
57. Brandon M. Easton and Denis Medri, Andre the Giant: Closer to Heaven (St.
Louis, MO: Lion Forge, 2016), 1.
58. William Goldman, Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventures in the Screen Trade
(New York: Vintage, 2001), 33–34.
59. Jason Hehir, dir., Andre the Giant, HBO, 2018.
60. Easton and Medri, Andre the Giant, 18.
61. Shantanu Guha-Ray, “Giant Wrestler Finds Fame in India,” BBC News, May 6,
2008; Richard Gray, “The Great Khali Speaks on WWE Career, His Diet, Religion,
More,” Rajah, March 27, 2008, https://rajah.com/node/11832.
 Malcolm Gladwell’s Goliath 83

62. Alon Harish, “WWE Star Great Khali’s Growth-Inducing Tumor

Removed,” ABC News, July 27, 2012, https://abcnews.go.com/Health/
star-wrestler-great-khali-tumor-removed-caused-size/story?id=16874060.
63. See Bradley Gardener, “Spatial Maneuvers: Geographies of Power and Labor
Practices in Professional Wrestling’s Territorial Era,” in Critical Geographies of
Sport: Space, Power and Sport in Global Perspective, ed. Natalie Koch (New York:
Routledge, 2017), 207–19.
64. See David Shoemaker, The Squared Circle: Life, Death, and Professional
Wrestling (New York: Penguin, 2014).
65. Scott E. Williams, Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of
ECW (New York: Sports Publishing, 2011), 168.
66. “The Giant,” TV Tropes, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/
Main/TheGiant.
67. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and Wang,
1972), 16.
68. Sharon Mazer, Professional Wrestling: Sport and Spectacle (Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi, 2000), 23.
69. Don Nardo, The Greenhaven Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece (Detroit: Gale,
2007), 246.
70. See Roger Dunkle, Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome (New
York: Routledge, 2008).
71. See, for instance, Patricia A. Oppliger, Wrestling and Hypermasculinity
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015), 161–62.
72. Floyd L. Ruch, Psychology and Life, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Scott, Foresman,
1948), 53.
 5.‌‌

Tom Gauld’s Goliath

Warrior Impersonator

The work of Scottish-born cartoonist and illustrator Tom Gauld is instantly

recognizable. His deceptively rudimentary drawings are at the same time mel-
ancholy, humorous, understated, evocative, heart-filled, quiet, philosophical,
and atmospheric. His weekly cartoons in New Scientist and the Guardian, and
occasional covers for the New Yorker, are striking for their clarity, subtlety,
and “breathing room.” In his graphic novels Goliath (2012), a delicate por-
trait of the biblical character, and Mooncop (2016), about a patrolman making
the rounds in dwindling lunar colony, most of the “action” takes place when
nothing is happening. The comic book vocabulary of frenetic movements,
splashy visuals, and rapid scene cuts is replaced with lonely landscapes and
contemplative moments.
Gauld’s technique has been described as the “transformation of the
humble stick figure”1 and a mixture of “heroic events and ideas with small
human ordinaries.”2 Eschewing detailed facial renderings, Gauld opts for a
reductionist approach, à la Hergé’s Tintin or Yuko Shimizu’s Hello Kitty.
For Gauld, this usually means dots for eyes, a simple nose, and no mouth
(and sometimes no face at all). He asserts that under-rendered faces invite
us to read emotions into characters in a way that realistic drawings do not.3
Because the faces are less individualized, they are more relatable and elicit
more sympathy than a fully realized illustration. Most distinctive is Gauld’s
use of stillness. As Hayley Campbell writes in the Comics Journal:

Nobody does silence like Tom Gauld. It sits heavy on his lonely lunar land-
scapes, dismantled robots and dilapidated moonbases; it pulls his tiny mute
figures even further away from us as they wave proudly at the top of their
doomed enterprises. Pages of perfectly paced silence make the few deadpan
words he does use weightier, perfectly economised, no more or less than you’ll
ever need.4

85
86 Chapter 5

These tools are expertly displayed in Gauld’s Goliath, which has the giant
as its central character.5 Although Gauld is not himself religious, he did not
intend the book to be “anti-religious” or even “anti-David.” Rather, as he
explained in an interview with Campbell, he wanted to show that “the God
(or maybe just the strong religious faith) which makes David so powerful is
definitely not there for Goliath.”6 His Goliath departs drastically from that
of the one-sided biblical tale. “In the Bible version he’s hardly a character
at all,” Gauld observed. “He’s more of a list of measurements: How tall he
is, how long his spear is, how much his armor weighs.”7 The Bible account
leaves much space to fill, but instead of resuming the path of pious readers
and commentators, Gauld chose to humanize rather than monsterize the giant.
Without the firmly ingrained view of the story—or deeply held reverence for
David or the deity who fuels his victory—he was able to give a fresh perspec-
tive. His Goliath is a giant in size only: he is told to wear armor despite being
a poor swordsman; he is commanded to act like a warrior despite being an
administrator; he is forced to shout threats despite being a quiet introvert. He
is more comfortable sitting against a rock or staring at the sky than strutting
along the battlefield.
This chapter begins with a historical and conceptual overview of Goliath in
graphic storytelling and children’s Bibles. Throughout these genres, Goliath
has remained an underdeveloped character, hardly ever straying from the bib-
lical type. A number of examples are analyzed with the aim of demonstrating
just how unusual Gauld’s treatment truly is. He has given us a Goliath we
never knew before and can never forget.

THE GRAPHIC GOLIATH

Outside of Gauld’s sensitive treatment, very few comics creators have dared
to do anything more than add to Goliath’s despicableness. Indeed, before
Gauld, few artists have depicted Goliath as anything but the plot point he
serves in the Davidic saga. Most comic book depictions are found in Bible
adaptations, rather than superhero stories, and are essentially re-creations of
iconic pieces from art history: Bernini’s sculpture of David slinging a stone
(1623–1624); Guillaume Courtois’ sword-wielding David standing on top
of the fallen Goliath (between 1650 and 1660); Edgar Degas’s David and
Goliath facing off in single combat (c. 1863); and so forth.
The relatively little attention paid to the biblical giant in superhero comics
is somewhat surprising given how well-known he is, how prototypical he is
of the brutish (super)villain, and how long sequential art has been around.
While the origins and history of comics are the subject of much debate,
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 87

graphic storytelling can be traced to paleolithic cave and rock paintings. Early
languages were generally pictographic, with pictures representing words,
phrases, or ideas. This was true of Egyptian hieroglyphics; Phoenician/
Paleo-Hebrew; cuneiform systems of Mesopotamia, Persia, and Ugarit; and
other ancient inscriptions. Over 3,000 years ago, Egyptians drew, copied,
and circulated drawings of animals on papyrus and limestone flakes. Tabulae
with satirical cartoons were popular in first-century Rome.8 “Prototypical
sequential illustrations” are attributed to Dutch painters Hieronymus Bosch
(c. 1450–1516) and Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525–1569), who used paint-
ings to tell unfolding stories.9 The seventeenth century brought political
cartoons, which developed captions, speech balloons, and illustration tech-
niques still used today. The first comic book may have been Swiss caricaturist
Rodolphe Töpffer’s Histoire de M. Vieux Bois (known as The Adventures of
Obadiah Oldbuck), first published in Geneva in 1837. Unlicensed English-
language versions appeared in the United Kingdom and the United States
in the 1840s. Humorous illustrated magazines were also popular during the
nineteenth century. One such magazine, Punch, or the London Charivari,
coined the term “cartoon” (funny drawing) in 1843.10 The first American-born
newspaper comic strip, Richard Felton Outcault’s The Yellow Kid, debuted in
Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World in 1895 and switched to William Randolph
Hearst’s New York Journal the following year. Comic strips multiplied greatly
in subsequent decades.11 King Features began publishing Comics Monthly in
1922. That book, like other early efforts, contained reprints of popular syn-
dicated comic strips. In 1933, Eastern Color Printing published Funnies on
Parade—another collection of reprints—the first publication to use the now-
standard comic book size. Superman debuted in Action Comics no. 1 (1938),
ushering in the superhero era. Comics publishing pioneer Maxwell Charles
Gaines (né Ginzburg), discussed later, was instrumental in producing Funnies
on Parade and launching Superman.
It seems appropriate that writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, the sons
of Jewish immigrants, would create Superman as a “sun-god” in the mold of
the biblical Samson, whose Hebrew name, Shimshon, is related to shemesh,
meaning “sun.” Samson most likely began as a folkloric sun god, and his
depiction is consistent with ancient renderings of the sun as flowing locks
of hair.12 Samson’s hair, like the sun’s rays, is a symbol of strength: when
the sun is dimmed, its force diminishes; when Samson’s hair is trimmed, his
power dissolves. His activities in the Book of Judges occur near the Philistine
border town of Beth Shemesh (“House of the Sun”), possibly the site of an
ancient sun-worshiping temple.13 His strength peaks in the summer months,
“during the season of the wheat harvest” (Jdgs. 15:1), and his life ends in the
dark of blindness, suggesting winter (Jdgs. 16:21). His death between the
falling pillars may also symbolize the setting sun.14 Superman, too, derives
88 Chapter 5

his strength from the Earth’s yellow sun: the more solar energy he absorbs,
the more power he has.
Comic book superheroes are, in many ways, modern versions of archetypal
myths. As art historian Christopher Wood posits in his book, Heroes Masked
and Mythic: Echoes of Ancient Archetypes in Comic Book Characters, aspects
of Iron Man are indebted to the Homeric hero Odysseus, the Black Panther
resembles the African warrior Memnon, Wonder Woman draws from tales
of Amazon women, and so on.15 But what about villains? As we have seen,
Goliath is one of many legendary giants whose immense size and monstrous
features represent the overpowering forces of evil. They tend to be stock char-
acters whom the hero/ines must vanquish in order to achieve their destinies.
Comic books are filled with brutish, oversized villains: Giganto, enemy of
the Fantastic Four, is an underground monster who wages war on the surface;
Thor’s enemy Mangog embodies the hatred of a billion beings destroyed by
Odin and the Norse gods; the giant Mongul is one of Superman’s more formi-
dable enemies; the mindless monstrosity Doomsday actually kills Superman
(who is later resurrected); and many more.
Yet, while these massive villains might be spiritual descendants of Goliath
and his mythological ilk, Goliath of the Bible has never been a recurring char-
acter in superhero comic books—even as creators regularly recycle legend-
ary heroes and villains: Mighty Samson (Gold Key), Loki (Marvel), Golem
(Marvel and DC), Hades (Marvel and DC), Hercules (Marvel and DC), Zeus
(Marvel and DC), Osiris (Marvel and DC), Gaea (Marvel and DC), and
Medusa (Marvel and DC), just to name a handful. The biblical Goliath briefly
appears in Marvel Comics’ Avengers no. 10 (1964), where he is summoned
by Immortus the time-manipulator to battle Giant-Man, an alias of scientist
Hank Pym, who discovered subatomic particles that increase or decrease the
size and mass of objects or living beings.16 Harnessing these “Pym Particles,”
Dr. Pym is able to shrink to the size of an insect (assuming the Ant-Man alias)
or grow to humungous proportions (Giant-Man). In his giant form, Hank Pym
also adopted the Goliath name: a synonym for “giant” disconnected from the
villainy of the biblical namesake (first in Avengers no. 28, 1966).17 The super-
hero Hawkeye took on the Goliath identity after using Pym’s size-changing
gas (Avengers no. 63, 1969).18 Pym’s lab assistant, Bill Foster, had a brief
career as Black Goliath, beginning in Luke Cage, Power Man no. 24 (1975)19
and continuing in his eponymous five-part mini-series (1976).20 A splash page
in the series’ first issue shows the grinning hero towering over the villains:
“The name is Black Goliath, group. And yes, I know that both halves of that
handle belabor the obvious.”21 Foster’s quip makes light of both the clichéd
use of Goliath as “giant” and the blaxploitation gimmick of putting “Black”
in the names of Black characters, as if the adjective were necessary—Black
Adam, Black Panther, Black Racer, Black Lightning, Black Manta, etc. Bill
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 89

Foster would later return simply as Goliath. The moniker has also been
applied to the Incredible Hulk, as in the scholarly anthology, The Ages of the
Incredible Hulk: Essays on the Green Goliath in Changing Times.22
Yet, while the Goliath name has been used for a variety of unrelated Marvel
and DC characters of large stature, ranging from heroes to villains to dragons,
the biblical Goliath is not among them. Instead, the ancient giant is mostly
confined to the generally uninspired Bible comics genre, which has its lineage
in children’s Bible stories more than in superhero fare. This owes in part to
sensitivities and marketing concerns of the early creators of superhero com-
ics, who were largely Jewish, and their readership, who were predominantly
Christian. Creators were more comfortable playing with characters culturally
understood to be mythological (e.g., from Greek, Norse, or Egyptian lore)
than mining from texts Americans considered sacred. Wonder Woman fight-
ing Ares was safe; contemporizing Goliath was not—especially during the
censorship era of the 1950s.
The giant’s brief appearance and disappointing showing in the Book of
Samuel also made him a lackluster fiend. After all, a menacing figure who
boasts about his superiority for forty days, only to be swiftly killed by a
stone-slinging child, is not exactly supervillain material. Contrastingly,
Samson, among the few Bible characters to become a superhero in various
guises—beginning with his 1939 appearance in a Fox Feature Syndicate
book by writer Will Eisner and artist Alex Blum (under the pseudonym
“Boon”)23—appears in several disjointed and episodic adventures in Judges
13–16 before his self-sacrificing end. The short biblical vignettes inspired
comics writers to add their own heroic exploits to the mix (à la midrash).
Another impediment is that Goliath is not very interesting. In the Bible and
the many for-children’s iterations—illustrated, animated, and otherwise—
Goliath is merely a useful foe for David. Goliath’s duration and character
development are stunted by the parameters of the brief chapter; once he is dis-
posed of, he no longer serves a narrative purpose. He is a temporary obstacle
in the hero’s saga. Indeed, the album cover for the 1974 children’s musical
Rock on the Head, composed by church musician Don Wyrtzen, manages to
sum up the story in one sentence: “It [tells of] the extraordinary faith of a
young boy triumphing over the sheer physical strength of a big bully!”24
Adhering to these narrative constraints, Gauld examines what Goliath did
before and between shouting threats at the Israelites. The tale ends the same
way: Goliath is killed by young David. But in his retelling, David is the one
with a bit part, arriving only in the last few pages to carry out the biblically
determined smiting. The key difference is that, by this point, the reader has
grown attached to the kind and sensitive giant whose size condemns him to
be a warrior impersonator. Through Gauld’s delicate use of minimal words,
unassuming artwork, empty space, and limited colors (shades of black,
90 Chapter 5

brown, and white), Goliath becomes endearingly quirky and heartbreakingly

relatable.

BIBLE COMICS

While the biblical Goliath makes only a few cameo appearances in superhero
comics, he is a staple of kid-friendly Bible comics and illustrated Bibles.
Bible stories for children have been printed since the sixteenth century, not
long after Johannes Gutenberg began printing the first mass-produced Bible
(1450s).25 Unlike Gutenberg’s complete Latin Vulgate text, children’s editions
were typically abridged, adapted, and written in the vernacular.26 Even earlier,
Bible stories from Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica (c. 1170) were used
to familiarize young students with biblical tales. Other early volumes were
Nicholas Fontaine’s L’Histoire du Vieux et du Nouveau Testament (1670),
aimed at Catholic youth, Johann Hübner’s Zweymahl Zwey und funffzig
Biblische Historien (1714), and several volumes from England, including The
Holy Bible Abridged (1757), History of the Holy Bible Abridged (1764), and
The Bible in Miniature (c. 1800).27
Jewish publishers began making children’s Bibles in nineteenth-century
Germany. The books were part of the broader post-Emancipation goals of
updating and reformulating Judaism in accordance with Christian culture.
Between 1915 and 1936, over two dozen Bible story collections were pub-
lished in the United States for Jewish religious schools.28 As in Germany,
these abbreviated, sanitized texts came primarily from the modernizing
Reform movement, which downplayed “antiquated” Talmudic folklore,
legalism, and particularism and elevated the Hebrew scriptures. The Bible’s
newfound prominence in Jewish education owed to three main factors: its sta-
tus as a literary “classic,” following the American educational template; the
fact that the “Old Testament” was shared with Christian neighbors; and the
belief that the text was a storehouse of “universalist principles.”29 Moreover,
as Penny Schine Gold points out in her book, Making the Bible Modern,
the existence of free public schooling in America led to the development of
Jewish supplemental education. Such programs borrowed from the Christian
congregational Sunday school model, which had limited hours of instruc-
tion and therefore cherry-picked Bible stories that could yield moralizing
lessons.30
Beyond their exclusive use of the Hebrew Bible, what made Jewish
Children’s Bibles Jewish was their emphasis on the Israelites (ancestors of the
Jews) and the absence of Christological overlays. Naturally, Christian books
were less interested in “Jewish history” and more focused on how the “Old
Testament” predicted or connected to the New Testament. For example, one
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 91

Protestant illustrated Bible, written and drawn by cartoonist Basil Wolverton,

interjects the following in its telling of Saul’s encounter with a sorceress who
conjures Samuel’s ghost (1 Sam. 28):

Of course, the figure he saw wasn’t that of Samuel, physical or spiritual. Samuel
was dead and buried about sixty miles away, and wouldn’t become conscious
until more than three thousand years later when he will be resurrected to meet
Christ when the Son of God returns from heaven to begin ruling the people on
Earth. (Hebrews 11:32–35; I Corinthians 15:51–52; I Thessalonians 4:14–17)
The sorceress had not created an illusion by her own powers, but she had
wrongly contacted evil spirits who were able to impersonate Samuel. All this,
however, was under the control of someone else—the leader of evil spirits, or
demons, who are sometimes referred to as fallen angels. That leader is Satan.
But Satan cannot do anything that God does not allow him and his evil spirits
to do. (Job 1:8–12)31

Like most Christian Bible commentaries, both children- and adult-oriented,

Wolverton reads the Hebrew Bible through a New Testament lens. In this
case, he overlooks the Torah’s assertion that necromancy is, in fact, real and
dangerous, which is why the practice is prohibited (Deut. 18:9–14).
The “moralizing/explanatory frame”32 of Jewish children’s Bibles is com-
paratively this-worldly, practical, and less supernaturally oriented. A repre-
sentative example comes from Reform rabbi Mendel Silber’s The Scripture
Stories Retold for Young Israel, originally published in 1916. Following a brief
summary of the birth of fraternal rival-twins Jacob and Esau, Silber opines:

[Esau] was not the kind of boy to care for the things that went with the birth-
right, he did not care to say prayers, and did not want to know anything about
religion, nor did he like to take care of anyone but himself. He did not even like
to stay in the house. All he did care for was to go hunting.33

This unflattering (and unnuanced) depiction is contrasted with that of Jacob,

who is one-dimensional in a positive direction:

[Jacob] was just the kind of boy who should have liked the things that went with
the birthright. He was very much like his grandfather, Abraham, and his father,
Isaac. He liked to stay at home, helping his mother around the house and his
father in the field. He also loved to think and talk about religion.34

Silber’s message is clear: Be like Jacob.

