David &Goliath vs Titus Manlius & the Gaul

[rgprice]

From Livy, reworking an earlier source:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19725/1 ... 5-h.htm#g9

On that year, certainly, the Gauls pitched their camp at the third stone on the Salarian road, at the further side of the bridge of the Anio. The dictator, after he had proclaimed a cessation of civil business on account of the Gallic tumult, bound all the younger citizens by the military oath; and having set forth from the city with a great army, pitched his camp on the hither bank of the Anio. The bridge lay between both armies, neither side attempting to break it down, lest it should be an indication of fear. There were frequent skirmishes for the possession of the bridge; nor could it be clearly determined who were masters of it, the superiority being so indecisive. A Gaul of very large stature advanced on the bridge, then unoccupied, and says with as loud a voice as he could exert, "Let the bravest man that Rome now possesses come forward here to battle, that the event of an engagement between us both may show which nation is superior in war."

There was for a long time silence among the young Roman nobility, as they were both ashamed to decline the contest, and unwilling to claim the principal