As might be expected, Bible stories aimed at children edit out “grosser”
elements, overlook questionable episodes, and smooth over rough moral and
theological edges. Whenever possible, men are portrayed unambiguously as
“either good or bad,” while “boys, girls, and women should be kind, obedient,
92 Chapter 5

and non-confrontational.”35 Of course, such lessons are more easily drawn

from some stories than others—a fact reflected in the regular omission of
problematic stories and story elements. Underground cartoonist R. Crumb’s
The Book of Genesis Illustrated (2009) carries a warning, “Adult supervision
recommended for minors,” precisely because he leaves nothing out from the
original text.36
The life of David poses special challenges for children’s authors. Not only
is his narrative the most complex and fleshed out of the biblical protagonists
(save for God), but it is rife with moral lapses, violent episodes, adult sce-
narios, and militaristic language. Gold’s study of seven Jewish children’s
Bibles, published between 1916 and 1934, identifies several trends: high-
lighting young David’s innocence as a shepherd boy; impressing his gentle-
ness as a lyre player; lauding his bravery in fighting Goliath; and playing up
his affection for Jonathan and Saul. The books give disproportionate space
to the story of David and Goliath, which is told as an uncomplicated and
inspirational underdog tale. The adult David receives much less attention,
with redactions and whitewashing of his conflict with Saul, his violent bouts
with the Philistines, his son Absalom’s revolt, his adultery with Bathsheba,
and so on.37
Jessica Fitting draws similar conclusions from her analysis of eleven
Christian storybooks of David and Goliath.38 Most of the stories begin with
David in a calm pastoral setting with his flock of sheep, underscoring his
innocence and humble origins. They also stress that David was sent to the
front lines to deliver food to his brothers, not as a trained warrior. Each story
shows David protecting his flock from the lion and/or bear, foreshadowing
his bravery. The books also frame Goliath’s death in a similar way: David,
despite being young, weak, inexperienced, and armor-less, tenaciously
defeats a big, strong, heavily armored man with God’s help. Usually absent
are the incentives of riches and marriage to Saul’s daughter, Goliath’s
decapitation, and the larger context of the Israelite-Philistine war. As Fitting
observes, the books project an American “boy tale” ideal, which is “a clearly
American ideal, and America is primarily Christian, so it is no surprise that
many of these stories turn it into a more Christian story, omitting the parts
about the Israelites and the Jewish tradition.”39 These trends are repeated in
the numerous storybook and animated versions of the story.
Wolverton’s illustrated Bible offers a unique Christian treatment of
David and Goliath. Published by radio and television evangelist Herbert W.
Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, The Bible Story (aka The Wolverton
Bible) appeared in multiple volumes between 1953 and 1974. Wolverton, who
was himself a passionate Christian minister, gained fame with his 1946 L’il
Abner contest-winning drawing of the “most gruesome” face for Lena the
Hyena.40 A “producer of preposterous pictures of peculiar people” who hailed
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 93

from the “the spaghetti and meatball school of design,” Wolverton earned a
reputation as “America’s weirdest artist” for the humorously hideous aliens
in his science-fiction comics, his bizarre comedy strips “Powerhouse Pepper”
and “The Culture Corner,” and his work for MAD magazine.41 Yet, Wolverton
wanted to be remembered for his Bible illustrations. At first glance, the art-
ist’s wild tendencies might seem incongruous with the sacred source material,
but as his son Monte explained: “He saw that the biblical account was full of
conflict, pathos, tragedy, violence, bloodshed and horror. It was, after all, a
story of humanity—and in this way, Wolverton’s comic horror work and his
grotesquely humorous drawings were consistent with his theological under-
standing of the human condition.”42
Wolverton produced two chapters on David and Goliath (“Goliath
Challenges God!” and “David as National Hero”) spanning a total of nineteen
pages. They begin with David soothing Saul with his lyre (1 Sam. 16), con-
tinue with the David and Goliath story proper (1 Sam. 17), and conclude with
Saul plotting against David (1 Sam. 18). Compared to other child-oriented
Bibles, Wolverton’s account of David’s life is less “wart averse,” albeit with
a heavily apologetic tone. He does not shy away from mentioning Goliath’s
decapitation, David’s attraction and marriage to Michal, or how the “Israelites
overtook and killed thousands of them in a wild retreat that covered many
miles.”43 Even so, the chapters’ six illustrations match Fitting’s observations:
(1) David is introduced in an idyllic pasture with his lyre, staff, and sheep,
accompanied by the caption: “David was content to return to the peaceful
pursuit of herding sheep after his stay with Saul in the city. As with Moses,
it gave him an opportunity to pray and to meditate, and to start composing
a vital part of the Bible, the Psalms”;44 (2) David rushes to save his flock
from an attacking lion, showing a glimpse of his bravery;45 (3) An enormous
Goliath, standing well over 10 feet tall, towers over his shield-bearer—
emphasizing the great challenge David will soon face;46 (4) David “take(s)
food to three of his brothers who were camping with the Israelite army about
fifteen miles away”—showing David as a non-combatant delivery boy;47 (5)
Goliath’s shield-bearer stands in shock as the stone “miraculously” hits the
giant between the eyes;48 (6) The story concludes with a carefully gore-less
illustration and the caption: “Mile after mile the Israelite soldiers chased the
Philistine troops to the west, overtaking and slaughtering thousands. The
vengeful pursuers didn’t halt until they had driven a remnant of the enemy all
the way to several cities in Philistia.”49
For the most part, Wolverton’s text remains faithful to the structure and key
details of the original, with added dialogue, expository notes, and character
development to fill out the terse biblical account. For example, in describing
David fending off the lion, he notes:
94 Chapter 5

At one time a lion leaped from behind nearby rocks to seize between its teeth
a lamb that had strayed away a short distance. The lions of that land weren’t as
large and powerful as mature African lions. But they could easily kill a person
with one ferocious thrust of a clawed paw, and David knew it. Nevertheless, he
leaped after the lion as it tried to scramble over steep boulders. David fiercely
struck the beast on its spine with the staff he carried at all times. The dazed ani-
mal dropped the lamb and stumbled to the ground. The young shepherd seized
the lion by its long chin hair and snapped its head backward with such force that
its neck was broken.50

Such descriptions add a pinch of realism and adventure, similar to what

would be found in boy-centric novels and Boy Scout magazines of the time.
However, the message is less about David as a wily or courageous challenger
than it is about how divine intervention fueled his unlikely victory. Before
being defeated, Goliath threatens: “Bringing your God into this doesn’t
frighten me, little fellow! . . . No God can save you now!” After he falls,
the text states in bold: “Vanquished in God’s name.”51 David is not a role
model for his self-reliance, but for demonstrating how piety can give one
“superpowers.”
Bible stories were an early entry to the comic book medium. By the 1940s,
the decade-old industry was publishing hundreds of titles in a range of genres:
superhero, crime, adventure, funny animal, war, horror, romance, suspense,
science fiction, educational, classic novel adaptations, and more. Picture
Stories from the Bible (1942–1945), published by All-American Comics (a
forerunner of DC Comics), set the template for Bible comics with its bright
colors, clear line work, focus on single characters, and the careful selection
and adaptation of kid-appropriate stories featuring well-known biblical fig-
ures. All-American Comics founder Maxwell Charles Gaines purportedly
conceived of Picture Stories after hearing that half of American children had
no religious schooling.52 Although Gaines was Jewish, the book’s success
owed primarily to the church market. His advisory board, which gave the
book a holy seal of approval, included a radio minister, a representative from
the American Bible Society, and positive-thinking preacher Norman Vincent
Peale, among others. Catholic leaders instructed some two thousand parishes
to purchase the books for their Sunday schools.53 The deliberate appeal to
ecumenical audiences is evident in the use of both Old and New Testament
stories, the former of which were drawn from Protestant (King James),
Catholic (Douay), and Jewish (Jewish Publication Society) translations.54
Although not a major success by superhero standards, the seven-issue
series sold millions of copies.55 Two of the New Testament issues were
reprinted in 1945 as the 96-page Complete Life of Christ. In 1971, KTAV, a
Jewish publishing house, collected the Hebrew Bible tales as Picture Stories
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 95

from the Bible: From Creation to Judah Maccabee. Scarf Press reprinted
the entire series in 1979 as Jimmy Swaggart Presents Picture Stories from
the Bible (featuring David felling Goliath on the cover).56 According to Don
Jolly, who studies the intersection of religion and popular culture, the title’s
success had little to do with its stale writing or uncredited (and uninspiring)
artwork. Rather, Picture Stories and similar Bible comics “existed for parents
to buy on behalf of their children. Materially, they were comic books, but cul-
turally they were something else.”57 In fact, at the same time that Gaines was
promoting Bible stories, All-American was also publishing the more popular
Sensation Comics, starring Wonder Woman, a scantily clad symbol of female
power. The Catholic Church’s National Organization for Decent Literature
forbade Catholics by “debt of sin” from buying, selling, owning, lending, or
reading the title.58 Nevertheless, in an industry that boasted sales of 70 to 150
million copies per month, there was certainly room for parent- and religious
school–pleasing fare.
Gaines moved on to found EC Comics in 1944, which began as
“Educational Comics” but was changed to “Entertaining Comics” after
Gaines died in a boating accident in 1947. His son and successor, William,
turned the company’s focus to envelope-pushing horror comics.59
The Picture Stories rendition of David and Goliath spans six pages, begin-
ning with a brief account of David being called to play his lyre for the ailing
King Saul.60 After a smiling Saul says, “I feel much better,” the story cuts
to a messenger reporting that the Philistines have gathered in the Valley of
Elah.61 Meanwhile, David has returned to his father’s flock and sits gazing
at the pastoral setting. Goliath shouts his challenge across the valley. A few
Israelites express their terror: “He is so big and strong!” “We have no one
to fight such a man!”62 David’s father sends him to deliver “bread, cheese
and parched corn” to his brothers on the front lines. Upon hearing Goliath’s
challenge, David tells Saul, “Once a lion and a bear attacked my sheep, and I
killed both of them—I can slay this giant Goliath who defies your armies.”63
Without a hint of hesitation, Saul offers his armor to David, who refuses and
instead gathers stones from the brook. In four quick panels, David announces
that he will smite the giant, the stone hits the giant between the eyes, and
David gestures toward his fallen foe with a sword. “Then David runs up to
Goliath,” a caption reads, “and with Goliath’s own sword cuts off his head”
(the decapitation is not illustrated).64 The next panel shows Israelite soldiers
boasting about the Philistines fleeing; there is no mention of the Israelites’
ensuing attack. The remainder of the story, stretching four and a half pages,
has David and Jonathan becoming fast friends, David taking Michal as his
wife, some sanitized battle scenes, and Saul’s growing jealousy over David’s
swift ascent.
96 Chapter 5

The artwork and storytelling choices are stale and wooden, confirming
Jolly’s observation that “Bible tale” comics resemble the medium in format
but in few other ways. The characters are stiff, difficult to tell apart, and
thoroughly Anglo in appearance. Goliath, who is supposed to be exception-
ally large and well-armored, at times appears only slightly taller than fellow
Philistine soldiers and dressed in the same uniform. Indeed, Goliath is almost
identical to Saul, the only differences being their hair color (Saul’s beard is
black, Goliath’s is red), Saul wears a sash over his armor, and Goliath has
bad teeth. David’s rendering is inconsistent: he sometimes resembles a child
and other times a young adult. Most of the backgrounds are minimally filled
in or just a single color, and many of the figures appear as monochromatic
shadows in the background.
The avoidance of bloodshed and unseemly content is to be expected.
Elsewhere in Picture Stories, the conquest of Jericho similarly omits the
excessive attack that follows the wall’s collapse.65 Whereas the Book of
Joshua has the Israelites pilfering silver, gold, and objects of iron and cop-
per for “the treasury of the Lord” (Josh. 6:19); killing women, children, and
livestock (Josh. 6:21); and burning down the city and “everything in it” (Josh.
6:24), Picture Stories reduces the brutal scene to a single panel showing a
bloodless clash of soldiers. What is curious is that the battle between David
and Goliath—the centerpiece of young David’s life—occurs in such a short
sequence and with such little fanfare. Over two-thirds of the story recounts
what happens after the duel.
Bible comics received a boost in the mid-1950s, following the publication
of Jewish German-American psychiatrist Fredric Wertham’s Seduction of the
Innocent (1954). Earlier research had viewed comics as a mostly positive
contribution to literacy.66 However, opinions began to shift during the 1940s,
with children’s author Sterling North warning: “Unless we want a coming
generation even more ferocious than the present one, parents and teachers
throughout America must band together to break the ‘comic’ magazine.”67
Wertham’s book took these concerns to the next level, speciously arguing,
“The pattern was one of stealing, gangs, addiction, comic books and vio-
lence.”68 While crime and horror comics were his main targets, no genre was
left unscathed: cartoon animals corrupted the minds of toddlers; romance
comics promoted prostitution; superheroes undermined parental authority;
and so forth. Hysteria reached the U.S. Senate, which organized the Senate
Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency (1953–1954). Wertham
was the expert witness at the public hearings, and William Gaines, purveyor
of the gleefully violent and “extremely liberal”69 EC Comics, was the prime
“culprit.” The committee did not make an official ruling, but unfavorable
press coverage led the comic book industry to adopt the Comics Code
Authority: a self-regulatory ratings code certifying the wholesome content
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 97

of books carrying the authority’s badge on their covers (i.e., free of murder,
gore, drugs, horror, sex, gunplay, etc.). The scrutinizing atmosphere forced
a number of companies out of business. EC Comics dropped all of its titles
except for MAD, which was converted to a black-and-white magazine, thus
evading comic book censorship.
Bible comics were especially appealing to worried parents. In 1955,
Gilbertson’s Classics Illustrated published The Story of Jesus, scripted by
former Methodist missionary Lorenz Graham and featuring a back-cover
endorsement by Christian Herald editor Daniel A. Poling. Atlas Comics,
which had been severely damaged by anti-comics alarmism, published a
five-issue series, Bible Comics for Young People (1953–1954). Classics
Illustrated and Dell Comics both published adaptations of the 1956 film The
Ten Commandments.70
Famous Funnies debuted its four-issue Tales from the Great Book in
1955.71 Like other Bible comics of the period, the series borrowed the
kid-centric approach of Picture Stories. The series was a safe alternative to
the much-maligned and similarly titled Tales from the Crypt, published by
EC from 1950 to 1955. What separated the series from other Bible comics
was the artwork by John Lehti, who had honed his action-adventure chops
on Tarzan, Flash Gordon, and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet. His illustrated
stories—ranging from Samson to the fall of Jericho to the Judean boy-king
Joash—more closely resembled the dynamic, detailed style kids expected
from mainstream titles. His characters were still unrealistically white and
wholesome-bordering-on-generic, but exciting wraparound covers and vivid
action sequences gave the books an allure not often found in children’s Bible
comics. For parents, the covers featured an enlarged Comics Code Authority
badge that was noticeably larger than those used by DC and Marvel Comics.
Lehti had a knack for dramatizing the typically sparse biblical text. In
his hands, invented dialogue, ancillary characters, and embellished action
sequences enhanced the original, much as midrash does in the rabbinic tradi-
tion. Lehti’s story, “Young David,” appears in issue four of Tales from the
Great Book, alongside tales of Jesus’ miracles of loaves and fishes, the maid
of Naaman’s wife, the Three Wise Men, Moses and Miriam, Lazarus being
restored to life, and an unillustrated recounting of Noah’s Ark.72 The order of
stories in each of the four issues is less concerned with chronology—Hebrew
Bible and New Testament tales are randomly shuffled together—than with
giving an impression of biblical unity. This is most pronounced in “The
Little Captive Maid,” which Lehti introduces as a story “based on historical
research . . . though portions are unrecorded in the Bible they are not con-
trary to, nor do they change the biblical account in II Kings 5:1–14.”73 In the
story, the maid, called Damaris, convinces the leprous Naaman to dip into
the Jordan River to be healed, as the prophet Elisha has instructed. Naaman
98 Chapter 5

is healed and declares, “Now I know there is but one God in all the earth. . . .
Elisha must be rewarded!,” to which his wife adds, “And you, too, Damaris!”
This is followed with a caption: “And centuries later, Jesus of Nazareth told
the world— ‘. . . If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto
the mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing
shall be impossible to you.’ Mt. 17:20.”74
For his story of young David, Lehti does not focus on the bout with
Goliath. Instead, he expands on the Bible’s brief reference to David fighting
a bear (as opposed to Wolverton’s choice of a lion). In the biblical account,
David presents the encounter as proof that he can defeat the ferocious giant:

Your servant has been tending his father’s sheep, and if a lion or a bear came and
carried off an animal from the flock, I would go after it and fight it and rescue it
from its mouth. And if it attacked me, I would seize it by the beard and strike it
down and kill it. Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and that uncircum-
cised Philistine shall end up like one of them, for he has defied the ranks of the
living God. The Lord . . . who saved me from the lion and bear will also save
me from the Philistine (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Lehti develops this monologue into a nine-page story, framing the narra-
tive with Psalm 23—similar to the psalm’s use in the Xena episode. Lehti
interprets the text’s shepherd metaphors as an allusion to God, the “Great
Shepherd,” who saves David from a bear: “The Lord is my shepherd, I lack
nothing. . . . Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear
no harm, for You are with me . . .” (vv. 1, 4).
Like so many children’s Bible stories, we first see David tending to his
flock. However, there are some unique aspects from the start. David, who
convincingly looks the part of a shepherd boy, calls out the names of his
sheep and is accompanied by a sheepdog named Shendi. David joins his par-
ents, brothers, and attending servants for supper, leaving Shendi in charge of
the sheep. “Before you return to the sheep, my son,” his father, Jesse, says,
“play something for me on your harp.” David grabs his harp (lyre) and shares
the opening verses of Psalm 23, noting that it is a work in progress. We next
see David in the field at night, unable to find Shendi or the flock. The follow-
ing day, one of David’s older brothers approaches him. “All right, youngster,
today is my turn with the sheep—you are free to go off and waste your time
making up songs.”75 David explains that Shendi is missing and that there is
evidence of a struggle.
David follows Shendi’s tracks into the hills, finds the dog, wraps its
wounds, and they hike back to the sheepfold. In perfect “boy tale” fashion,
a caption reads: “Like many a young lad, [David] puts too much trust in the
invincibility of the dog he loves—and even now the pair of fierce eyes glare
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 99

down at him in hatred!”76 David returns to see that the predator has struck
again, this time killing a lamb and injuring his brother, who is convinced the
attacker is no mere animal, but a demon. As David leads his flock through
a ravine, the sheep become frightened and stampede wildly. In the distance,
David spots the bear with a lamb in its jaws. He orders Shendi to watch the
sheep while he confronts the beast. David enters a bear cave, saves the lamb,
and proceeds to fight the bear. David is knocked down and his thoughts turn
to prayer: “Just as I save the lamb, the Lord is my shepherd. . . . He will save
me. . . . I must have no fear!” At that moment, he remembers that God “made
the noses of all bears extremely tender.”77 He punches the bear in the nose
and the beast falls on David’s sword. David is next seen reclining in a field,
playing his harp, and singing the finished texts of Psalm 23. “In living,” Jesse
explains to his wife, “his experiences furnished him with the right words.”78
In 1961, Dell published a comic-book adaption of the Italian film David e
Golia, a dubbed version of which was released in the United States as David
and Goliath (1960).79 (Orson Welles, who played Saul in the movie, directed
his own scenes and required no dubbing.) The book opens with Samuel fore-
seeing the rise of a new king, much to the chagrin of King Saul and Abner,
Saul’s cousin and chief commander. Among the comic’s (and film’s) added
elements are scenes of young David practicing his rock slinging and his
romance with a village girl named Elga; dialogue given to the Philistine king
Asdod and his recruitment of Goliath with a payment of gold; the introduction
of Goliath’s friend, a “petty cutpurse, a rascal, called Creth”;80 Goliath dem-
onstrating his strength by lifting the “Rock of Samson,” a boulder raised only
once before by Samson himself; the anachronistic depiction of Jerusalem as
home to Saul’s palace and the Holy Temple; David arriving in Jerusalem, pur-
chasing slaves to free them, and fighting off soldiers who manhandle political
dissidents; Goliath’s killing of an Israelite emissary named Benjamin, who
was sent to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant from the Philistines; and Abner
sending David into battle, “seeking David’s death to end his only popular
rival for Saul’s throne.”81 All of this leads to a final confrontation between
David and Goliath, spanning five pages, and the Israelites’ attack that fol-
lows. The comic/film ends with David bringing Goliath’s sword to Saul. As
he does, Abner is lurking in the shadows, readying himself to assassinate
David. In the nick of time, Saul produces a bow and arrow and strikes Abner
down. “Glory to David—Hero to Israel!” shouts Saul. David replies: “Long
live Saul—King of Israel!”82 The curtains close on David accepting Michal’s
hand in marriage.
These and numerous other departures are as much midrashic inventions as
they are byproducts of turning a one-chapter Bible story into a feature-length
film. The added romance, intrigue, characters, and grand settings conform
with cinematic expectations. The comic’s uncredited artwork resembles the
100 Chapter 5

style and competence Lehti brought to Tales from the Great Book. In both
the film and the comic, David is athletic, muscular, fully grown, and shirt-
less—more in line with Ben-Hur (1959) or Spartacus (1960) than with the
innocent boy of biblical lore. Most interesting is the backstory supplied for
Goliath, who appears as a money-motivated, cave-dwelling mercenary with a
violent streak. Unfortunately, this portrayal only reinforces his uncomplicated
villainousness. A touch of humanity is perhaps seen in his capacity for friend-
ship, even though his friend is a cretin.
Controversial Protestant fundamentalist-evangelical cartoonist Jack Chick
published his take on David and Goliath in 1986.83 One of the hundreds of
“Chick tracts” produced during his half-century career, the story, titled The
Terminator?, takes its name from the 1984 box office smash hit of the same
name (minus the question mark). Following in the American footsteps of
co-opting popular media to spread the “good news,” Chick—who was “born
again” after hearing Charles E. Fuller’s Old-Fashioned Revival Hour in
1960—not only borrowed the easily digestible illustrated short-story form,
but also a propagandistic booklet design (1 or 2 panels per page, approx. 3 by
5 inches, around 20 pages) that had proven successful in Communist China.84
The tracts, which some conservative Christians hand out at Halloween, are
far less “child safe” than the practice suggests. Filled with graphic images
and fire-and-brimstone assaults on Catholicism (deemed a “false religion”)
and supposed societal “sins” (abortion, drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, the
occult, rock music, blasphemy, liberalism, ecumenism, feminism, Dungeons
& Dragons, etc.), the tracts have traumatized many impressionable young
people over the years.
Chick, who died in 2016, hoped to frighten readers into accepting Jesus
Christ as their savior—a goal that, while difficult to quantify, was likely aided
by the comics’ often-horrifying, almost-photorealistic black-and-white draw-
ings. (Chick drew many of the tracts himself, but also worked with at least
two other illustrators.85) A notorious recluse, Chick regularly voiced harsh,
over-the-top armchair condemnations of current events. For instance, his
1995 tract, “Who Murdered Clarice?,” tells of an abortion doctor who dies of
suicide. Facing divine judgment, it is revealed that the doctor had been sell-
ing baby parts. The 2012 tract, “Global Warming,” characterizes the climate
crisis as a hoax: “Jesus is calling the shots . . . not the environmentalists!”86
According to the Chick Publications website, the tracts have sold some
900 million copies in over 100 languages. An article for Vox, written by cul-
tural theorist Alissa Wilkinson, breaks down the various tracts into a simple
two-part formula: (1) Dream up the most extreme consequences for a “social
ill”; (2) Insist that Hell can only be avoided by accepting Chick’s “pope-
hating, King James Bible–loving version of Jesus Christ as your personal
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 101

savior.”87 Not surprisingly, this fiery approach has divided critics, with the
ecumenical conservative magazine First Things calling Chick “one of the
most prolific and polarizing religious leaders in US history.”88 Following
his death at age ninety-two, the Billy Graham–founded Christianity Today
eulogized him as “the cartoonist who wanted to save your soul from hell.”89
The Southern Poverty Law Center designates Chick Publications as a hate
group for its anti-Catholic, ant-Muslim, anti-atheist, and homophobic ide-
ology.90 The tongue-in-cheek Chick Tract Club calls Chick “The King of
Underground Publishing,” and collectors—devoted and ironic alike—can
consult The Unofficial Guide to the Art of Jack T. Chick.91
The Terminator? opens with a bold caption instructing, “Read 1 Samuel
17.” Instead of starting with young David, we are immediately introduced
to an enormous, ogre-like Goliath uprooting a tree and lifting it in the
air. An attendant to the Philistine king describes Goliath as “an ultimate
weapon”—like Schwarzenegger’s Terminator—and reveals that he is only
nine years old.92 “The years pass by,” and the king marvels at the skill his
champion has developed under the tutelage of an unnamed, muscle-bound,
eyepatch-wearing mentor (a character seemingly ripped from Mad Max). At
this point, Chick reminds us that the “Philistines bowed to Dagon. When peo-
ple bow to idols, they are actually worshipping devils. . . . God hates that!”93
Enter David, a humble shepherd whom Samuel anoints to replace an increas-
ingly self-absorbed and paranoid King Saul. David’s lyre playing causes the
“evil spirit” to depart from Saul, which is shown as a menacing ghost.
The story cuts to David battling a lion with the caption, “David was no
coward!”94 We then see a fully armored Goliath shaking his fist in the air,
standing beside his comparatively tiny shield-bearer. Goliath is described as
eleven-and-a-half feet tall—even larger than his 9’9” stature in the Hebrew
text. Jesse sends David to the battlefield with supplies for his brothers, where
the young shepherd insists on challenging the giant. At this point, Goliath’s
face is shown to be that of a demonic troll—a fearmongering personifica-
tion of ungodly evil. David collects five smooth stones, shakes his hand
at Goliath, and quotes the King James Bible: “Thou comest to me with a
sword . . . but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of
the armies of Israel. . . .”95 A brisk duel follows with “Dagon’s Terminator”
meeting his demise. A grotesque drawing of David holding Goliath’s severed
head concludes the sequence. Through interspersed Bible verses, Chick tells
us that, after Saul’s death:

David became king. He was shepherd to his people. Isaiah prophesied that
Israel’s Messiah would come through David’s line. [Isa. 7:14] Almost 1,000
years later, that Messiah, Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. [John 10:11; 1:10] . . .
Jesus left heaven to teach us love. [John 3:16] . . . Jesus was the perfect sacrifice,
102 Chapter 5

God the Son shed His blood to wash away your sins. [Rom. 5:8] . . . Jesus’ first
visit to earth was as the lamb. But soon He’ll return in power and glory. [Rev.
19:21] . . . The Lord Jesus will reign over the world from Jerusalem . . . and
Satan will be cast into the lake of fire. [Rev. 20:20; Matt. 25:41] . . . Who will
you serve? Jesus Christ—Eternal life in heaven—or Satan—Eternal pain in the
lake of fire? The choice is YOURS.96

Although aggressive and over-the-top, Chick’s Christological reading is not

out of step with Christian children’s Bibles. However, the “Chick formula”
does not entirely work here. No matter how Satan-like Goliath is drawn or
how blasphemous the Dagon-worshiping Philistines are made out to be, the
one-thousand-year leap to Jesus and additional two-millennia-plus leap to
the yet-to-happen Armageddon is not as tidily told as the many tracts dealing
with modern issues. Chick wanted to attract young people infatuated with
The Terminator film, but in the process only managed to turn Goliath into
a subhuman monster trained from youth to be a Philistine demon-protector.
A final comic book example of David and Goliath is Kyle Baker’s King
David (2002).97 Like Chick’s book, it is a drastic departure from the sanitized
Bible tale comics. However, unlike Chick’s proselytizing mission, Baker’s
book revels in the moral ambiguity of the biblical narrative. Published by
DC’s Vertigo imprint, which specialized in adult content, King David is
similar to Crumb’s adaptation of Genesis in warranting a “mature readers”
label for its unfiltered inclusion of the source material. However, while
Crumb’s effort attempts a meticulous verse-by-verse rendering, Baker’s is
a free-flowing patchwork of Bible quotations, contemporized dialogue, car-
toony contortions, and ultra-violence. A refreshing aspect of both Crumb’s
and Baker’s work is that their characters actually look indigenous to the
region: dark skin, black hair, “Arab” features, etc. Baker’s energetic artwork,
inventive storytelling, comic pacing, and animation-inspired figures in You
Are Here (1998), Plastic Man (2004–2006), Nat Turner (2008), and more
have earned him numerous industry awards, including eight Eisners, seven
Harveys, and five Glyphs—the latter recognizing the best in comics made by,
for, and about people of color (Baker is Black). As an animator, Baker has
done storyboards, direction, and art direction for Looney Tunes projects and
episodes of Phineas and Ferb, among others. The back cover of King David
aptly describes Baker’s wild approach:

From the sun-scorched plains of ancient Judea came young David, a

simple shepherd’s son with a gift for music and a talent for handing
out serious butt-kicking to his enemies!
Behold, in awe, as this upstart pipsqueak faces Goliath, the
Gargantuan of Gath, in a no-holds-barred fight to the death!
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 103

Thrill to the young phenom’s rise to glory during decades of savage

battle against the enemies of God’s chosen people!
Wince as David subjects the Philistines to the world’s first (and
hopefully only) mass-bris!
Quiver at David’s intrigue-filled attempts to stay one step ahead of
jealous King Saul’s assassins!
Gasp at David’s treacherous lust for the beautiful Bathsheba, a
woman he shamelessly steals from one of his own soldiers!
Will our hero rise to the challenges that face he who wears the
crown, or will absolute power corrupt him absolutely?
Violence! Intrigue! Polygamy! Mass Circumcision!
All this and more can be found in Eisner-Award winning artist Kyle
Baker’s irreverent—yet biblically accurate—epic graphic novel,
King David!

Baker’s tale begins with young David arriving at Saul’s palace. The reader
is immediately struck by David’s small stature—he is barely larger than a
toddler—and Saul’s vicious and deranged appearance. A palace guard
explains that Saul had killed the last musician who attempted to soothe him.
He warns David, “The king’ll bite your face off! You really wanna bring
that cute face of yours home in a sack?” As he says this, the fresh blood of a
eunuch flows under the door. David asks, “You’re telling me King Saul is on
the other side of that door?” David produces his lyre and plays a few notes.
The door opens to broken furniture, dead bodies, and assorted refuse scattered
about Saul’s dimly lit throne room. “You’re hired,” says the king.98
David delivers provisions to his brother Eliab in the Elah Valley. David
hears Goliath in the distance and squints his eyes to get a good look. His
nonchalant brother, who is preoccupied with the food David brought, casually
explains that Goliath yells at them every day. “He’s all talk. Except when he’s
slaughtering us.”99 Excited to learn that Saul is offering riches to anyone who
slays the giant, David attempts to charge forward. He is stopped by Saul’s
guards, who bring him to the king. “Young man, you surprise me,” Saul tells
him. “Nice little harp boy. My perfect, wholesome, perky little armor bearer.
What is this I hear about you?” David professes his worthiness as an oppo-
nent, recounting his killing of the lion and bear: “The Lord who delivered me
from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the
hand of the Philistine.”100 David declines to wear Saul’s armor, fills his sack
with stones, and marches determinedly to Goliath.
This is followed by twenty pages of beautifully rendered, wordless sequen-
tial art displaying Baker’s animation prowess. The fight receives the suspense
and spectacle it richly deserves but rarely receives. Goliath is supernaturally
large and animalistic, with decapitated human heads hanging around his neck
on a chain. David’s first stone misses the giant’s head, and Goliath’s sword
104 Chapter 5

cuts through David’s sack, sending the other stones flying. David is nearly
speared as he dives for a loose stone. The spear hits the ground with such
force that it splits in two. Goliath topples over, allowing David to reload his
sling. As Goliath dives at the young shepherd, a stone catches him squarely
between the eyes. Blood splatters and the Philistines stand paralyzed in
shock. Their champion is dead. David lifts Goliath’s massive sword and slices
off his head with a bloody “CHOP!”101 A scowling David lifts the giant’s
head, which is bigger than he is, for all to see.
Saul is at first elated but soon grows envious of the young hero. The “evil
spirit” returns to Saul, and David is again called on to play his lyre. Saul tries
to spear David as he plays, but instead of merely missing, as he does in the
biblical text (1 Sam. 19:9–10), Baker has David grabbing the spear away
from Saul and pointing its tip toward the mad king’s face. The guards inter-
vene and Saul thinks, “I have to get rid of this kid.”102 The story continues
through David’s adult years to the birth of Solomon to Bathsheba, with plenty
of explicit, high-energy, and entertaining scenes along the way. Liberties are
taken for comedic and dramatic effect; but, as the back cover states, the book
is “irreverent—yet biblically accurate.”

GOLIATH THE MEEK

Each of the comics surveyed above are restrained by 1 Samuel 17. Despite the
various creative choices and expansions, David remains a hero and Goliath
remains a villain. Only two of the books develop Goliath’s backstory, and
both do so by amplifying his bad qualities: Dell’s David and Goliath makes
him a cave-dwelling primitive with a lust for gold, while the Chick tract
makes him a hideous killer trained from youth.
A rare instance of humanizing, albeit in an intentionally silly story, occurs
in Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen no. 62 (1962).103 The five-page story, titled
“Jimmy’s Duel with Goliath,” written by Leo Dorfman and penciled by
Curt Swan, begins with the Daily Planet’s young, redheaded photojournalist
dressed as the shepherd boy David for Professor Potter’s “scientists’ mas-
querade ball.” Jimmy arrives at Potter’s lab, where the professor is sewing the
last buttons onto his Napoleon costume. Jimmy slips a few metal balls into
his shepherd’s pouch while he waits. Meanwhile, goons from Lex Luthor’s
gang pound down the lab door. One of them shouts at Jimmy: “We’re after
some green kryptonite Potter’s got stashed away! But what’re you wearin’
that David costume for? You expectin’ to meet Goliath? Ha! Ha!”104 Jimmy
slings a stone at one of the goons, summons Superman on his signal watch,
is shot by a ray gun, and drifts into a haze.
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 105

Jimmy awakens in biblical times, where Goliath and a group of Philistine

soldiers spot him wandering in a valley. Goliath says, “Yonder is David the
shepherd boy, favorite of King Saul!” “It can’t be David,” a soldier replies,
“his tribe is at war with ours, so he wouldn’t enter Philistine territory alone!
Besides, David’s hair isn’t red like this youth’s!”105 The soldiers rush toward
Jimmy, who is saved by Goliath. Grateful but confused, Jimmy confesses, “I
hardy expected you to act friendly toward me! You Philistines are supposed
to be my enemies.” “Ugh! The Philistines!” Goliath sighs. “They are a cruel,
cowardly lot who depend on me to win their victories! I’d rather be one of
your peace-loving folks. . . . Couldn’t you ask your leaders to let me join
them?”106 Jimmy soon encounters David and hands him a green kryptonite
stone he inexplicably finds lying in the embers of an extinguished fire. David
slings the stone at Goliath, who is evidently vulnerable to kryptonite, and
“history” is restored—much to Jimmy’s relief. We next find Jimmy awaken-
ing in Potter’s lab, surrounded by the professor, Superman, and the hand-
cuffed goons. “You weren’t in the past!” explains Superman. “Luthor’s ray
only sent you into dreamland!” The metal pellets, it turns out, are kryptonite
samples coated in lead. “So that’s it!” says Jimmy. “The lead melted in the
fire . . . leaving the kryptonite! But what am I saying? It was only a dream!
Or was it?”107
Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen was one of several Superman books during
DC Comics Silver Age (1956–c. 1970). Pressured by the restrictive Comics
Code Authority, editor Mort Weisinger encouraged his writers and artists to
veer in any absurd direction they wished, as long as they avoided true-to-life
situations. Superman titles replaced realistic action and scary villains with
vibrant colors, oddball characters, smiling heroes, guileless whimsy, and
baffling scenarios. Heroes were more likely to fend off comical creatures or
engage in competitive sports than delve into society’s dark side. Characters
from the Bible and mythology often make appearances, presumably with
the aim of pleasing cautious parents. These superpowered archetypes were
thrown into inoffensively ludicrous storylines, epitomized by Jimmy Olsen’s
softer version of Goliath.
In Action Comics no. 308 (1964), Superman is zapped to ancient times,
where he helps Hercules—playing the part of a hapless Goliath—retrieve
his mojo after being struck by a “pellet” slung by Jason-David’s sling
(“Superman Meets the Goliath-Hercules”).108 “The Super-Rivals,” from
Action Comics no. 279 (1961), has Hercules and Samson transported to the
present day, where Hercules marries Lois Lane and Samson marries Lana
Lang.109 Both come to regret their marriages and beg Superman to help them
return to their own times. “The Battle of the Gods,” the cover story of Action
Comics no. 353 (1967), features a fistfight between Atlas and Zha-Vam, a
strongman created by the gods of Olympus as a rival for Superman.110 In
106 Chapter 5

“The Red-Headed Beatle of 1,000 B.C.,” from Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen
no. 79 (1964), Jimmy travels back in time to a biblical landscape, where
he meets a young Samson (disguised as “Mighty Youth”).111 Jimmy starts a
“Beatle craze thousands of years back in the past” by playing the unmusical
shofar and banging on a drum (writer Leo Dorfman’s not-so-subtle dig at the
rock-and-roll craze).112 The cover of Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane no.
98 (1970) features Lois cutting Superman’s invulnerable hair with “magic
shears.” “Lois . . . No!” shouts Superman. “You duped me just like Delilah
did Samson! You’ve robbed me of my powers!”113
While Tom Gauld’s Goliath is not directly linked with these reconceptions
of biblical stories, themes, and characters, its alternative view is more closely
aligned with them than with conventional Bible comics. There is a resonance,
especially, between Gauld’s pacifistic giant and the figure in “Jimmy’s Duel
with Goliath” who wants to defect from the cruel and cowardly Philistines.
Yet, whereas the Jimmy Olsen story is merely frivolous whimsy—with
Goliath being vulnerable to kryptonite and the story’s tension centering on
whether “history” will be saved by David slaying Goliath—Gauld reimagines
the giant as a genuinely sympathetic protagonist. His story is a nuanced, post-
modern reassessment of the complexities of war, the vagaries of heroism, and
the nature of the Philistines, who come across as no more or less despicable
than the Israelites.
The story opens with an evening view of the Philistine encampment, where
Goliath—resembling a tall, slender cone with an egg-shaped head—slouches
over an outdoor writing desk. Thirsty, he lumbers down a hill to a body of
water, scoops a mug full, takes a sip, and notices a large pebble. He picks
up the stone, admires it, and plops it into the water—foreshadowing his own
fall by a stone. We next see a Philistine captain asking the king to authorize
his plan to break the stalemate with the Israelites, who are positioned on
the other side of the valley. The disinterested king approves the plan, which
involves outfitting Goliath with a sword, spear, and costume armor—the lat-
ter of which slowly breaks apart as the story progresses. Goliath is also given
a nine-year-old shield-bearer whose purity, innocence, and tenacity match
those of the shepherd David.
Meanwhile, a solider approaches Goliath to see if he might be willing to
wrestle a captive bear in a prize fight. “We’d split the take fifty-fifty. . . .
‘Giant versus Bear’: that’s gold.” “No,” Goliath replies. “There’s no way . . .
no.”114 This amusing scene contrasts with David’s boast about killing the bear
and lion that attack his flock. Goliath possesses no such courage and no desire
to harm an animal.
The captain reveals his plan. Goliath is to read a prepared message
within earshot of the Israelite camp: “I am Goliath of Gath, champion of
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 107

the Philistines. I challenge you: Choose a man, let him come to me that we
may fight. If he be able to kill me then we shall be your servants. But if I kill
him then you shall be our servants” (paraphrasing 1 Sam. 17:8–9).115 Goliath
faints at the news, explaining that he is “the fifth-worst swordsman in my
platoon. . . . I do paperwork!” “You’re missing the point, Goliath,” the cap-
tain assures him. “You look like a champion. All you need to do is act like
a champion and the enemy will cower before us. There won’t be any actual
fighting. This is a battle of the minds.” “But what if somebody does want to
fight me?” Goliath asks. “Won’t happen. Trust me, Goliath.”116
The days pass and the young shield-bearer becomes restless. “Is somebody
going to fight you now?” he asks Goliath. “I hope not,” Goliath replies. “I’ve
got a dagger. I’ll help you,” the boy says, exhibiting the same youthful fear-
lessness as the biblical David.117 Days later, the boy relays several rumors
the Philistines have been spreading about Goliath: he eats rocks, he can burn
things by looking at them, he killed a camel by punching it. Surely, these sorts
of stories also circulated among the frightened Israelites.
The next day, a figure approaches Goliath and his shield-bearer. Could this
be a challenger? No, it is an elderly shepherd who seems unaware there is a
war going on. The confused old man might represent David’s future had he
not challenged Goliath and advanced to the throne.
Goliath weighs the possibility of running away, but decides to stay in the
field overnight and think it over. “I’m starting to quite like it out here. . . .
It’s sort of beautiful, don’t you think?” he asks the shield-bearer. “No,” the
boy replies. “It’s not beautiful. It’s boring. It’s just boring.” Meanwhile, the
“ferocious” bear is spotted wandering around harmlessly. “He must have
escaped,” Goliath says, presumably still contemplating his own release from
the Philistines.118
Sometime later, the captain approaches Goliath in the field. “I’m worried.
It’s been forty days: the king wants results. I think we might pull the plug.”
Goliath is heartened by this development, but instead of giving up, the captain
tells him, “Really go for it today, yeah?”119 Fog has settled in the field and
a faint voice is heard in the distance. “The Lord has delivered me . . . out of
the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear . . .” Goliath finally spots
the source of the words. “Just a kid,” he tells his shield-bearer. “Quiet, I can’t
hear what he’s saying.” “And I will smite thee . . . and take thine head from
thee,” the voice calls out. “Oh,” says Goliath, just before a stone hits him
between the eyes. An expressionless David takes the giant’s sword, chops off
his head, puts it a bag, and drags it away. “And when the Philistines saw their
champion dead they fled.”120
This tragic-comic portrait is nothing like the standard religious school les-
son, as exemplified in the Methodist Sunday School Journal for Teachers and
Young People, published in 1889:
108 Chapter 5

Supt. What is the story of David and Goliath?

School. Two armies are drawn up in battle array. The Philistines send out their
giant warrior Goliath to challenge the Israelites to a single combat. Saul, faith-
less and disobedient, has not the courage to go out against him, and not one of
his army dare venture his life with so terrible a foe. David, coming into the camp
on an errand, hears the insolent taunts of Goliath and pleads with the king to
avenge the honor of Israel. Obtaining his consent, he goes to meet him with only
his shepherd’s staff and five smooth stones for his sling. Goliath advances upon
him in haughty rage, only to fall by a stone from the despised sling.
Supt. What was the secret of David’s courage and fearlessness?
School. Faith in the power of God. “If God be for us who can be against us?”121

Gauld’s graphic novel questions these assumptions. Was Goliath a warrior,

or was he simply forced to dress the part? Was he a “terrible foe,” or were
reports of his exploits simply rumor-mill hype? Was Goliath filled with
haughty rage, or was he a shy introvert reading a haughty script? Was David
truly fearless and courageous, or did he simply call Goliath’s bluff?
Gauld demonstrates what is possible when a gifted storyteller peers
beneath the surface of a tired old tale. Unhampered by dogmatic constraints,
he gives us a fully formed, lovable, unforgettable Goliath. Indeed, the reader
is unlikely to see the biblical character the same way after meeting this kinder,
gentler giant.

NOTES

1. Irene Velentzas, “‘Comics Open Up the Idea of What a Story Can Be’: A
Conversation with Tom Gauld,” Comics Journal, August 18, 2020.
2. Hayley Campbell, “Small Human Ordinariness: An Interview
with Tom Gauld,” Comics Journal, May 23, 2012, http://www.tcj.com/
small-human-ordinariness-an-interview-with-tom-gauld.
3. Velentzas, “‘Comics Open Up the Idea of What a Story Can Be.’”
4. Campbell, “Small Human Ordinariness.”
5. Tom Gauld, Goliath (Montreal: Drawn and Quarterly, 2012).
6. Campbell, “Small Human Ordinariness.”
7. Ibid.
8. See Alexander Theroux, The Enigma of Al Capp (Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics,
1999), 36.
9. See Comiclopedia: Illustrated Artist Compendium, https://www.lambiek.net/
comiclopedia.html.
10. Jessica Plummer, “What Was the First Comic Book?”, Book Riot, July 23, 2020.
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 109

11. See Christina Meyer, Producing Mass Entertainment: The Serial Life of the
Yellow Kid (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2019).
12. James D. Martin, The Book of Judges (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1975), 157.
13. Ibid., 152.
14. John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 220.
15. Christopher Wood, Heroes Masked and Mythic: Echoes of Ancient Archetypes
in Comic Book Characters (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2021).
16. Stan Lee and Don Heck, Avengers, no. 10 (New York: Marvel Comics, 1964).
17. Stan Lee and Don Heck, Avengers, no. 28 (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966).
18. Roy Thomas and Gene Colan, Avengers, no. 63 (New York: Marvel
Comics, 1969).
19. Tony Isabella and George Tuska, Luke Cage, Power Man, no. 24 (New York:
Marvel Comics, 1975).
20. Tony Isabella and George Tuska, Black Goliath, nos. 1–5 (New York: Marvel
Comics, 1976).
21. Isabella and Tuska, Black Goliath no. 1, 26.
22. Joseph J. Darowski, ed., The Ages of the Incredible Hulk: Essays on the Green
Goliath in Changing Times (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015).
23. Lou Mougin, Secondary Superheroes of Golden Age Comics (Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2020), 41–44.
24. Don Wrytzen, Rock on the Head, Singcord, 1974, LP.
25. See Ruth B. Bottigheimer, The Bible for Children in the Age of Guttenberg to
the Present (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996).
26. Penny Schine Gold, Making the Bible Modern: Children’s Bibles and
Jewish Education in Twentieth-Century America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 2004), 1.
27. Ruth B. Bottigheimer, “Catechistical, Devotional and Biblical Writing,” in
International Companion Encyclopedia of Children’s Literature, ed. Peter Hunt (New
York: Routledge, 2004), 300.
28. Gold, Making the Bible Modern, 9.
29. Ibid., 38.
30. Ibid., 81.
31. Basil Wolverton, The Bible Story, vol. 4 (Pasadena, CA: Worldwide Church of
God, 1985), 137.
32. Gold, Making the Bible Modern, 120.
33. Mendel Silber, The Scripture Stories Retold for Young Israel, rev. ed. (New
York: Behrman’s Jewish Book House, 1918), 160.
34. Ibid., 160–61.
35. Gold, Making the Bible Modern, 160.
36. R. Crumb, The Book of Genesis Illustrated (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009).
37. Gold, Making the Bible Modern, 160–66. The seven books Gold examines are:
Addie Richman Altman’s The Jewish Child’s Bible Stories (1915), Adele Bildersee’s
Out of the House of Bondage (1925), Edith Lindeman Calisch’s Bible Tales for
the Very Young (1930–1934), Lenore Cohen’s Bible Tales for Very Young Children
110 Chapter 5

(1934–1936), Jacob S. Golub’s Israel in Canaan (1930), Maurice H. Harris’ The

People of the Book (1929), and Silber’s The Scripture Stories Retold for Young
Children (1916).
38. Fitting, “Children’s Literature and the ‘David and Goliath’ Story,” 44–47.
39. Ibid., 36.
40. See Theroux, The Enigma of Al Capp, 32–34.
41. Drew Friedman, Heroes of the Comics (Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2014),
plate 38. See Basil Wolverton, Spacehawk (Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2014);
Powerhouse Pepper (Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 1994); and The Culture Corner
(Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2010); among other collections.
42. Basil Wolverton, The Wolverton Bible: The Old Testament & Book of
Revelation Through the Pen of Basil Wolverton, comp. Monte Wolverton (Seattle,
WA: Fantagraphics, 2009), 12.
43. Wolverton, The Bible Story, 72, 73, 79.
44. Ibid., 64.
45. Ibid., 65.
46. Ibid., 66.
47. Ibid., 68.
48. Ibid., 73.
49. Ibid., 75.
50. Ibid., 64–65.
51. Ibid., 72.
52. Forbes magazine interview from 1943, cited in Dale Jacobs, Graphic
Encounters: Comics and the Sponsorship of Multimodel Literacy (New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013), 73.
53. David Hajdu, The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How It
Changed America (New York: Picador, 2008), 73.
54. Coates, “The Bible and Graphic Novels and Comic Books,” 458.
55. William B. Jones Jr., Classics Illustrated: A Cultural History, 2d ed. (Jefferson,
NC: McFarland, 2011), 254.
56. Jonathan L. Friedmann, “From Stale to Silly to Sublime: The Shofar in Comic
Books,” in Qol Tamid: The Shofar in Ritual, History, and Culture, ed. Jonathan L.
Friedmann and Joel Gereboff (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2017), 272.
57. Don Jolly, “Interpretive Treatments of Genesis in Comics: R. Crumb & Dave
Sims,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 25:3 (2013): 334.
58. Hajdu, The Ten-Cent Plague, 75.
59. See Steven Otfinoski, William Gaines: MAD Man (Vero Beach, FL:
Rourke, 1993).
60. Maxwell Gaines, ed., Picture Stories from the Bible (New York: Scarf,
1979), 126–32.
61. Ibid., 126.
62. Ibid., 127.
63. Ibid., 128.
64. Ibid., 129.
65. Gaines, Picture Stories from the Bible, 73–79.
 Tom Gauld’s Goliath 111

66. For example, H. C. Lehman and P. A. Witty, “The Compensatory Function of

the Sunday ‘Funny Paper,’” Journal of Applied Psychology 11:3 (1927): 202–11,
and Josette Frank, “The Role of Comic Strips and Comic Books in Child Life,”
Supplementary Educational Monographs 57 (1943): 158–62.
67. Sterling North, writing in the Chicago Daily News (1943). Quoted in Steven
James Carver, “Weird Tales from the Vault of Fear: The EC Comics Controversy and
Its Legacy,” Paper presented at Watching the Media: Censorship, Limits, and Control
in Creative Practice Symposium (Edge Hill University, Liverpool, April 2011), 3.
68. Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comic Books on
Today’s Youth (New York: Reinhart, 1954), 26.
69. See Bradford W. Wright, Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth
Culture in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 135–53.
70. Friedmann, “From Stale to Silly to Sublime,” 281.
71. John Lehti, Tales from the Great Book, nos. 1–4 (New York: Famous
Funnies, 1955–56).
72. John Lehti, Tales from the Great Book, no. 4 (New York: Famous Funnies, 1956).
73. Ibid., 1.
74. Ibid., 6.
75. Ibid., 8.
76. Ibid., 11.
77. Ibid., 15.
78. Ibid., 16.
79. David and Goliath (New York: Dell, 1961).
80. Ibid., 7.
81. Ibid., 22.
82. Ibid., 32.
83. Jack Chick, The Terminator? (Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Chick
Publications, 1986).
84. Jason C. Bivins, Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative
Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 41–88.
85. Alissa Wilkinson, “Satan, the Pope, and Dungeons & Dragons: How
Jack Chick’s Cartoons Informed American Fundamentalism,” Vox,
November 8, 2016. https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/8/13426962/
jack-chick-alt-right-fundamentalism-tracts-catholics-trump.
86. Ibid.
87. Ibid.
88. Chap Clark, “Who Was Jack T. Chick, Rabid Zealot or Misguided
Cartoonist?,” First Things, October 31, 2016. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/
firstthoughts/2016/10/who-was-jack-t-chick-rabid-zealot-or-misguided-cartoonist.
89. Kate Shellnutt, “Died: Jack Chick, Cartoonist Whose Controversial
Tracts Became Cult Hits,” Christianity Today, October 24, 2016. https://www.
christianitytoday.com/news/2016/october/died-jack-chick-cartoonist-controversial-
gospel-tracts.html.
112 Chapter 5

90. Leah Nelson, “Pastor Apologizes for Hate-Filled Halloween Hand-out,”

Southern Poverty Law Center, November 2, 2011. https://www.splcenter.org/
hatewatch/2011/11/02/pastor-apologizes-hate-filled-halloween-hand-out.
91. Kurt Kuersteiner, The Unofficial Guide to the Art of Jack T. Chick: Chick
Tracts, Crusader Comics, and Battle Cry Newspapers (Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2004).
92. Chick, The Terminator?, 3.
93. Ibid., 5.
94. Ibid., 8.
95. Ibid., 15.
96. Ibid., 19–22.
97. Kyle Baker, King David (New York: Vertigo DC Comics, 2002).
98. Ibid., 5–8.
99. Ibid., 15.
100. Ibid., 23–24.
101. Ibid., 47.
102. Ibid., 55.
103. Leo Dorfman and Curt Swan, Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, no. 62 (New
York: DC Comics, 1962).
104. Ibid., 12.
105. Ibid., 13.
106. Ibid., 14.
107. Ibid., 15.
108. Leo Dorfman and Al Plastino, Action Comics, no. 308 (New York: DC
Comics, 1964).
109. Robert Bernstein and John Forte, Action Comics, no. 279 (New York: DC
Comics, 1961).
110. Otto Binder and Wayne Boring, Action Comics, no. 353 (New York: DC
Comics, 1967).
111. Leo Dorfman and Curt Swan, Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, no. 79 (New
York: DC Comics, 1964).
112. See Jonathan L. Friedmann, “When Jimmy Blew the Shofar: Midrash and
Musical Invective in Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen,” Journal of Religion and Popular
Culture 28:1 (2016): 43–53.
113. Robert Kanigher and Irv Novick, Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane, no. 98
(New York: DC Comics, 1970).
114. Gauld, Goliath, 22.
115. Ibid., 33.
116. Ibid., 36–37.
117. Ibid., 42.
118. Ibid., 69–70.
119. Ibid., 75.
120. Ibid., 78–84.
121. Lily Lathbury, “Response Review for the Third Quarter,” Sunday School
Journal for Teachers and Young People (Aug. 1889): 357.
 6.‌‌‌‌‌

Conclusion
Other Goliaths

Sympathetic portraits of Goliath stand in sharp contrast to the Bible narrative

and its underdog metaphor. 1 Samuel 17 presents a superficial, uncomplicated
image of an enormous, loud-mouthed, “uncircumcised Philistine” who “dares
defy the ranks of the living God” (v. 26). The arrogant giant, unequivocally
on the side of “evil,” is rightfully slain by a pious young shepherd’s humble
sling. The prevalence of this perception is not surprising. Not only is the
Bible the world’s most abundantly published and widely purchased book, but
David’s bout with Goliath is among the most popular Bible tales for children.
The story—especially in its sanitized, relatively bloodless versions—sells
itself. As self-help author Melody Stanford Martin observes, “People love
a good underdog story, like David and Goliath or the Tortoise and the Hare.
Usually we focus on [and identify with] the characters of David and the
Tortoise—the wimpy, heroic underdogs who bested great big jerks, jerks too
blinded by ego to see their own weaknesses.”1 Such readings, encouraged by
the biblical authors and centuries of retellings and interpretations, inhibit any
inclination to walk a mile in Goliath’s sandals.
The projects explored in this book challenge this dehumanizing impulse.
Rather than seeing Goliath as a ruthless, one-dimensional villain, they
reimagine the story from his point of view. In the Xena: Warrior Princess
episode “The Giant Killer,” Goliath is a mercenary hired by Philistines who
promise him money and information crucial for tracking down his family’s
murderer. Blinded by grief, the giant does not consider the Israelite lives he
endangers. Xena, Goliath’s old friend, is forced to help David defeat the giant
in single combat. The episode ends with Xena comforting the fallen Goliath
as he takes his last breaths.
In David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell presents a medically informed
view of Goliath as a once-formidable champion hampered by advanced-stage
acromegaly. Barely mobile and nearly blind, the imposing giant is a sitting
113
114 Chapter 6

duck struck down by a small rock slung by an unconventional challenger.

Despite appearances, Goliath is the story’s true underdog, while David’s
tactics are essentially “dirty tricks.” In place of a miraculous victory is the
unceremonious demise of a disabled giant.
Tom Gauld’s Goliath shows the giant as a kind and unassuming Philistine
administrator who is forced to impersonate a warrior in order to frighten
off the Israelites. The story gives us the quieter moments in Goliath’s life.
Between shouting his government-scripted challenge, he enjoys simple
banter with his nine-year-old shield-bearer, gazing at the tranquil desert sur-
roundings, and sitting in silent contemplation. When the mild-mannered giant
is caught off guard by David’s stone, it is profoundly sad. The reader is left
pondering the injustice of his death and the absurdities of war.
The story of David and Goliath has been retold many times in art, poetry,
literature, music, film, television, comic books, cartoons, and an array of
devotional texts. Whether the project is religious or secular, clever or clichéd,
highbrow or popular entertainment, the biblical formula is closely followed:
the warring Israelites and Philistines are at a stalemate; Goliath challenges the
Israelites to single combat; the Israelites are petrified; young David delivers
provisions to his brothers on the battlefield; David, incensed by Goliath’s
taunt, accepts the challenge; David topples the giant with a slung stone and,
depending on the age of the intended audience, decapitates him. The famil-
iarity of these plot points, as well as the uncomplicated nature of the story
and Goliath’s role within it, have made revisionist retellings particularly
rare. From a mytho-literary perspective, the story fits a number of genres
and themes, both as a stand-alone story—overcoming the monster, underdog
tale, brains over brawn—and as a part of David’s biography—rags to riches,
heroic fairy tale, romantic epic. David is the virtuous boy hero, and Goliath is
the typical folkloric giant: a brutish, brash, violent, dimwitted, immoral bully.
Imagining Goliath’s backstory and inner life, especially when it differs from
the biased portrait, requires a type and level of sensitivity the Bible simply
does not invite.
However, when removed from the biblical context, the term “Goliath” can
attain a neutral or even heroic quality. Merriam-Webster records two defini-
tions, “a Philistine champion who in I Samuel 17 is killed by David” and
“giant,” offering several synonyms for the latter: “behemoth,” “colossus,”
“jumbo,” “mammoth,” etc.2 The generified usage of Goliath as “giant” and
herculean as “of enormous size” were both coined in the 1590s.3 The 1880
Dictionary of Phrase and Fable notes that Goliath means “a giant,” just as
Samson means “a strong man” and Job is “a model of patience.”4
The animal kingdom abounds with Goliaths. Goliath beetles, a genus so
named by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1801, are among the largest insects on
Earth, capable of reaching 10 inches in length and weighing more than 3.5
 Conclusion 115

ounces. Goliath frogs—the world’s largest—can grow up to 12.5 inches and

weigh over seven pounds. The Atlantic Goliath grouper can grow to over eight
feet in length and exceed 700 pounds. Somewhat ironically, the enormous
grouper is also known as a jewfish, although it is not clear why. (It could be
a corruption of “jawfish,” a reference to its popularity among Jews in Cuba
and Jamaica, or something else.5) The Goliath birdeater tarantula of South
America is the largest spider by mass (up to 6.2 oz.) and body length (up to
5.1 inches). The bird-eating part of the name owes to an eighteenth-century
copper engraving by Maria Sibylla Merian, showing the spider eating a hum-
mingbird. However, the species only rarely preys on birds.6 There are also
Goliath coucals, a species of cuckoo endemic to Indonesia; Goliath herons,
large wading birds found mainly in sub-Saharan Africa; Goliath imperial
pigeons endemic to New Caledonia; Goliath shrews found in tropical and
subtropical lowlands of west-central Africa; and Goliath tiger fish native to
the Congo River Basin and Lake Tanganyika. Some large plants and produce
also carry the Goliath moniker, such as peonies, tomatoes, and broccoli.
A famous Shire horse named Goliath (d. 2001) was recognized by Guinness
World Records as the tallest living horse. The name had everything to do with
the animal’s size and nothing to do with its character. As one tribute remarks:
“Goliath was six feet five inches tall to his shoulder and although he had his
cantankerous moments, a more placid and gentle giant never lived.”7
Popular entertainment has also repurposed the Goliath name. The 1959
Italian sword-and-sandal film Il terrore dei barbari (Terror of the Barbarians),
loosely based on events of the Lombard invasion of Italy in 568 CE, was
released in a dubbed English version as Goliath and the Barbarians.8 The
1960 Italian film La vendetta di Ercole (Revenge of Hercules) was similarly
retitled Goliath and the Dragon, with an opening crawl that reads: “This is
the story of Emilius, the Mighty, who, because of his tremendous strength
and prowess, was given the name of Goliath. Out of this man’s life springs
a strange legend. . . .”9 Another Italian offering, Maciste contro il vampiro
(Strongman Against the Vampire) from 1961 was renamed Goliath and the
Vampires for its American release.10 English versions of all three films were
distributed by American International, which aficionados lovingly describe
as a “‘missing link’ between big-budget Hollywood studios, ‘poverty row’
B-movie factories and low-rent exploitation movie distributors.”11
There is also Daigoro vs. Goliath, a 1971 Toho film, in which Goliath is
a giant blue monster with long arms and massive hands,12 and War of the
Worlds: Goliath, a 2012 Malaysian animated science fiction film conceived
as a loose sequel to H. G. Wells’ 1898 novel.13 The title refers to the 65-foot
tall battle tripod the main characters use.
Songs and albums named for the giant span multiple genres. In most cases,
they have nothing to do with the biblical figure and only sometimes allude
116 Chapter 6

to related themes, such as bullies and underdogs. These include The Bedlam
in Goliath (2008) by the progressive rock band Mars Volta;14 Goliath (2013)
by the heavy metal band Butcher Babies;15 Goliath (2014) by the alternative
rock band Steve Taylor & The Perfect Foil;16 Goliath (2017) by the Danish
experimental/art rock band Kellermensch;17 among others.
Art Clokey’s clay-animated children’s program Davey and Goliath (1961–
1964; 1971–1973), produced by the Lutheran Church in America, follows a
young boy, Davey Hansen, and his dog, Goliath. Davey was conceived as an
ordinary boy living a typical suburban life with his talking canine companion
(only heard by Davey and the viewers). Episodes mostly aim at character
building, with Davey getting into tight spots and seeking guidance from his
parents, teachers, and local religious leaders. The central message is that faith
in God is key to overcoming life’s challenges.18 Although the title signals its
biblical grounding, the titular characters are dear companions and the dog is
not abnormally large. Along with the show’s theocentric moralizing, many
episodes feature theme music from “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (“Ein
feste Burg ist unser Gott”), one of the best-known hymns of Martin Luther,
and display the Luther rose in the opening and/or closing.
Goliath II, a 1960 Disney animated short directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
with narration by Sterling Holloway (later the voice of Winnie the Pooh
and Kaa in The Jungle Book), follows a mouse-sized elephant boy whose
father, Goliath I, is the biggest elephant in all the jungle.19 The diminutive
protagonist gets lost one day while the herd is marching through the jungle.
Goliath II’s mother finds him trapped in a hole burrowed by a small animal.
Raja, a villainous tiger, has also tracked down the tiny elephant. Just as Raja
is about to grab hold of Goliath II, his mother sucks him out with her trunk.
The mother scolds her son for wandering off and places him in a nest high up
in a tree. Angered by the punishment, Goliath II sneaks away, vowing never
to return. But when Raja finds him, he cries out and his mother comes to the
rescue. The next morning, Goliath II’s mother spanks him with a branch and
the herd deems him a scoundrel, a rogue, and a traitorous deserter. Worse
still, Goliath I, his mighty father, is deeply disappointed. The elephants again
march proudly through the jungle, but this time they scatter in terror at the
sight of a mouse. The only one who is not afraid is Goliath II, who is roughly
the same size as the snarky rodent. The two get into a fight, Goliath II wins,
and he is celebrated as a courageous hero. The cartoon ends with Goliath II
sitting atop his father’s head in a place of honor.
Goliath II is notable for being Disney’s first cartoon to use the faster
and less costly Xerox technology to transfer animation drawings to cels. It
also appropriates the David and Goliath template in an unusual way. Here,
Goliath II plays the role of a young and unlikely hero who bravely faces an
 Conclusion 117

intimidating foe while the other elephants cower in fear. The irony, of course,
is that the David-like hero is named for the biblical giant, while the role of
the haughty giant is played by a minuscule mouse. The mouse is not killed—
this is a G-rated “funny animal” film—but the ending is the same: Goliath II
defeats the enemy in single combat and, as a result, is elevated to “the very
highest position in the elephant herd.”
Another “in name only” iteration of David and Goliath is a three-issue
Image Comics series from 2003 by writer Jay Ju and penciler Leonel
Castellani.20 In this story, set in 1940s New York, Goliath is an overgrown,
ancient, mythical lion with wings and breath of fire. Nazi agents seek to har-
ness the powers of the beast, who is controlled by David, a ten-year-old boy
who keeps Goliath as a pet. While departing greatly from the biblical account,
the comic’s Goliath is nevertheless a brute force tamed by young David—
albeit in a relationship more in line with Davey and Goliath than with the
duelers of 1 Samuel 17.
“Goliath,” a short story by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Bill Sienkiewicz
and Gregory Ruth, appeared in The Matrix Comics Series 121 (and was later
included in Gaiman’s short story anthology, Fragile Things22). The titular
hero is a genetically engineered, seven-foot-tall man sent to destroy an
organic alien ship orbiting the moon. Gaiman not only makes the enlarged
warrior a protagonist, but also has him pondering the nature of reality as
he bounces between our world and the “real” world, in the Matrix mold.
According to Prince of Stories: The Many Worlds of Neil Gaiman, the author
was initially asked to write the story in 1999 for the website of The Matrix
movie. The story went “live” about a week before the movie’s release.23
A very different Goliath is the lead character in Gargoyles (1994–
1997), a Disney-produced animated television series. The show centers
on tenth-century Scottish gargoyles who are reanimated in modern-day
Manhattan to serve as its nighttime protectors. Goliath received his name
in Scotland some time prior to his thousand-year sleep. Like many other
Goliaths, the name merely refers to his massive size; he is an intelligent hero
with a firm sense of morality.
The game realm is crowded with the Goliath name, where it is applied
to both heroes and foes, usually means “big,” can describe inanimate
objects, and occasionally has no obvious connection to the term. The fantasy
role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons includes a race of tall, reclusive
mountain dwellers called Goliaths, whose “bodies look as if they are carved
from mountain stone and give them great physical power.”24 In the military
science fiction video game Halo, Goliaths are super-heavy infantry units
comprised of Lekgolo colonies: worm-like creatures that join together for
specific purposes. Other examples include: Goliath Games, a toy and board
game company for young children and families; a bundle of chess programs
118 Chapter 6

called Goliath running under the Windows operating system; the Goliath

action-adventure role-playing video game; a mech named Goliath in the
BattleTech gaming franchise; the Four Goliath Bruisers from the online
role-playing game Wizard101; Gogogo Goliath from the Yu-Gi-Oh! trading
card game; House Goliath from the miniature war game Warhammer 40,000;
the mighty warrior Goliath from the Legends of Signum tabletop war game;
Champion Icebrood Goliath from the online role-playing game Guild Wars;
Goliath from the multiplayer action role-playing game Dungeon Fighter
Online; Goliath-class machine life forms from the role-playing video game
Nier: Automata; the Goliath Drill from the mining sandbox video game
Hydroneer; Goliath Gloves from the online role-playing game RuneScape;
among others.
The Goliath roller coaster, located at Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia,
California, makes no reference to the biblical character. Manufactured in
Switzerland, the ride has a subtropical theme complete with Mayan ruins. The
name refers to the giant drop (255 feet) and high speed (reaching 85 mph),
and the ride itself is nearly identical to Titan at Six Flags Over Texas, which
likewise generifies a name rooted in mythology. Other roller coasters named
Goliath are found at Six Flags Over Georgia, Six Flags Great America, Six
Flags Fiesta Texas, Six Flags New England, LaRonde in Montreal, and Walibi
Holland. Large trains, airliners, sea vessels, construction cranes, and more
have also been dubbed Goliath.
The 2019 illustrated book Goliath: The Boy Who Was Different makes
no explicit reference to the Bible.25 However, Ximo Abadía, the book’s
Spanish-born author and illustrator, had the biblical giant in mind when
writing the tale: “In the classic story we are taught that a big being has to be
fearsome. I try to tell that story in another way, giving it another air. The first
appearances deceive.”26 The simple story, aimed at preschoolers, follows a
boy who is exceptionally large from a very young age. We first see him in his
crib, standing more than twice the height of his parents. Abadía also makes
the boy cone-shaped with a cylindrical head (similar to Gauld’s rendering of
Goliath, but even more abstract) as opposed to his more anatomically accu-
rate parents and the book’s other humans. The book features bold hues and
striking shapes, which Abadía achieved through graphite pencils, stamping
inks, and an impressive mixture of just three colors—yellow, red and blue.27
By the time Goliath enters grade school, he is more than six times the size of
his peers, and he continues to grow exponentially as the story unfolds. The
character realizes his difference: “I began to feel like I did not belong. No
one else looked like me.”28 Determined to find others like him, Goliath leaves
home. He asks the sea for answers, but is tossed in the waves. He asks the sun,
but gets no response. Finally, the moon tells him: “Goliath, look at me. I am
 Conclusion 119

smaller than the sun, and I am bigger than the ocean, but it does not matter,
because there is no one else like me. So, why does it matter to you if you are
big or small?”29 After reflecting on the moon’s wisdom, Goliath returns home
with an understanding that he is special in his uniqueness as all people are, no
matter their size. The lesson is not necessarily profound or original. However,
as one children’s book reviewer weary of “be yourself” books writes:

[T]he first-person narrative is a refreshing change as we feel as if we’re going

on the journey with Goliath. This also lends a more philosophical and mature
outlook to the book, strengthened by the boldness of the primary colours that
always allude to Goliath’s strength, not his weakness, even when the titular
character isn’t aware of this himself.30

Abadía’s giant is technically unrelated to his biblical namesake. Still, it is

difficult to see the Philistine giant the same way after reading this book.
One cannot help but wonder if Goliath of Gath, in spite of his confidence on
the battlefield, suffered ridicule for his physical differences, felt uncomfort-
able around people of normal height, or heard taunts of “freak” or some-
thing worse. Did this abuse cause him to act out violently? Or was he a
good-natured pacifist typecast as a bloodthirsty “champion”? Perhaps he was
driven by a righteous sense of revenge. Or maybe his heavy armor covered a
frail, failing body.
In his review of Joseph Heller’s God Knows, author Mordecai Richler
observes that the book “is now possibly destined to be as linked with David’s
story as Rashi’s observations are with the Pentateuch.”31 Indeed, Heller’s poi-
gnant, evocative, and wildly stylized account of David’s life is hard to forget
and, like effective midrashim, easy to entangle with the original source. In
much the same way, sympathetic portrayals of Goliath explored in this book
make the Bible’s simplistic characterization difficult to sustain.

NOTES

1. Melody Stanford Martin, Brave Talk: Building Resilient Relationships in the

Face of Conflict (Minneapolis, MN: Broadleaf, 2020), 55.
2. “Goliath,” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/Goliath.
3. See the entries for “Goliath” and “herculean” in the Online Etymology
Dictionary.
4. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: Giving the
Derivation, Source; Or Origin of Common Phrases, Allusions, and Words that Have
a Tale to Tell (London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1880), 3.
120 Chapter 6

5. Avishay   Artsy,   “How   the   Jewfish   Got   Its  Name,”   Jewish  

Telegraph  Agency,  December  29,  2015,  https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/
how-the-jewfish-got-its-name.
6. See Volker Herzig and Glenn F. King, “The Neurotoxic Mode of Action of
Venoms from the Spider Family Theraphosidae,” in Spider Ecophysiology, ed.
Wolfgang Nentwig (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 203–15.
7. “Goliath Died: July 2001,” Northcote Horses and Animals, https://www.
northcotehorses.com/goliath.
8. Carlo Campogalliani, dir., Goliath and the Barbarians, American International
Pictures, 1959.
9. Vittorio Cottafavi, dir., Goliath and the Dragon, American International
Pictures, 1960.
10. Sergio Corbucci and Giacomo Gentilomo, dirs., Goliath and the Vampires,
American International Pictures, 1961.
11. Bob Craig, American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2019).
12. Toshihiro Iijima, dir., Daigoro vs. Goliath, Toho, 1971.
13. Joe Pearson, dir., War of the Worlds: Goliath, Studio Climb, 2021.
14. Mars Volta, The Bedlam in Goliath, Universal Motown Records, 2008,
compact disc.
15. Butcher Babies, Goliath, Century Media, 2013, compact disc.
16. Steve Taylor & The Perfect Foil, Goliath, Splint Entertainment, 2017,
compact disc.
17. Kellermensch, Goliath, Universal, 2017, compact disc.
18. Vincent Lobrutto, TV in the USA: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas, Volume
1: 1950s–1960s (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2018), 199.
19. Wolfgang Reitherman, dir., Goliath II, Disney, 1960.
20. Jay Ju and Leonel Castellani, David and Goliath, nos. 1–3 (Portland, OR:
Image Comics, 2003).
21. Andy (Lilly) Wachowski and Larry (Lana) Wachowski, eds., The Matrix
Comics Volume 1 (New York: Burlyman, 2003).
22. Neil Gaiman, Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders (New York: Harper
Perennial, 2006).
23. Hank Wagner, Christopher Golden, and Stephen R. Bissette, Prince of Stories:
The Many Worlds of Neil Gaiman (New York: Macmillan, 2008), 386.
24. “Goliath,” D&D Beyond, https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/goliath.
25. Ximo Abadía, Goliath: The Boy Who Was Different (Berlin: Little
Gestalten, 2019).
26. “Let’s Talk Illustrators #109: Ximo Abadía,” Let’s Talk Picture Books, http://
www.letstalkpicturebooks.com/2019/05/lets-talk-illustrators-109-ximo-abadia.html.
27. “Let’s Talk Illustrators #109.”
28. Abadía, Goliath, 8.
29. Abadía, Goliath, 22.
 Conclusion 121

30. “My Short Read of the Week: Goliath, The Boy Who Was Different,”
Childtasticbooks, https://childtasticbooks.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/
my-short-read-of-the-week-goliath-the-boy-who-was-different/.
31. Mordecai Richler, “He Who Laughs Last,” New York Times, September 23, 1984.
 Appendix
Using and Reusing David and Goliath

As discussed in chapter one, the underdog metaphor of David and Goliath

has been used and reused innumerable times. This appendix collects an array
of books and articles with titles drawing on the metaphor. The publications
cover sundry topics and fill multiple genres, demonstrating the durability of
the David and Goliath myth, and why it is so difficult to conceive of Goliath
in any other way.
An early example is William Lander’s apologetic tome from 1833: David
and Goliath; or, An Attempt to Prove that the Newtonian System of Astronomy
is Directly Opposed to the Scriptures, and, in Very Many Instances, Contrary
to Reason and Fact; Also, that the Scriptures Give Us the Truest and Most
Reasonable Account of Astronomy: Together with an Hypothesis Agreeing
with Scripture, Reason, Experience, Our Sense, and Known Facts, in which
is Included a New Method of Ascertaining the Size and Distance of the Sun,
Moon, Etc. Lander begins his book, “I have, although a very weak David,
ventured to throw a stone at the great Goliath, expecting that he will threaten
to give me to be meat for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air. I
come in the same name as the David of old, and hope for the same success.”1
Another early expansion of the David and Goliath motif is Milton
Anderson’s The Modern Goliath: A Study of Talking Pictures with a
Treatment of Non-theatrical Talking Pictures, Especially Talking Pictures
for Schools and Churches and Some Chapters on Character Education
and Values, published in 1935.2 The book blasts the alleged moral laxity of
Hollywood, encourages churches to make their own movies, and hopes that
church productions will stand up to the “evil” movie studios, like David
against Goliath.
Historians have also run with the metaphor. Hamilton Fish Armstrong
wrote Tito and Goliath about the Tito-Stalin (Yugoslav-Soviet) Split.3 William
I. Robinson and Kent Norsworthy’s Reagan-era critique is titled David and
123
124 Appendix

Goliath: The U.S. War against Nicaragua.4 Rod Gragg’s study of the cap-
ture of the Confederacy’s largest coastal fortification is called Confederate
Goliath: The Battle of Fort Fisher.5 Robert W. Dickey’s Goliath of Panama
profiles the life of soldier and canal builder William Luther Sibert.6 Bismarck:
The Chase and Sinking of Hitler’s Goliath is G. H. Bennett’s account of how
the Royal Navy located, pursued, and attacked the Nazis’ most formidable
battleship.7
Political analysis is awash with the metaphor, including Giuseppe Antonio
Borgese’s Goliath: The March of Fascism,8 published in 1937, and journal-
ist David Harris’s Goliath, a Vietnam War–era rebuke of American power.9
These are joined by: Kathleen Bruhn’s Taking on Goliath: The Emergence
of a New Left Party and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico;10 Michael
Mandelbaum’s The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s
Government in the Twenty-First Century;11 Glenn Reynolds’s An Army of
Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big
Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths;12 Harold Ford Jr.’s More Davids
Than Goliaths: A Political Education;13 Jeffrey Record’s Beating Goliath:
Why Insurgencies Win;14 Max Blumenthal’s Goliath: Life and Loathing in
Greater Israel;15 Shraga Simmons’s David & Goliath: The Explosive Inside
Story of Media Bias in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict;16 Joshua Muravchik’s
Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel;17 A. K.
Bhattacharya’s Rise of Goliath: Twelve Disruptions that Changed India;18 and
Sean McFate’s Goliath: Why the West Doesn’t Win Wars. And What We Need
to Do About It;19 among others.
Books on cybersecurity and the Internet age include Nicco Mele’s The End
of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath20 and Bruce Schneier’s
Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your
World.21 Education advocates on the left and right have used the metaphor,
including Diane Ravitch’s Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to
Privatization and the Fight to Save America’s Public Schools22 and Rebecca
Friedrichs’s Standing Up to Goliath: Battling State and National Teachers’
Unions for the Heart and Soul of Our Kids and Country.23 Business and law
books further the trend: Michael Louis Minns’s How to Survive the IRS:
My Battles Against Goliath;24 Howard M. Guttman’s When Goliaths Clash:
Managing Executive Conflict to Build a More Dynamic Organization;25
Vince Megna’s Bring on Goliath: Lemon Law Justice in America;26 James
DeFilippis’s Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global
Capital;27 Willem Meiners’s How to Upset a Goliath Book Biz: The Inside
Story of an Underdog with a Bite;28 Kip Petroff’s Battling Goliath: Inside
a $22 Billion Legal Scandal;29 Jim Dotson’s Taking on Goliath: Dotson
vs. Pfizer—A Collision of Personal and Corporate Values;30 Jeffrey Alan
 Appendix 125

Williamson’s Disabled David v. Goliath;31 Todd Hewlin and Scott Snyder’s

Goliath’s Revenge: How Established Companies Turn the Tables on Digital
Disruptors;32 David Garofalo’s David vs. Goliath: How to Compete, and
Beat, the On-Line Giant;33 Matt Stoller’s Goliath: The 100-Year War Between
Monopoly Power and Democracy;34 Peter S. Cohan’s Goliath Strikes Back:
How Traditional Retailers Are Winning Back Customers from Ecommerce
Startups;35 and Larry Hughes’s Challenging Goliath: Leadership Lessons
from the Life of King David.36
General nonfiction titles include: Ken Piesse’s Miracle Match: The Day
David Downed Goliath, Brunswick St. Oval, July 6, 1963, documenting one
of Australian soccer’s greatest upsets;37 Cary J. Griffith’s Opening Goliath:
Danger and Discovery in Caving, chronicling a daring exploration of Goliath
Cave, a previously unexplored complex in the karst region of southeastern
Minnesota;38 Steve Bunk’s Goliath Staggered, recounting how ordinary citi-
zens prevented environmental devastation from big oil;39 Barbara Wolcott’s
David, Goliath and the Beach Cleaning Machine, describing how a small
California town defeated big oil;40 and Chris Spealler’s Speal: A David and
Goliath Story, sharing how the author succeeded as an undersized CrossFit
competitor.41
Of all nonfiction categories, the most populated by David and Goliath
imagery is Christian inspiration. Max Lucado’s book, Facing Your Giants:
God Still Does the Impossible, is representative:

Your Goliath doesn’t carry sword or shield; he brandishes blades of unemploy-

ment, abandonment, sexual abuse, or depression. Your giant doesn’t parade up
and down the hills of Elah; he prances through your office, your bedroom, your
classroom. He brings bills you can’t pay, grades you can’t make, people you
can’t please, whiskey you can’t resist, pornography you can’t refuse, a career
you can’t escape, a past you can’t shake, and a future you can’t face.42

Lucado’s recommendation: “Rush your giant with a God-saturated soul.”43

Numerous titles offer variations on this theme: Rob Marshall’s Taking on
Goliath: How to Unleash the David in All of Us;44 Barbara J. Yoder, Taking on
Goliath: How to Stand Against the Spiritual Enemies in Your Life and Win;45
Steven A. Cramer’s Conquering Your Own Goliaths;46 Joseph Haulbrook’s A
Sling and a Stone: Courageously Overcoming Goliath from the Inside Out;47
J. P. Jones’s Facing Goliath: How a Man Overcomes His Giants to Follow
Christ;48 Stefan Langer’s David Beats Goliath;49 David Lyons’s David’s
Goliath: Winning the Battle against All Odds;50 Austin O. Romanus’s How
to Kill a Goliath: David’s Secret Revealed;51 Art Briles’s Beating Goliath:
My Story of Football and Faith;52 D. K. Olukoya’s Kill Your Goliath by
Fire;53 Rita Klundt’s Goliath’s Mountain;54 Louie Giglio’s Goliath Must Fall:
126 Appendix

Winning the Battle Against Your Giants;55 Clemon Hodge’s Goodbye Goliath:
One Man’s Journey to Sobriety;56 Pearl Heart’s I Beat Goliath: My Life’s
Journey;57 to name a handful.
Goliath’s name is used in numerous fiction genres. The name appears
either as a synonym for “huge,” a reference to the giant himself, or short-
hand for a battle against powerful enemies. Science fiction and fantasy titles
include William F. Temple’s 1962 The Automated Goliath,58 two steampunk
novels—Scott Westerfeld’s Goliath59 and Ishbelle Bee’s The Singular and
Extraordinary Tale of Mirror and Goliath: The Peculiar Adventures of John
Loveheart, Esq., Volume I60—and three space-and-alien sagas—Adam J.
Whitlatch’s War of the Worlds: Goliath (a novelization of the animated film),61
C. P. James’s Goliath: Only Vengeance Remains,62 and J. G. Ogden’s Goliath
Emerges.63 Suzanne Leonhard’s The Goliath Code presents a post-apocalyptic
survival story.64 Larry Niven and Matthew Joseph Harrington’s The Goliath
Stone tells of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth.65
Five twenty-first-century thrillers share the title Goliath: Steve Alten’s
novel involving a stingray-shaped, football field–length nuclear submarine;66
Van Pornaras’s book about a man on the run who knows who “really” shot
Kennedy and orchestrated 9/11;67 Ernest A. Briginshaw’s story of a manic
man who thinks he is the Bible character;68 Shawn Corridan and Gary Waid’s
novel about a gigantic oil tanker burning in the north Pacific Rim;69 and
Richard Turner’s story about a British airship that mysteriously disappears.70
Mickey Spillane and Max Allan Collins’s mystery The Goliath Bone takes a
more literal turn, centering on a preserved femur that may have belonged to
the ancient giant.71 Other recent fiction works include S. M. Atwood’s Goliath
Fell,72 Michael Hyde’s Surfing Goliath,73 Paul Round’s Goliath’s Eye,74 Brad
Smith’s The Goliath Run,75 and Steven Thompson’s David’s Goliath: If You
Found a Book That Told the Story of Your Life, Would You Read On?76
A host of academic papers also borrow the David and Goliath metaphor,
illustrating how the two names, placed side by side, can apply to virtually any
“little versus big” scenario: Haridimos Tsoukas’s “David and Goliath in the
Risk Society: Making Sense of the Conflict between Shell and Greenpeace
in the North Sea”;77 L. E. Beutler’s “David and Goliath: When Empirical
and Clinical Standards of Practice Meet”;78 Fleur L. Strand’s “David
and Goliath: The Slingshot That Started the Neuropeptide Revolution”;79
Wilfred Amaldoss and Sanjay Jain’s “David vs. Goliath: An Analysis of
Asymmetric Mixed-Strategy Games and Experimental Evidence”;80 Andrea
Hemetsberger’s “When David Becomes Goliath: Ideological Discourse in
New Online Consumer Movements”;81 S. C. Voelpel, R. A. Eckhoff, and
J. Förster’s “David against Goliath? Group Size and Bystander Effects in
Virtual Knowledge Sharing”;82 Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff’s “David and Goliath:
 Appendix 127

Diaspora Organizations as Partners in the Development Industry”;83 Carla H.

Jeffries et al.’s “The David and Goliath Principle: Cultural, Ideological, and
Attitudinal Underpinnings of the Normative Protection of Low-Status Groups
from Criticism”;84 Fajar S. A. Prabowo and Raden Aswin Rahadi’s “David vs.
Goliath: Uncovering the Future of Traditional Markets in Indonesia”;85 and
Eduardo Silva’s “Patagonia, without Dams! Lessons of a David vs. Goliath
Campaign.”86

NOTES

1. William Lander, David and Goliath (London: printed by author, 1833), i.

2. Milton Anderson, The Modern Goliath: A Study of Talking Pictures with a
Treatment of Non-theatrical Talking Pictures Especially Talking Pictures for Schools
and Churches and Some Chapters on Character Education and Values (Los Angeles:
David, 1935).
3. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Tito and Goliath (New York: Macmillan, 1951).
4. William I. Robinson and Kent Norsworthy, David and Goliath: The US War
against Nicaragua (New York: Monthly Review, 1987).
5. Rod Gragg, Confederate Goliath: The Battle of Fort Fisher (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 2006).
6. Robert W. Dickey, Goliath of Panama (Morley, MO: Acclaim, 2015).
7. G. H. Bennett, Bismarck: The Chase and Sinking of Hitler’s Goliath (Plymouth,
UK: Plymouth University Press, 2012).
8. Giuseppe Antonio Borgese, Goliath: The March of Fascism (New York:
Viking, 1937).
9. David Harris, Goliath (New York: Avon, 1970).
10. Kathleen Bruhn, Taking on Goliath: The Emergence of a New Left Party and the
Struggle for Democracy in Mexico (Philadelphia: Penn State University Press, 1997).
11. Michael Mandelbaum, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s
Government in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Hachette, 2005).
12. Glenn Reynolds, An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower
Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths (Edinburgh,
UK: Nelson Current, 2007).
13. Harold Ford Jr., More Davids than Goliaths: A Political Education (New York:
Crown, 2010).
14. Jeffrey Record, Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win (Washington, DC:
Potomac, 2011).
15. Max Blumenthal, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel (New York:
Hachette, 2013).
16. Shraga Simmons, David & Goliath: The Explosive Inside Story of Media Bias
in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Jerusalem: Emesphere, 2012).
17. Joshua Muravchik, Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against
Israel (New York: Encounter, 2015).
128 Appendix

18. A. K. Bhattacharya, Rise of Goliath: Twelve Disruptions that Changed India

(New York: Penguin, 2019).
19. Sean McFate, Goliath: Why the West Doesn’t Win Wars. And What We Need to
Do About It (New York: Penguin, 2020).
20. Nicco Mele, The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath
(New York: Macmillan, 2013).
21. Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data
and Control Your World (New York: W. W. Norton, 2015).
22. Diane Ravitch, Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization
and the Fight to Save America’s Public Schools (New York: Random House, 2013).
23. Rebecca Friedrichs, Standing Up to Goliath: Battling State and National
Teachers’ Unions for the Heart and Soul of Our Kids and Country (New York: Post
Hill, 2018).
24. Michael Louis Minns, How to Survive the IRS: My Battles Against Goliath
(Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade, 2001).
25. Howard M. Guttman, When Goliaths Clash: Managing Executive Conflict to
Build a More Dynamic Organization (New York: AMACOM, 2003).
26. Vince Megna, Bring on Goliath: Lemon Law Justice in America (Tucson, AZ:
Ken, 2004).
27. James DeFilippis, Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of
Global Capital (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2004).
28. Willem Meiners, How to Upset a Goliath Book Biz: The Inside Story of an
Underdog with a Bite (Baltimore, MD: PublishAmerica, 2005).
29. Kip Petroff, Battling Goliath: Inside a $22 Billion Legal Scandal (Dallas, TX:
Frame House, 2011).
30. Jim Dotson, Taking on Goliath: Dotson Vs. Pfizer—A Collision of Personal and
Corporate Values (Del Mar, CA: Elevate, 2013).
31. Jeffrey Alan Williamson, Disabled David v. Goliath (Pittsburgh, PA:
Dorrance, 2015).
32. Todd Hewlin and Scott Snyder, Goliath’s Revenge: How Established Companies
Turn the Tables on Digital Disruptors (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2019).
33. David Garofalo, David vs. Goliath: How to Compete, and Beat, the On-Line
Giant (Pennsauken Township, NJ: Bookbaby, 2019).
34. Matt Stoller, Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and
Democracy (New York: Simon and Shuster, 2020).
35. Peter S. Cohan, Goliath Strikes Back: How Traditional Retailers Are Winning
Back Customers from Ecommerce Startups (New York: Apress, 2020).
36. Larry Hughes, Challenging Goliath: Leadership Lessons from the Life of King
David (N.p.: independently published, 2021).
37. Ken Piesse, Miracle Match: The Day David Downed Goliath, Brunswick St.
Oval, July 6 1963 (Mount Eliza, VIC: Cricket, 2014).
38. Cary J. Griffith, Opening Goliath: Danger and Discovery in Caving (St. Paul,
MN: Borealis, 2009).
39. Steve Bunk, Goliath Staggered: How Citizens in Montana Conquered Big Oil
(Madison, WI: August, 2014).
 Appendix 129

40. Barbara Wolcott, David, Goliath and the Beach Cleaning Machine: How a
Small California Town Fought an Oil Giant and Won (Sterling, VA: Capital, 2003).
41. Chris Spealler, Speal: A David and Goliath Story (Cheltenham, UK: Icon, 2018).
42. Max Lucado, Facing Your Giants: God Still Does the Impossible (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2006), 2–3.
43. Ibid., 6.
44. Rob Marshall, Taking on Goliath: How to Unleash the David in All of Us (New
York: Morgan James, 2006).
45. Barbara J. Yoder, Taking on Goliath: How to Stand Against the Spiritual
Enemies in Your Life and Win (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma, 2008).
46. Steven A. Cramer, Conquering Your Own Goliaths (Springville, UT: Cedar
Fort, 2011).
47. Joseph Haulbrook, A Sling and a Stone: Courageously Overcoming Goliath
from the Inside Out (Scott’s Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2012).
48. J. P. Jones, Facing Goliath: How a Man Overcomes His Giants to Follow Christ
(Ada, MI: Baker, 2013).
49. Stefan Langer, David Beats Goliath (Bloomington, IN: Balboa, 2013).
50. David Lyons, David’s Goliath: Winning the Battle against All Odds (Abilene,
TX: Leafwood, 2013).
51. Austin O. Romanus, How to Kill a Goliath: David’s Secret Revealed
(Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2014).
52. Art Briles, Beating Goliath: My Story of Football and Faith, with Dan Yaeger
(New York: St. Martin’s, 2014).
53. D. K. Olukoya, Kill Your Goliath by Fire (Lagos: The Battle Cry Christian
Ministries, 2016).
54. Rita Klundt, Goliath’s Mountain (Bloomington, IN: Westbow, 2017).
55. Louie Giglio, Goliath Must Fall: Winning the Battle Against Your Giants (New
York: Thomas Nelson, 2017).
56. Clemon Hodge, Goodbye Goliath: One Man’s Journey to Sobriety (Morrisville,
NC: Lulu, 2018).
57. Pearl Heart, I Beat Goliath: My Life’s Journey (Bloomington, IN:
AuthorHouse, 2019).
58. William F. Temple, The Automated Goliath (New York: Ace, 1962).
59. Scott Westerfeld, Goliath (New York: Simon and Shuster UK, 2011).
60. Ishbelle Bee, The Singular and Extraordinary Tale of Mirror and Goliath:
The Peculiar Adventures of John Loveheart, ESQ. Vol I (Collingwood, VIC:
ReadHowYouWant, 2016).
61. Adam J. Whitlatch, War of the Worlds: Goliath (N.p.: Latchkey, 2018).
62. C. P. James, Goliath: Only Vengeance Remains (N.p.: Independently pub-
lished, 2020).
63. J. G. Ogden, Goliath Emerges (N.p.: Ogden Media, 2020).
64. Suzanne Leonhard, The Goliath Code (N.p.: independently published, 2017).
65. Larry Niven and Matthew Joseph Harrington, The Goliath Stone (New York:
Tor Science Fiction, 2014).
66. Steve Alten, Goliath (New York: Macmillan, 2002).
130 Appendix

67. Van Pornaras, Goliath (Rancho Mirage, CA: We Publish Books, 2004).
68. Ernest A. Briginshaw, Goliath (N.p.: Ernest A. Briginshaw, 2014).
69. Shawn Corridan and Gary Waid, Goliath: A Thriller (Sarasota, FL:
Oceanview, 2016).
70. Richard Turner, Goliath: A Ryan Mitchell Thriller (N.p.: independently pub-
lished, 2020).
71. Mickey Spillane and Max Allan Collins, The Goliath Bone (New York:
Harcourt, 2008).
72. S. M. Atwood, Goliath Fell (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2013).
73. Michael Hyde, Surfing Goliath (Sydney: Hachette Australia, 2012).
74. Paul Round, Goliath’s Eye (Leicester, UK: Troubador, 2016).
75. Brad Smith, The Goliath Run (Winnipeg: At Bay Press, 2020).
76. Steven Thompson, David’s Goliath: If You Found a Book That Told the Story of
Your Life, Would You Read On? (N.p.: independently published, 2017).
77. Haridimos Tsoukas, “David and Goliath in the Risk Society: Making Sense
of the Conflict between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea,” Organization 6:3
(1999): 499–528.
78. L. E. Beutler, “David and Goliath: When Empirical and Clinical Standards of
Practice Meet,” American Psychologist 55:9 (2000): 997–1007.
79. Fleur L. Strand, “David and Goliath: The Slingshot That Started the Neuropeptide
Revolution,” European Journal of Pharmacology 405:1–3 (2000): 3–12.
80. Wilfred Amaldoss and Sanjay Jain, “David vs. Goliath: An Analysis of
Asymmetric Mixed-Strategy Games and Experimental Evidence,” Management
Science 48:8 (2002): 955–1101.
81. Andrea Hemetsberger, “When David Becomes Goliath: Ideological Discourse
in New Online Consumer Movements,” NA—Advances in Consumer Research 33
(2006): 494–500.
82. S. C. Voelpel, R. A. Eckhoff, and J. Förster, “David against Goliath? Group
Size and Bystander Effects in Virtual Knowledge Sharing,” Human Relations 61:2
(2008): 271–95.
83. Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff, “David and Goliath: Diaspora Organizations as
Partners in the Development Industry,” Public Administration and Development 31:1
(2011): 37–49.
84. Carla H. Jeffries et al., “The David and Goliath Principle: Cultural, Ideological,
and Attitudinal Underpinnings of the Normative Protection of Low-Status Groups
from Criticism,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38:8 (2012): 1053–65.
85. Fajar S. A. Prabowo and Raden Aswin Rahadi, “David vs. Goliath: Uncovering
the Future of Traditional Markets in Indonesia,” Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences 6:5 (2015): 28–36.
86. Eduardo Silva, “Patagonia, without Dams! Lessons of a David vs. Goliath
Campaign,” The Extractive Industries and Society 3:4 (2016): 947–57.
 Bibliography

Abadía, Ximo. Goliath: The Boy Who Was Different. Berlin: Little Gestalten, 2019.
Abulafia, David. The Great Sea: Human History of the Mediterranean. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Rewriting David and Goliath?” In From Scribal Error to
Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could Not Be Changed, edited by
Anneli Aejmelaeus, Drew Longacre, and Natia Mirotadze, 165–80. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020.
Aguirre, Mercedes, and Richard Buxton. Cyclops: The Myth & Its Cultural History.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Allison, Scott T., and George R. Goethals. Heroes: What They Do and Why We Need
Them. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Alten, Steve. Goliath. New York: Macmillan, 2002.
Alvesson, Mats. Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage, 2002.
Amaldoss, Wilfred, and Sanjay Jain. “David vs. Goliath: An Analysis of Asymmetric
Mixed-Strategy Games and Experimental Evidence.” Management Science 48:8
(2002): 955–1101.
Anderson, Milton. The Modern Goliath: A Study of Talking Pictures with a Treatment
of Non-theatrical Talking Pictures, Especially Talking Pictures for Schools and
Churches and Some Chapters on Character Education and Values. Los Angeles:
David, 1935.
Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London:
Methuen, 1985.
Armstrong, Hamilton Fish. Tito and Goliath. New York: Macmillan, 1951.
Arnold, Matthew. On the Study of Celtic Literature and On Translating Homer.
London: MacMillan, 1893.
Artsy, Avishay. “How the Jewfish Got Its Name.” Jewish Telegraph Agency, December
29, 2015. https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/how-the-jewfish-got-its-name.
Attias, Jean-Christophe. A Woman Called Moses: A Prophet for Our Time. London:
Verso, 2020.

131
132 Bibliography

Atwood, S. M. Goliath Fell. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2013.

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Culture.
Translated by W. R. Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953.
Avison, Margaret. Winter Sun. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960.
Baden, Joel. The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero. New York:
HarperOne, 2014.
Baker, Kyle. King David. New York: Vertigo DC Comics, 2002.
Baldi, Ferdinando, and Richard Pottier, dirs. David e Golia. ANSA, 1960.
Bane, Theresa. Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and
Folklore. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2016.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. “First Samuel.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin
and Marc Zvi Brettler, 558–618. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. “Second Samuel.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele
Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 619–67. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Barker, David. “The Under Dog in the Fight.” Washington Union, April 6, 1859.
Barthélemy, Dominique, David W. Gooding, Emanuel Tov, and Johan Lust. The Story
of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Fribourg and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1986.
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and
Wang, 1972.
Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition.
Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992.
Bee, Ishbelle. The Singular and Extraordinary Tale of Mirror and Goliath: The
Peculiar Adventures of John Loveheart, Esq., Volume I. Collingwood, VIC:
ReadHowYouWant, 2016.
Bennett, G. H. Bismarck: The Chase and Sinking of Hitler’s Goliath. Plymouth, UK:
Plymouth University Press, 2012.
Beresford, Bruce, dir. King David. Paramount Pictures, 1985.
Beringer, Vladimir, and Chaim Cohen. “The Nature of Goliath’s Visual Disorder and
the Actual Role of His Personal Bodyguard.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 43 (2006): 27–44.
Bernstein, Robert, and John Forte. Action Comics, no. 279. New York: DC Comics,
1961.
Bettencourt, Ana M. S., Manuel Santos-Estévez, and Hugo Aluai Sampaio, eds.
Weapons and Tools in Rock Art: A World Perspective. Oxford: Oxbow, 2021.
Beutler, L. E. “David and Goliath: When Empirical and Clinical Standards of Practice
Meet.” American Psychologist 55:9 (2000): 997–1007.
Bhattacharya, A. K. Rise of Goliath: Twelve Disruptions that Changed India. New
York: Penguin, 2019.
Binder, Otto, and Wayne Boring. Action Comics, no. 353. New York: DC Comics,
1967.
Bird, Brad, dir. The Iron Giant. Warner Bros., 1999.
Bivins, Jason C. Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative
Evangelicalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
 Bibliography 133

Blumenthal, Max. Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel. New York: Hachette,
2013.
Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Paulist,
1984.
Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
Bokovy, David. “Ahab.” Bible Odyssey. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/
main-articles/ahab.
Booker, Christopher. The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. New York:
Bloomsbury, 2005.
Borgese, Giuseppe Antonio. Goliath: The March of Fascism. New York: Viking,
1937.
Bottigheimer, Ruth B. The Bible for Children in the Age of Guttenberg to the Present.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Bottigheimer, Ruth B. “Catechistical, Devotional and Biblical Writing.” In
International Companion Encyclopedia of Children’s Literature, edited by Peter
Hunt, 299–305. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Bower, Bruce. “The Biblical Giant Goliath May Not Have Been So Giant After
All.” Science News, November 23, 2020. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/
bible-warrior-goliath-david-not-giant-height-gath.
Bowman, Steven. “Sefer Yosippon: History and Midrash.” In The Midrashic
Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, edited by Michael Fishbane,
280–94. New York: State University of New York Press, 2012.
Bregman, Marc. “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature.” Hebrew Annual Review
2 (1978): 45–59.
Brewer, Ebenezer Cobham. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: Giving the Derivation,
Source; Or Origin of Common Phrases, Allusions, and Words that Have a Tale to
Tell. London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1880.
Briginshaw, Ernest A. Goliath. N.p: Ernest A. Briginshaw, 2014.
Briles, Art. Beating Goliath: My Story of Football and Faith, with Dan Yaeger. New
York: St. Martin’s, 2014.
Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M. “David and Goliath: Diaspora Organizations as Partners in
the Development Industry.” Public Administration and Development 31:1 (2011):
37–49.
Brown, Box. Andre the Giant: Life and Legend. New York: First Second, 2014.
Brown, Keith. “Notes on the Terror Film.” Forum 2 (2006): 1–14.
Bruhn, Kathleen. Taking on Goliath: The Emergence of a New Left Party and the
Struggle for Democracy in Mexico. Philadelphia: Penn State University Press,
1997.
Bunk, Steve. Goliath Staggered: How Citizens in Montana Conquered Big Oil.
Madison, WI: August, 2014.
Butcher Babies. Goliath. Century Media, 2013, compact disc.
Callender Jr., Dexter E., ed. Myth and Scripture: Contemporary Perspectives on
Religion, Language, and Imagination. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature,
2014.
134 Bibliography

Campbell, Hayley. “Small Human Ordinariness: An Interview with

Tom Gauld.” Comics Journal, May 23, 2012. http://www.tcj.com/
small-human-ordinariness-an-interview-with-tom-gauld/.
Campogalliani, Carlo, dir. Goliath and the Barbarians. American International
Pictures, 1959.
Carver, Steven James. “Weird Tales from the Vault of Fear: The EC Comics
Controversy and Its Legacy.” Paper presented at Watching the Media: Censorship,
Limits, and Control in Creative Practice Symposium. Edge Hill University,
Liverpool, April 2011.
Chabris, Christopher F. “Book Review: ‘David and Goliath’ by Malcolm Gladwell.”
Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2013. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014
24052702304713704579093090254007968.
Chaplin, Charles. “We Have Come to Stay.” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1922,
12, 58, 61.
Chastain, George. “The Brute Men: Medical Marvels! Giants of the Genre! Monsters
of the Ring! And Other Awesome Brutes!” In Scott Gallinghouse, Rondo Hatton:
Beauty Within the Brute, 171–84. Orlando, FL: BearManor, 2019.
Chey, Timothy A., dir. David and Goliath. RiverRain Productions, 2015.
Chick, Jack. The Terminator? Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Chick Publications, 1986.
Clare, Cassandra. Queen of Air and Darkness. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.
Clark, Chap. “Who Was Jack T. Chick, Rabid Zealot or Misguided Cartoonist?” First
Things, October 31, 2016. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/10/
who-was-jack-t-chick-rabid-zealot-or-misguided-cartoonist.
Cohan, Peter S. Goliath Strikes Back: How Traditional Retailers Are Winning Back
Customers from Ecommerce Startups. New York: Apress, 2020.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and the Middle Ages. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Collins, John J. A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2014.
Comay, Joan. The Hebrew Kings. New York: William Morrow, 1977.
Corbucci, Sergio, and Giacomo Gentilomo, dirs. Goliath and the Vampires. American
International Pictures, 1961.
Corridan, Shawn, and Gary Waid. Goliath: A Thriller. Sarasota, FL: Oceanview,
2016.
Cottafavi, Vittorio, dir. Goliath and the Dragon. American International Pictures,
1960.
Cowley, Abraham. Poems: Miscellanies, the Mistress, Pindarique Odes, Davideis,
Verses Written on Several Occasions. Edited by A. R. Waller. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1905.
Crace, John. “David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell—digested read.”
Guardian, October 6, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/06/
david-goliath-malcolm-gladwell-digested-read.
Craig, Bob. American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2019.
 Bibliography 135

Cramer, Steven A. Conquering Your Own Goliaths. Springville, UT: Cedar Fort,
2011.
Crumb, R. The Book of Genesis Illustrated. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.
Dahl, Roald. The BFG. London: Jonathan Cape, 1982.
Darowski, Joseph J., ed. The Ages of the Incredible Hulk: Essays on the Green
Goliath in Changing Times. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015.
David and Goliath. New York: Dell, 1961.
“David versus Goliath.” TV Tropes. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/
DavidVersusGoliath.
DeFilippis, James. Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global
Capital. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2004.
DeLuise, Peter, dir. “Demons.” Stargate SG-1, season 3, episode 8, 1999.
Dever, William G. The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: Where Archaeology
and the Bible Intersect. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012.
Dickey, Robert W. Goliath of Panama. Morley, MO: Acclaim, 2015.
Doak, Brian R. Ancient Israel’s Neighbors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Dohrenwend, Robert E. Dohrenwend’s Masterwork: On the Spear, Sling, Sai, and
Walking Stick. Edited by Michael DeMarco. Santa Fe, NM: Via Media, 2015.
Dorfman, Leo, and Al Plastino. Action Comics, no. 308. New York: DC Comics,
1964.
Dorfman, Leo, and Curt Swan. Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, no. 62. New York: DC
Comics, 1962.
Dorfman, Leo, and Curt Swan. Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, no. 79. New York: DC
Comics, 1964.
Dotson, Jim. Taking on Goliath: Dotson Vs. Pfizer—A Collision of Personal and
Corporate Values. Del Mar, CA: Elevate, 2013.
Downey, Roma, and Mark Burnett, dirs. The Bible. Lightworkers Media, 2013.
Dozois, Gardner, ed. The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Fifteenth Annual Edition. New
York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998.
Drayton, Michael. The Works of Michael Drayton, vol. 3. London: W. Reeve, 1753.
DuBose, Justin Z. I & II Samuel: A Devotional Look. Morrisville, NC: Lulu, 2013.
Dunkle, Roger. Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome. New York:
Routledge, 2008.
Easton, Brandon M., and Denis Medri. Andre the Giant: Closer to Heaven. St. Louis,
MO: Lion Forge, 2016.
Ebeling, Jennie R. Women’s Lives in Biblical Times. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010.
Eberhardt, Jennifer L. Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What
We See, Think, and Do. New York: Penguin, 2020.
Engber, Daniel. “Gladwell Is Goliath: Do puny readers stand a chance against his lat-
est book?” Slate, October 7, 2013. https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/malcolm-
gladwells-david-and-goliath-reviewed.html.
Feldman, Ruth Tenzer. Blue Thread. Portland, OR: Ooligan, 2012.
Feldman, Ruth Tenzer. The Ninth Day. Portland, OR: Ooligan Press, 2013.
Feldman, Ruth Tenzer. Seven Stitches. Portland, OR: Ooligan Press, 2017.
136 Bibliography

Fillingim, David. “By the Gods—Or Not: Religious Plurality in Xena: Warrior
Princess.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 21:3 (2009): 1–17.
Finkelstein, Israel. “A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical
Perspectives.” In One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical
Perspectives, edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, 3–28.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective.”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27:2 (2002): 127–67.
Finkelstein, Israel, Amihai Mazar, and Brian Schmidt, eds. The Quest for the
Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Israel. Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2007.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s
New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon
and Shuster, 2001.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. David and Solomon. New York: Free
Press, 2006.
Fitting, Jessica. “Children’s Literature and the ‘David and Goliath’ Story.” Journal of
Theta Alpha Kappa 34:2 (2010): 38–53.
Foley, John Miles. The Singer of Tales in Performance: Voices in Performance and
Text. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.
Ford, Paul F. Companion to Narnia: A Complete Guide to the Magical World of C.S.
Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.
Ford Jr., Harold. More Davids than Goliaths: A Political Education. New York:
Crown, 2010.
Frank, Josette. “The Role of Comic Strips and Comic Books in Child Life.”
Supplementary Educational Monographs 57 (1943): 158–62.
Frankel, Ellen. The Five Books of Miriam: A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah.
New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1996.
Frankel, Valerie Estelle. “Hercules, Xena and Genre: The Methodology Behind the
Mashup.” In The New Peplum: Essays on Sword and Sandal Films and Television
Programs Since the 1990s, edited by Nicholas Diak, 115–34. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2018.
Friedman, Drew. Heroes of the Comics. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2014.
Friedmann, Jonathan L. “The Fall of Jericho as Earthquake Myth.” Jewish Bible
Quarterly 48:3 (2020): 171–78.
Friedmann, Jonathan L. “From Stale to Silly to Sublime: The Shofar in Comic Books.”
In Qol Tamid: The Shofar in Ritual, History, and Culture, edited by Jonathan L.
Friedmann and Joel Gereboff, 267–96. Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2017.
Friedmann, Jonathan L. “When Jimmy Blew the Shofar: Midrash and Musical
Invective in Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen.” Journal of Religion and Popular
Culture 28:1 (2016): 43–53.
Friedmann, Jonathan L. “Who Was Naamah? Insights from Robert Crumb’s The
Book of Genesis Illustrated.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 31:2 (2019):
167–76.
 Bibliography 137

Friedrichs, Rebecca. Standing Up to Goliath: Battling State and National Teachers’

Unions for the Heart and Soul of Our Kids and Country. New York: Post Hill,
2018.
Frontain, Raymond-Jean, and Jan Wojcik, eds. The David Myth in Western Literature.
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1980.
Frye, Northrop, and Jay Macpherson. Biblical and Classical Myths: The Mythological
Framework of Western Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.
Gaiman, Neil. Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders. New York: Harper
Perennial, 2006.
Gaines, Maxwell, ed. Picture Stories from the Bible. New York: Scarf, 1979.
Galling, K. “Goliath und seine Rüstung.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1966): 150–69.
Gardener, Bradley. “Spatial Maneuvers: Geographies of Power and Labor Practices in
Professional Wrestling’s Territorial Era.” In Critical Geographies of Sport: Space,
Power and Sport in Global Perspective, edited by Natalie Koch, 207–19. New
York: Routledge, 2017.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability
in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Garofalo, David. David vs. Goliath: How to Compete, and Beat, the On-Line Giant.
Pennsauken Township, NJ: Bookbaby, 2019.
Garsiel, Moshe. “The Valley of Elah Battle and the Duel of David with Goliath:
Between History and Artistic Theological Historiography.” In Biblical and Ancient
Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, edited by Gershon Galil, Mark
Geller, and Alan Millard, 391–426. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Gauld, Tom. Goliath. Montreal: Drawn and Quarterly, 2012.
Giglio, Louie. Goliath Must Fall: Winning the Battle Against Your Giants. New York:
Thomas Nelson, 2017.
Giles, Terry, and William Doan. “Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” Religion
Compass 2:3 (2008): 273–86.
Giles, Terry, and William J. Doan. Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism and the
Songs of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews: Notes to Volumes I and II: From Creation
to the Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1947.
Gladwell, Malcolm. David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling
Giants. New York: Back Bay, 2013.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Back Bay, 2011.
Gold, Penny Schine. Making the Bible Modern: Children’s Bibles and Jewish
Education in Twentieth-Century America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2004.
Goldman, William. Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventures in the Screen Trade. New
York: Vintage, 2001.
“Goliath.” D&D Beyond. https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/goliath.
“Goliath Died: July 2001.” Northcote Horses and Animals. https://www.northcote-
horses.com/goliath.
138 Bibliography

Gottlieb, Jack. Funny, It Doesn’t Sound Jewish: How Yiddish Songs and Synagogue
Melodies Influenced Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, and Hollywood. New York: SUNY
Press, 2004.
Gottwald, Norman K. “Triumphalist Versus Anti-Triumphalist Versions of Early
Israel.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997): 15–42.
Grabbe, Lester L. “Iron Age: Tribes to Monarchy.” In The Oxford Illustrated History
of the Holy Land, edited by H. G. M. Williamson and Robert G. Hoyland, 33–60.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gragg, Rod. Confederate Goliath: The Battle of Fort Fisher. Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, 2006.
Grasso, John. Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2014.
Graves, Robert. Goliath and David. London: Chiswick, 1916.
Gray, John. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Gray, Richard. “The Great Khali Speaks on WWE Career, His Diet, Religion, More.”
Rajah, March 27, 2008. https://rajah.com/node/11832.
Griffith, Cary J. Opening Goliath: Danger and Discovery in Caving. St. Paul, MN:
Borealis, 2009.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. “Midrash and the ‘Midrashic Condition’: Preliminary
Considerations.” In The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and
History, edited by Michael Fishbane, 6–22. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993.
Guha-Ray, Shantanu. “Giant Wrestler Finds Fame in India.” BBC News, May 6, 2008.
Gurtner, Daniel M., and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second
Temple Judaism Volume One. London: T&T Clark, 2020.
Guttman, Howard M. When Goliaths Clash: Managing Executive Conflict to Build a
More Dynamic Organization. New York: AMACOM, 2003.
Hajdu, David. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It
Changed America. New York: Picador, 2008.
Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
Harish, Alon. “WWE Star Great Khali’s Growth-Inducing Tumor
Removed.” ABC News, July 27, 2012. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/
star-wrestler-great-khali-tumor-removed-caused-size/story?id=16874060.
Harper, William R. “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, Genesis VI.” In
The Biblical World, Volume 3, edited by William R. Harper, 440–48. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1894.
Harris, David. Goliath. New York: Avon, 1970.
Hatcher, Anthony. Religion and Media in America. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2018.
Haulbrook, Joseph. A Sling and a Stone: Courageously Overcoming Goliath from the
Inside Out. Scott’s Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2012.
Hays, J. Daniel. “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 48:4 (2005): 701–14.
Heart, Pearl. I Beat Goliath: My Life’s Journey. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse,
2019.
Hébert, Bertrand, and Pat Laprade. The Eighth Wonder of the World: The True Story
of André the Giant. Toronto: ECW, 2020.
 Bibliography 139

Hehir, Jason, dir. Andre the Giant. HBO, 2018.

Heinemann, Joseph. “The Nature of the Aggadah.” In Midrash and Literature, edited
by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick, 41–55. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1986.
Heller, Joseph. God Knows. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
Hemetsberger, Andrea. “When David Becomes Goliath: Ideological Discourse in
New Online Consumer Movements.” NA–Advances in Consumer Research 33
(2006): 494–500.
Henson, Brian, dir. Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story. Hallmark Entertainment
and The Jim Henson Company, 2001.
Herzig, Volker, and Glenn F. King. “The Neurotoxic Mode of Action of Venoms from
the Spider Family Theraphosidae.” In Spider Ecophysiology, edited by Wolfgang
Nentwig, 203–15. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.
Hewlin, Todd, and Scott Snyder. Goliath’s Revenge: How Established Companies
Turn the Tables on Digital Disruptors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2019.
Hirsch, Eitan, Jaime H. Cuadros, and Joseph E. Backofen. “David’s Choice: A Sling
and Tactical Advantage.” International Symposium on Ballistics. Jerusalem, May
21–24, 1995.
Hirsch, Emil G. “Goliath.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6., edited by Isidore
Singer, 37–39. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906.
Hodge, Clemon. Goodbye Goliath: One Man’s Journey to Sobriety. Morrisville, NC:
Lulu, 2018.
Hoeveler, Diane Long. “Frankenstein, Feminism, and Literary Theory.” In The
Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelly, edited by Esther H. Schor, 45–63.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Hoffman, Joel M. The Bible Doesn’t Say That: 40 Biblical Mistranslations,
Misconceptions, and Other Misunderstandings. New York: Macmillan, 2016.
Hoffmeier, James K. “David’s Triumph Over Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:54 and Ancient
Near Eastern Analogues.” In Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism,
Ideology and Literature, edited by S. Bar, D. Kahn, and J. J. Shirley, 87–114.
Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Hogan, Patrick Colm. Effective Narratology: The Emotional Structure of Stories.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011.
Horn, Siegfried H. “The Divided Monarchy: The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.” In
Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, edited by
Hershel Shanks, 129–99. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999.
Howard, Richard. “The Giant on Giant-Killing.” October 1 (1976): 47–49.
Hughes, Larry. Challenging Goliath: Leadership Lessons from the Life of King David.
N.p.: independently published, 2021.
Hurst, Michael, dir. “A Day in the Life.” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 2, episode
15, 1997.
Hyde, Michael. Surfing Goliath. Sydney: Hachette Australia, 2012.
Iijima, Toshihiro, dir. Daigoro vs. Goliath. Toho, 1971.
Isabella, Tony, and George Tuska. Black Goliath nos. 1–5. New York: Marvel
Comics, 1976.
140 Bibliography

Isabella, Tony, and George Tuska. Luke Cage, Power Man, no. 24. New York: Marvel
Comics, 1975.
Isser, Stanley. The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature. Atlanta, GA: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Jacobs, Dale. Graphic Encounters: Comics and the Sponsorship of Multimodel
Literacy. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
James, C. P. Goliath: Only Vengeance Remains. N.p.: Independently published, 2020.
Jason, Heda. “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Biblica 60:1 (1979):
36–70.
Jeffrey, David Lyle. A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Grand
Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.
Jeffries, Carla H., et al. “The David and Goliath Principle: Cultural, Ideological, and
Attitudinal Underpinnings of the Normative Protection of Low-Status Groups from
Criticism.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38:8 (2012): 1053–65.
Johanssen, Jacob, and Diana Garrisi. “Media and the Skin.” SKINmed 16:1 (2018):
11–12.
Johnson, Benjamin J. M. Reading David and Goliath in Greek and Hebrew: A
Literary Approach. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Johnson, Benjamin J. M. “Reconsidering 4QSama and the Textual Support for the
Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story.” Vetus Testamentum 62:4
(2012): 534–49.
Johnston, Joe, dir. The Rocketeer. Disney, 1991.
Jolly, Don. “Interpretive Treatments of Genesis in Comics: R. Crumb & Dave Sims.”
Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 25:3 (2013): 333–43.
Jones, Gary, dir. “The Giant Killer.” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 2, episode 3,
1996.
Jones, J. P. Facing Goliath: How a Man Overcomes His Giants to Follow Christ. Ada,
MI: Baker, 2013.
Jones Jr., William B. Classics Illustrated: A Cultural History, 2d ed. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2011.
Ju, Jay, and Leonel Castellani. David and Goliath, nos. 1–3. Portland, OR: Image
Comics, 2003.
Kandil, Caitlin Yoshiko. “How Philistine Became a Dirty Word.” Moment, February
6, 2014. https://momentmag.com/jewish-word-philistine/.
Kanigher, Robert, and Irv Novick. Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane, no. 98. New
York: DC Comics, 1970.
Katsh, Abraham I. Judaism and the Koran: Biblical and Talmudic Backgrounds of the
Koran and Its Commentaries. New York: Perpetua, 1962.
Kehe, Jason. “The Lovability of Malcolm Gladwell: A Gladwellian
Analysis.” Wired, September 9, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/
gladwellian-review-malcolm-gladwell/.
Kellermensch. Goliath. Universal, 2017, compact disc.
Kessler, Peter. The Complete Guide to Asterix. London: Hodder Children’s Books,
1995.
King, Henry, dir. David and Bathsheba. 20th Century Fox, 1951.
 Bibliography 141

King, Philip J. “David Defeats Goliath.” In “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on
the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour
Gitin, edited by Sidnie White Crawford and Amnon Ben-Tor, 350–57. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 2007.
Kipfer, Sara. “Goliath; V. Visual Arts.” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception,
vol. 10, edited by Hans-Josef Klauck, 598–602. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Kirsch, Jonathan. King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel. New York:
Ballantine, 2000.
Klein, Ezra. “In Defense of Malcolm Gladwell.” American Prospect, May 7, 2009.
https://prospect.org/article/defense-malcolm-gladwell./.
Klein, Ezra. “Malcolm Gladwell on the Danger of Joining Consensus Opinions.” Vox
Conversations (podcast), August 2016, https://open.spotify.com/episode/0kOZI4l6
GTc3tTPL8tCLXS.
Klundt, Rita. Goliath’s Mountain. Bloomington, IN: Westbow, 2017.
Ko, Ming Him. The Levite Singers in Chronicles and Their Stabilising Role. New
York: T & T Clark, 2017.
Kolbe, Winrich, dir. “Darmok.” Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 5, episode
2, 1991.
Kruse, Nancy, dir. “Simpsons Bible Stories.” The Simpsons, season 10, episode 18,
1999.
Kuersteiner, Kurt. The Unofficial Guide to the Art of Jack T. Chick: Chick Tracts,
Crusader Comics, and Battle Cry Newspapers. Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2004.
Kuppers, Petra. Contemporary Performance: Bodies on Edge. New York: Routledge,
2004.
Kvistad, Ivar. “Xena’s Double-Edged Sword: Sapphic Love and the Judeo-Christian
Tradition.” Refractory 8:1 (1998): n.p.
Kyd, Thomas, Thomas Middleton, William Shakespeare, John Marston, and Henry
Chettle. Five Revenge Tragedies: The Spanish Tragedy, Hamlet, Antonio’s Revenge,
The Tragedy of Hoffman, The Revenger’s Tragedy. New York: Penguin, 2012.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.
Lamplighter, L. Jagi. Prospero Regained: Prospero’s Daughter. New York: Macmillan,
2011.
Lander, William. David and Goliath. London: printed by author, 1833.
Langer, Stefan. David Beats Goliath. Bloomington, IN: Balboa, 2013.
Lathbury, Lily. “Response Review for the Third Quarter.” Sunday-School Journal for
Teachers and Young People (Aug. 1889): 356–57.
Lawless,  Lucy,  and  Renee  O’Conner.  “Cast   of   Xena:  Warrior  
Princess.”  Fan  Expo  Canada,  Toronto,  2018.  https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=etmATtTyPNE&t=1075s.
Lee, Stan, and Don Heck. Avengers, no. 10. New York: Marvel Comics, 1964.
Lee, Stan, and Don Heck. Avengers, no. 28. New York: Marvel Comics, 1966.
Legassic, Cory. “‘The Perfect Neanderthal Man’: Rondo Hatton as The Creeper and
the Cultural Economy of 1940s B-Films.” In Recovering 1940s Horror Cinema:
142 Bibliography

Traces of a Lost Decade, edited by Charlie Ellbé, Kristopher Woofter, and Mario
DeGiglio-Bellemare, 295–318. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2014.
Lehman, H. C., and P. A. Witty. “The Compensatory Function of the Sunday ‘Funny
Paper.’” Journal of Applied Psychology 11:3 (1927): 202–11.
Lehti, John. Tales from the Great Book, nos. 1–4. New York: Famous Funnies,
1955–56.
LeMon, Joel M. “Beheading in the Ancient World.” Bible Odyssey, February
16, 2011. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/
beheading-in-the-ancient-world.
Leonhard, Suzanne. The Goliath Code. N.p.: independently published, 2017.
“Let’s Talk Illustrators #109: Ximo Abadía.” Let’s Talk Picture Books. http://www.
letstalkpicturebooks.com/2019/05/lets-talk-illustrators-109-ximo-abadia.html.
Levenson, Jon D. “Genesis.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and
Marc Zvi Brettler, 1–101. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Levine, Michael, dir. “Altared States.” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 1, episode
19, 1996.
Liddi, Allison, dir. “Collective.” Star Trek: Voyager, season 6, episode 16, 2000.
Life Application Study Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2013.
Lobrutto, Vincent. TV in the USA: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas, Volume 1:
1950s–1960s. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2018.
Louden, Bruce. Greek Myth and the Bible. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Lucado, Max. Facing Your Giants: God Still Does the Impossible. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2006.
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Translated by John Selby Watson. London:
George Bell, 1898.
Lyons, David. David’s Goliath: Winning the Battle against All Odds. Abilene, TX:
Leafwood, 2013.
Macnamara, Brooke N., David Z. Hambrick, and Frederick L. Oswald. “Deliberate
Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A
Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Science 25:8 (2014):1608–18.
Mahawatte, Royce. George Eliot and the Gothic Novel: Genres, Gender, Feeling.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2013.
Mandelbaum, Michael. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s
Government in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Hachette, 2005.
Margalit, Ruth. “In Search of King David’s Lost Empire.” New Yorker,
June 22, 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/
in-search-of-king-davids-lost-empire.
Mars Volta. The Bedlam in Goliath. Universal Motown Records, 2008, compact disc.
Marshall, Rob. Taking on Goliath: How to Unleash the David in All of Us. New York:
Morgan James, 2006.
Martin, James D. The Book of Judges. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Martin, Melody Stanford. Brave Talk: Building Resilient Relationships in the Face of
Conflict. Minneapolis, MN: Broadleaf, 2020.
Mays, James L. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville,
KY: John Knox, 1994.
 Bibliography 143

Mazer, Sharon. Professional Wrestling: Sport and Spectacle. Jackson: University

Press of Mississippi, 2000.
McAvan, Emily. The Postmodern Sacred: Popular Culture Spirituality in the Science
Fiction, Fantasy and Urban Fantasy Genres. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012.
McFate, Sean. Goliath: Why the West Doesn’t Win Wars. And What We Need to Do
About It. New York: Penguin, 2020.
McGeough, Kevin M. “The Problem with David: Masculinity and Morality in
Biblical Cinema.” Journal of Religion & Film 22:1 (2018): 1–52.
Megna, Vince. Bring on Goliath: Lemon Law Justice in America. Tucson, AZ: Ken,
2004.
Meiners, Willem. How to Upset a Goliath Book Biz: The Inside Story of an Underdog
with a Bite. Baltimore, MD: PublishAmerica, 2005.
Mele, Nicco. The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath. New
York: Macmillan, 2013.
Meyer, Christina. Producing Mass Entertainment: The Serial Life of the Yellow Kid.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2019.
Millard, Alan R. “The Armor of Goliath.” In Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in
Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J. David Schloen, 337–43. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Miller II, Robert D. Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.
Minns, Michael Louis. How to Survive the IRS: My Battles Against Goliath. Fort Lee,
NJ: Barricade, 2001.
Monteith, John R. Rogue Goliath. N.p.: Stealth, 2015.
Moore, Megan Bishop. Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient
Israel. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.
Mougin, Lou. Secondary Superheroes of Golden Age Comics. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2020.
Muravchik, Joshua. Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against
Israel. New York: Encounter, 2015.
“My Short Read of the Week: Goliath, The Boy Who Was Different.”
Childtasticbooks. https://childtasticbooks.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/
my-short-read-of-the-week-goliath-the-boy-who-was-different/.
Myles, Robert J. “Biblical Literacy and The Simpsons.” In Rethinking Biblical
Literacy, edited by Katie Edwards, 143–64. New York: T & T Clark, 2015.
Nabokov, Vladimir. “Philistines and Philistinism.” In Lectures on Russian Literature,
edited by Fredson Bowers, 309–14. Orlando, FL: Harvest, 1981.
Nardo, Don. The Greenhaven Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Detroit: Gale, 2007.
Nasuti, Harry S. Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the Post-Critical
Interpretation of the Psalms. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.
Nelson, Leah. “Pastor Apologizes for Hate-Filled Halloween Hand-out.”
Southern Poverty Law Center, November 2, 2011. https://www.splcenter.org/
hatewatch/2011/11/02/pastor-apologizes-hate-filled-halloween-hand-out.
Ness, Mari. “Is Killing Giants Ever Justified? The Evolving Tale of ‘Jack and
the Beanstalk.’” TOR, April 19, 2018, https://www.tor.com/2018/04/19/
is-killing-giants-ever-justified-the-evolving-tale-of-jack-and-the-beanstalk/.
144 Bibliography

Neusner, Jacob, and William Scott Green, ed. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical
Period, 450 B.C.E to 600 C.E., Volume 1. New York: Macmillan, 1996.
Niemann, Hermann Michael. “Neighbors and Foes, Rivals and Kin: Philistines,
Shepheleans, Judeans Between Geography and Economy, History and Theology.”
In The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by
Ann E. Killebree and Gunner Lehmann, 243–64. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2013.
Niven, Larry, and Matthew Joseph Harrington. The Goliath Stone. New York: Tor
Science Fiction, 2014.
Noonan, Ellen. The Strange Career of Porgy and Bess: Race, Culture, and America’s
Most Famous Opera. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.
Ogden, J. G. Goliath Emerges. N.p.: Ogden Media, 2020.
Olukoya, D. K. Kill Your Goliath by Fire. Lagos: The Battle Cry Christian Ministries,
2016.
Oppliger, Patricia A. Wrestling and Hypermasculinity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland,
2015.
Otfinoski, Steven. William Gaines: MAD Man. Vero Beach, FL: Rourke, 1993.
Paine, Albert Bigelow. Mark Twain: A Biography. New York: Harper, 1912.
Parry, C. Hubert H. The Oxford History of Music, Vol. III: The Music of the
Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon, 1902.
Pearson, Joe, dir. War of the Worlds: Goliath. Studio Climb, 2021.
Pebworth, Ted-Larry. “Cowley’s Davideis and the Exaltation of Friendship.” In The
David Myth on Western Literature, edited by Raymond-Jean Frontain and Jan
Wojcik, 96–104. West Lafayette, IN: Perdue University Press, 1980.
Petroff, Kip. Battling Goliath: Inside a $22 Billion Legal Scandal. Dallas, TX: Frame
House, 2011.
Piesse, Ken. Miracle Match: The Day David Downed Goliath, Brunswick St. Oval,
July 6 1963. Mount Eliza, VIC: Cricket, 2014.
Pinker, Aron. “The Number 40 in the Bible.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 22:3 (1994):
163–72.
Platt, Tyson L. “The Transmission of Cultural Values through Professional Wrestling:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” In Identity in Professional Wrestling: Essays on
Nationality, Race and Gender, edited by Aaron D. Horton, 179–98. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2018.
Plummer, Jessica. “What Was the First Comic Book?” Book Riot, July 23, 2020.
Pornaras, Van. Goliath. Rancho Mirage, CA: We Publish Books, 2004.
Prabowo, Fajar S. A., and Raden Aswin Rahadi. “David vs. Goliath: Uncovering
the Future of Traditional Markets in Indonesia.” Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences 6:5 (2015): 28–36.
Raider-Roth, Miriam B. Professional Development in Relational Learning
Communities: Teachers in Connection. New York: Teachers College Press, 2017.
Ravitch, Diane. Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the
Fight to Save America’s Public Schools. New York: Random House, 2013.
Ray, Fred Olen. “Rondo Hatton: Monster Man.” Midnight Marquee, Fall 1988, 87–93.
 Bibliography 145

Record, Jeffrey. Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. Washington, D.C.: Potomac,
2011.
Reitherman, Wolfgang, dir. Goliath II. Disney, 1960.
Reynolds, Glenn. An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower
Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths.
Edinburgh, UK: Nelson Current, 2007.
Rhoads, David. “The Art of Translating for Oral Performance.” In Translating
Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies, edited
by Ernst Wendland, 22–48. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.
Rich, David Lowell, and Alex Segal, dirs. The Story of David. Columbia Pictures
Television, 1976.
Richler, Mordecai. “He Who Laughs Last.” New York Times, September 23, 1984.
Riphouse, Acascias. The Harry Potter Companion. College Station, TX:
Virtualbookworm, 2003.
Robinson, William I., and Kent Norsworthy. David and Goliath: The US War against
Nicaragua. New York: Monthly Review, 1987.
Romanus, Austin O. How to Kill a Goliath: David’s Secret Revealed. Bloomington,
IN: AuthorHouse, 2014.
Ron, Zvi. “Spilling Wine While Reciting the Plagues to Diminish
Joy?” TheTorah.com, 2020. https://www.thetorah.com/article/
spilling-wine-while-reciting-the-plagues-to-diminish-our-joy.
Rosenberg, Tina. “Malcolm Gladwell: Guru of the Underdogs.” Atlantic,
October 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/
the-underdogs-guru/309458/.
Round, Paul. Goliath’s Eye. Leicester, UK: Troubador, 2016.
Ruch, Floyd L. Psychology and Life, 3rd. ed. Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1948.
Russell, Mark, and Shannon Wheeler. God Is Disappointed in You. Marietta, GA:
Top Shelf, 2013.
Sassone, Oley, dir. “The Debt.” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 3, episode 6, 1997.
Sassone, Oley, dir. “The Debt II.” Xena: Warrior Princess, season 3, episode 7, 1997.
Schneier, Bruce. Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and
Control Your World. New York: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Schubart, Rikke. Super Bitches and Action Babes: The Female Hero in Popular
Cinema, 1970–2006. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2007.
Semel, David, dir. “Expecting.” Angel, season 1, episode 12, 1999.
Shoemaker, David. The Squared Circle: Life, Death, and Professional Wrestling. New
York: Penguin, 2014.
Sharlin, William. “The Static and Dynamic in Synagogue Song.” In Jewish Sacred
Music and Jewish Identity: Continuity and Fragmentation, edited by Jonathan L.
Friedmann and Brad Stetson, 57–59. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008.
Shellnutt, Kate. “Died: Jack Chick, Cartoonist Whose Controversial Tracts Became
Cult Hits.” Christianity Today, October 24, 2016. https://www.christianitytoday.
com/news/2016/october/died-jack-chick-cartoonist-controversial-gospel-tracts.
html.
146 Bibliography

Shoopman, James G. Patterns of American Popular Heroism: From Biblical Roots to

Modern Media. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2020.
Silber, Mendel. The Scripture Stories Retold for Young Israel, rev. ed. New York:
Behrman’s Jewish Book House, 1918.
Silva, Eduardo. “Patagonia, without Dams! Lessons of a David vs. Goliath
Campaign.” The Extractive Industries and Society 3:4 (2016): 947–57.
Simmons, Shraga. David & Goliath: The Explosive Inside Story of Media Bias in the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Jerusalem: Emesphere, 2012.
Simpson, St. John. “Annihilating Assyria.” In In Context: The Reade Festschrift,
edited by Irving Finkel and St. John Simpson, 141–64. Oxford: Archaeopress,
2020.
Smith, Brad. The Goliath Run. Winnipeg: At Bay Press, 2020.
Smith, Goldwin. “Science and Morality.” Popular Science, April 1882, 753–78.
Sondheim, Stephen, and James Lapine. Into the Woods. New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1989.
Spealler, Chris. Speal: A David and Goliath Story. Cheltenham, UK: Icon, 2018.
Spillane, Mickey, and Max Allan Collins. The Goliath Bone. New York: Harcourt,
2008.
Stephens, Walter E. “‘De Historia Gigantum’: Theological Anthropology before
Rabelais.” Traditio 40 (1984): 43–89.
Stoller, Matt. Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.
New York: Simon and Shuster, 2020.
Strand, Fleur L. “David and Goliath: The Slingshot That Started the Neuropeptide
Revolution.” European Journal of Pharmacology 405:1–3 (2000): 3–12.
Steve Taylor & The Perfect Foil. Goliath. Splint Entertainment, 2017, compact disc.
Stevens, Dave. The Rocketeer: The Complete Adventures. San Diego, CA: IDW,
2009.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Book of Giants from Qumran. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997.
Taylor, Erma. “Hollywood’s Strangest Love Story.” Pageant, July 1946, 10–12.
Temple, William F. The Automated Goliath. New York: Ace, 1962.
Theroux, Alexander. The Enigma of Al Capp. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 1999.
Thomas, Paul B. “Goliath; IV. Literature.” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception, vol. 10, edited by Hans-Josef Klauck, 597–98. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Thomas, Roy, and Gene Colan. Avengers, no. 63. New York: Marvel Comics, 1969.
Thompson, Steven. David’s Goliath: If You Found a Book That Told the Story of Your
Life, Would You Read On? Ind.: 2017.
Tigges, Wim. “‘Forget Me Not’: The Performance of Memory in Xena: Warrior
Princess.” In Performing Memory in Art and Popular Culture, edited by Liedeke
Plate and Anneke Smelik, 170–84. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Tsoukas, Haridimos. “David and Goliath in the Risk Society: Making Sense of
the Conflict between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea.” Organization 6:3
(1999): 499–528.
Turner, George E., Orville Goldner, and Michael A. Price. The Making of Kong. New
York: Pulp Hero, 2018.
 Bibliography 147

Turner, Richard. Goliath: A Ryan Mitchell Thriller. N.p.: independently published,

2020).
Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Webster, 1885.
Twain, Mark. “Concerning the Jews.” In Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race,
edited by Janet Smith, 156–77. New York: Hill and Wang, 1994.
Twain, Mark. Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: Chapters from the North American
Review. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1924.
Twain, Mark. Roughing It. Hartford, CT: American, 1872.
Twain, Mark. The War-Prayer. New York: Harper, 1970.
Vandello, Joseph A., Nadav Goldschmied, and Kenneth Michniewicz. “Underdogs
as Heroes.” In Handbook of Heroism and Heroic Leadership, edited by George R.
Goethals, Roderick M. Kramer, and Scott T. Allison, 339–55. New York: Taylor
and Francis, 2017.
Velentzas, Irene. “‘Comics Open Up the Idea of What a Story Can Be’: A Conversation
with Tom Gauld.” Comics Journal, August 18, 2020.
Verney, Eliza (Lady). Practical Thoughts on the First Forty Chapters of the Book of
the Prophet Isaiah. London: James Nisbet, 1858.
Voelpel, S. C., R. A. Eckhoff, and J. Förster. “David against Goliath? Group Size and
Bystander Effects in Virtual Knowledge Sharing.” Human Relations 61:2 (2008):
271–95.
Wachowski, Andy (Lilly), and Larry (Lana) Wachowski, eds. The Matrix Comics
Volume 1. New York: Burlyman, 2003.
Wagner, Hank, Christopher Golden, and Stephen R. Bissette. Prince of Stories: The
Many Worlds of Neil Gaiman. New York: Macmillan, 2008.
Wallace Brothers, dirs. David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith. Faith Warrior Productions,
2016.
Ware, Nicholas. “Wrestling’s Not Real, It’s Hyperreal: Professional Wrestling Video
Games.” In Performance and Professional Wrestling, edited by Broderick Chow,
Eero Laines, and Claire Warden, 48–56. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Wertham, Fredric. Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comic Books on
Today’s Youth. New York: Reinhart, 1954.
Westerfeld, Scott. Goliath. New York: Simon and Shuster UK, 2011.
Weston, Jessie L. From Ritual to Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1920.
Whitlatch, Adam J. War of the Worlds: Goliath. N.p.: Latchkey, 2018.
Wilkinson, Alissa. “Satan, the Pope, and Dungeons & Dragons: How
Jack Chick’s Cartoons Informed American Fundamentalism.” Vox,
November 8, 2016. https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/8/13426962/
jack-chick-alt-right-fundamentalism-tracts-catholics-trump.
Williams, Scott E. Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of ECW.
New York: Sports Publishing, 2011.
Williamson, Jeffrey Alan. Disabled David v. Goliath. Pittsburgh, PA: Dorrance, 2015.
Wolcott, Barbara. David, Goliath and the Beach Cleaning Machine: How a Small
California Town Fought an Oil Giant and Won. Sterling, VA: Capital, 2003.
148 Bibliography

Wolpe, David. David: The Divided Heart. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2014.
Wolverton, Basil. The Bible Story, vol. 4. Pasadena, CA: Worldwide Church of God,
1985.
Wolverton, Basil. The Culture Corner. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2010.
Wolverton, Basil. Powerhouse Pepper. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 1994.
Wolverton, Basil. Spacehawk. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics, 2014.
Wolverton, Basil. The Wolverton Bible: The Old Testament & Book of Revelation
Through the Pen of Basil Wolverton. Compiled by Monte Wolverton. Seattle, WA:
Fantagraphics, 2009.
Wood, Christopher. Heroes Masked and Mythic: Echoes of Ancient Archetypes in
Comic Book Characters. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2021.
Wright, Bradford W. Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in
America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Wright, Milton. What’s Funny and Why: An Outline of Humor. New York: Whittlesey
House, 1939.
Wrytzen, Don. Rock on the Head. Singcord, 1974, LP.
Wuthnow, Robert. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998.
Yadin, Azzan. “Goliath’s Armor and Israel’s Collective Memory.” Vetus Testamentum
54:3 (2004): 373–95.
Yoder, Barbara J. Taking on Goliath: How to Stand Against the Spiritual Enemies in
Your Life and Win. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma, 2008.
Zaimov, Stoyan. “CP Exclusive: ‘David and Goliath’ Director Assures Big-Budget
Movie Will Be ‘Biblically Correct in Every Way.’” The Christian Post, April 25,
2014. https://www.christianpost.com/news/cp-exclusive-david-and-goliath-direc-
tor-assures-big-budget-movie-will-be-biblically-correct-in-every-way-118614/.
Ziegler, Yael. Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior.”
BASOR 360 (2010): 1–22.
 Index

Abadía, Ximo, 118–19 Arnold, Matthew, 56

Abishai ben Zeruiah, 26, 51 Arthurian legend, 11, 12–13, 27
Abraham, 16, 21, 36, 47, 91 Asterix, 18
Absalom, 9, 92 Avengers, 88
acromegaly, xv, 67, 71–74, 76–79, 113
Action Comics, 87, 105 Baden, Joel, 21, 60
Adam and Eve, 16 Baker, Kyle, 102–104
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 2 The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, 68
Aejmelaeus, Anneli, 28 ballistics, 67
The Ages of the Incredible Hulk, 89 Bam Bam Bigelow, 78
Agrius, 14 Bane, Theresa, 13
Ahab, 59 Barker, David, 10
Ahimelek, 27 Barthes, Roland, 78–79
Akiva, 42 Bathsheba, 47, 54, 92, 103, 104
Akuan, 12 BattleTech, 118
Aladdin, 35 Batto, Bernard F., 33
Albadan, 12 beheading trope, 13
Alexandrinus, 29 Ben-Hur, 100
Allison, Scott T., 57 Beowulf, 12
Alvesson, Mats, 16 Beringer, Vladimir, 67
American Bible Society, 94 Bernini, Gian Lorenzo, 86
Anakim, 24, 25 The BFG, 17–18
André the Giant, xv, 76–78, 80 The Bible (tv miniseries), 54
Ang, Ien, 60 Bible comics, 90–104
Angel, 15 Bible Comics for Young People, 97
Angoulaffre of the Broken Teeth, 12 The Bible in Miniature, 90
Antonio’s Revenge, 60 Binding of Isaac, 47
Arba, 25 Black Goliath, 88–89
Armstrong, Herbert W., 92 Black Panther, 88

149
150 Index

blaxploitation, 88–89 Darth Vader, 12

Blum, Alex, 89 Davey and Goliath, 116, 117
Bogdan, Robert, 72 David and Bathsheba, 54
The Book of Genesis Illustrated, 92 David and Goliath (film), 53, 54
Book of Giants, 26 David e Golia, 52, 99
Book of Watchers, 25 David vs. Goliath: Battle of
Booker, Christopher, 12, 33, 35, 57 Faith, 53–54
Braunstein, Glenn, 78 DC Comics, 89, 94, 97, 105
Brown, Box, 76 Degas, Edgar, 86
Butcher Babies, 116 Dehotgohsgayeh, 17
Dell, 97, 99, 104
Caleb, 14, 24 Deuteronomist, 34, 45
Campbell, Hayley, 85–86 Dever, William G., 55
Cassidy, Ted, 73, 76 Diadochi, 25–26
Castellani, Leonel, 117 Disney, 116, 117
Chabris, Christopher F., 70 Dohrenwend, Robert, 65
Chadwick, Jeffrey, 30 Donatello, 17
Chaplin, Charlie, 10 Doomsday, 88
Chapman, George, 60 Dorfman, Leo, 104, 106
Chey, Timothy A., 53 Doyle, Larry, 57
Chick, Jack, 100–2, 104 Dozois, Gardner, 41
children’s Bibles, 86, 90–92, 102 Dracula, 12
Christianity Today, 101 Drayton, Michael, 10
A Christmas Carol, 35 DuBose, Justin Z., 57
The Chronicles of Narnia, 17 Dungeon Fighter Online, 118
Clare, Cassandra, 14 Dungeons & Dragons, 100, 117
Classics Illustrated, 97
Clokey, Art, 116 Easton, Brandon M., 76
Coen brothers, 68 EC Comics, 95, 96–97
Cohen, Chaim, 67 Eisner, Will, 89
Comestor, Peter, 90 Elah, 27, 54, 72, 95, 103
Comics Code Authority, 96, 97, 105 Elate, 17
Comics Monthly, 87 Elhanan, 26–28, 29, 35, 51, 72
Cormoran, 12 Elisha, 98
Courtois, Guillaume, 86 Emim, 25
Cowley, Abraham, 10 Engber, Daniel, 69–70
Crace, John, 70 Enoch, 25
Crumb, R., 92, 102 Ephialtes and Otus, 17
Cursor Mundi, 10 Esau, 50, 91
Cyclops, 32, 67 Excalibur, 27

Dagon, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 101, 102 Famous Funnies, 97
Dahl, Roald, 17 Fantastic Four, 88
Daigoro vs. Goliath, 115 Feldman, Ruth Tenzer, 49
Dallas, 60–61 Finkelstein, Israel, 7, 55, 56
 Index 151

Fitting, Jessica, 92 Golem, 88

Flash Gordon, 97 Golerotheram, 11
Flood (biblical), 22–23, 24, 33, 34 Goliath: The Boy Who Was
Fontaine, Nicholas, 90 Different, 118–19
forty (biblical trope), 34 Goliath II, 116–17
Frankel, Valerie Estelle, viii Goliath and the Barbarians, 115
freak shows, 72–73 Goliath Games, 117
Freedman, David Noel, 52 Golishan, 11
French Angel (Maurice Marie Joseph Graham, Billy, 101
Tillet), 72 Graham, Lorenz, 97
Friedman, Drew, 74 Graves, Robert, 16
From Ritual to Romance, 11 The Great Khali, 77–78, 80
Frontain, Raymond-Jean, 34 Grendel, 12
Fuller, Charles E., 100 Grimm Brothers, 17
Funnies on Parade, 87 Guild Wars, 118
Gutenberg, Johannes, 90
Gaea, 88 Gutenberg Bible, 90
Gaiman, Neil, 117
Gaines, Maxwell Charles, 87, 94–95 Hades, 88
Gaines, William, 95, 96 Halo, 117
Galaor, 12 Halpern, Baruch, 66
Gallinhouse, Scott, 74 Hamlet, 60
Gandalue, 17 Harper, William R., 17
Gargoyles, 117 Harry Potter, 11, 17
Gath, 30, 102, 106, 119 Hatton, Rondo, xv, 73–75, 76, 77, 80
Gawain, 11 Hearst, William Randolph, 87
Gere, Richard, 54 Hébert, Bertrand, 76–77
Gershwin, George, vii Heimo, 13
Gershwin, Ira, vii Heller, Joseph, 11, 50, 66, 119
“The Giant on Giant-Killing,” 16–17, 68 Hello Kitty, 85
Gibeah, 66 Hercules, 88, 105
Gideon, 75 Hergé, 85
gigantism, xv, 67, 72, 73, 79 Hieronymus Bosch, 87
Giganto, 88 Hillel the Elder, viii
Gilgamesh, 12, 13, 33 Hirsch, Eitan, 67
gladiators, 79 Histoire de M. Vieux Bois (The
Glossa Ordinaria, 10 Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck), 87
God Is Disappointed in You, 4 Historia Scholastica, 90
God Knows, 11, 50–51, 66, 119 History of the Holy Bible Abridged, 90
Goethals, George R., 57 Holloway, Sterling, 116
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 56 The Holy Bible Abridged, 90
Gog and Magog, 17 Holy Grail, 11
Golagros, 11 Homer (Greek), 30, 31, 32, 88
Gold, Penny Schine, 90 Howard, Richard, 16–17, 68
Goldman, William, 77 Hübner, Johann, 90
152 Index

Hulk Hogan, 76 King, Henry, 73

Humbaba, 12, 13 King David (comic), 102–104
Hydroneer, 118 King David (film), 54, 56
Kirsch, Jonathan, 21
Il terrore dei barbari, 115 Klein, Ezra, 71
Iliad, 31, 33 Kruse, Nancy, 57
Into the Woods, 17 Kuhnau, Johann, 9
Iron Man, 88 Kyd, Thomas, 60
Isaac, 36, 47, 91
Ishbi-benob, 26, 51, 58 La vendetta di Ercole, 115
Islam, 3, 36, 45 Lahmi, 26, 28
Isser, Stanley, 27 Lakamper, Judith, viii
“It Ain’t Necessarily So,” vii Lakoff, George, 16
Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste, 114
“Jack and the Beanstalk,” 17, 35 Lamplighter, L. Jagi, 14
Jack and the Beanstalk: The Lao Tzu, 41
Real Story, 17 Lapine, James, 17
Jack the Giant Killer, 12, 17 Laprade, Pat, 76–77
Jacob, 36, 49, 50, 91 Latin Vulgate, 90
Jacobs, Joseph 17 Lawless, Lucy, 42
James Bond, 12, 73 Legends of Signum, 117
Jason Bourne, 11 Lehti, John, 97–98, 100
Jehu, 75 Lena the Hyena, 92
Jephthah, 75 Lewis, 17
Jericho, 30, 96 L’Histoire du Vieux et du Nouveau
Jesus Christ, 10, 91, 94, 97, Testament, 90
98, 100–102 Life Application Study Bible, 3
Jezebel, 59 L’il Abner, 92
Joab, 75 “Little Red Riding Hood,” 34
Joash, 97 Loki, 88
Johnson, Hall, vii Long, Tim, 57
Johnson, Mark, 16 Lucian Greek recension, 29
Johnson, Randy, 29 Lucretius, 18
The Jolly Green Giant, 18 Luke Skywalker, 11
Jones, Gary, 43 lyre, 23, 28, 34, 68, 92, 93, 95, 98,
Josephus, 29 101, 103, 104
Joshua, 14, 24, 75, 96
Ju, Jay, 117 Maccabean Revolt, 26
Judah Maccabee, 26 Maciste contro il vampiro, 115
MAD, 93, 97
Kalevipoeg and Soini, 17 Mangog, 88
Kehe, Jason, 71 Margalit, Ruth, 75
Kellermensch, 116 Mars Volta, 116
Kiel, Richard, 73, 76 Marston, John, 60
Kifri, 17 Martin, Lock, 73, 76
 Index 153

Martin, Melody Stanford, 113 pankration, 78

Marvel Comics, 88, 89, 97 Paris, 31
McCarthy, Neil, 73, 76 Passover, 2–3, 42
McGeough, Kevin M., 52, 53, 54 Peale, Norman Vincent, 94
Medri, Denis, 76 Peck, Gregory, 54
Medusa, 88 Pedinotti, Aldo, 52
Menelaus, 31 philistine (insult), 55–56
Merian, Maria Sibylla, 115 Philistines (historical), 31–32, 44, 55
Metaphors We Live By, 16 Picture Stories from the Bible, 94–97
Methuselah, 23, 58, 59 Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 86
Michal, 22, 93, 95, 99, Poling, Daniel A., 97
Middleton, Thomas, 60 Polyphemus, 32–33, 67
midrash, 4, 24, 35, 36, 42–43, 47–49, Polyphonte, 14
51, 89, 87, 99, 119 Porgy and Bess, vii
Mighty Samson, 88 The Princess Bride, 77
Miller II, Robert D., 24 Psalm 23 (Twenty-Third Psalm), 47,
Minos, 12 54, 98, 99
Minotaur, 12 Pulitzer, Joseph, 87
Miriam, 16, 97 Punch, or the London Charivari, 87
Mongul, 88
Mooncop, 85 Qumran, 26, 68, 71
Moses, vii, 2, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 33, 34,
42, 49, 58, 93, 97 Rashi, 26, 119
Myles, Robert J., 59 Ray, Fred Olen, 74
Red Sea, 2–3, 16, 18, 15
Nabokov, Vladimir, 56 Reiner, Rob, 77
National Organization for Decent Reitherman, Wolfgang, 116
Literature, 95 Rephaim, 24, 25, 26, 50, 51
Nephilim, 14, 22–24, 50 Revenge of Bussy d’Ambois, 60
Niemann, Hermann Michael, 55 revenge tragedy, 59–60
Nier: Automata, 118 The Revenger’s Tragedy, 60
Noah, 22–23, 24, 25, 97 Rock on the Head, 89
Nob, 27 The Rocketeer, 74
North, Sterling, 96 Roland, 12
Rondo Hatton Classic Horror
O’Conner, Renee, 42 Awards, 73–74
Odin, 88 Rosenberg, Tina, 71
Odyssey, 32 Rostam, 12
Og, 24–25 Roughing It, 2
Old-Fashioned Revival Hour, 100 Ruch, Floyd, 79
Oreius, 14 RuneScape, 118
Orpah, 51 Russell, Mark, 4
Osiris, 88 Ruth, Gregory, 117
Outcault, Richard Felton, 87
Outliers, 69, 70
154 Index

Samson, 57–58, 59, 75, 87, 88, 89, 97, Struycken, Carel, 73
99, 105–106, 114 Sulpicius Severus, 13
Sargon of Akkad, 33 Superman, 87–88, 104, 105–106
Satan, 10, 51, 53, 91, 102 Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane, 106
Saul, 13, 21, 22, 27, 28–29, 30, 33–34, Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, 104–106
36, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 66, 75, 79, Survivor: David vs. Goliath, 15
91, 92, 93, 95–96, 99, 101, 103– Swan, Curt, 104
104, 105, 108 The Sword of Goliath, 27
Schiller, Friedrich, 56
The Scripture Stories Retold for Young Tales from the Crypt, 97
Israel, 91 Tales from the Great Book, 97–98, 100
Seduction of the Innocent, 96 Tao Te Ching, 41
Selman, Matt, 57 Tapagoz, 13
Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Tarzan, 97
Juvenile Delinquency, 96 Tell es-Safi, 30
Sensation Comics, 95 The Ten Commandments, 97
Septuagint, 28–29, 30, 68 The Terminator, 100, 102
The Seven Basic Plots, 12, 33–34 Thardid Jimbo, 13
Shakespeare, William, 60 Theseus, 12
Sharlin, William, 48 Thor, 88
Shimizu, Yuko, 85 “The Three Little Pigs,” 34
shofar, 30, 45, 106 threes (biblical trope), 34–35
Shoopman, James, 11 Thurse, 13
Sibbecai the Hushathite, 26 Tintin, 85
Sienkiewicz, Bill, 117 Tipping Point, 70
Sihon, 24–25 Titus Andronicus, 60
Silber, Mendel, 91 Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, 97
The Simpsons, 57–59 Töpffer, Rodolphe, 87
Sir Galahad, 11 Torah chant, vii
Six Flags, 118 Twain, Mark, 1–2
Solomon, 44, 58, 59, 104
Sondheim, Stephen, 17 Umaga, 78
Southern Poverty Law Center, 101 “The Under Dog in the Fight,” 10
The Spanish Tragedy, 60
Spartacus, 100 Vorys Mort, 17
Speculum humanae salvationis, 10
Sprecher, Stanley, 67 War of the Worlds: Goliath, 115
Star Trek: The Next Generation, 15–16 “The War Prayer,” 1–2
Star Trek: Voyager, 15 Warhammer 40,000, 117
Star Wars, 12 Weisinger, Mort, 105
Stargate SG-1, 15 Welles, Orson, 99
Steve Taylor & The Perfect Foil, 116 Wells, H. G., 115
Stevens, Dave, 74 Wertham, Fredric, 96
Stewart, R. J., 49 Weston, Jessie L., 11
The Story of David, 52–53 Wheeler, Shannon, 4
 Index 155

Wight, Paul, 78 Yadin, Azzan, 27, 30–31, 32

Wilkinson, Alissa, 100 The Yellow Kid, 87
Winter, Terence, 43, 49 Yokozuna, 78
Wizard101, 118 Yu-Gi-Oh!, 118
Wojcik, Jan, 34
Wolpe, David, 21 Zamzummim, 25
Wolverston, Basil, 91, 92–93, 98 Zeus, 88
Wonder Woman, 88, 95 Ziegler, Yael, 75
Wood, Christopher, 88 Zorn, Jeffrey R., 32
Worldwide Church of God, 92 Zurab, 13
WrestleMania III, 76, 77 Zweymahl Zwey und funffzig Biblische
wrestling, 75–79 Historien, 90
Wyrtzen, Don, 89
 About the Author

Jonathan L. Friedmann, PhD, is professor of Jewish music history and

associate dean of the Master of Jewish Studies Program at the Academy
for Jewish Religion California. He is also president of the Western States
Jewish History Association, director of the Jewish Museum of the American
West, and community leader and education director of Adat Chaverim–
Congregation for Humanistic Judaism, Los Angeles. He is the author or editor
of twenty-seven books on music, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish history, and the
sociology of religion.

157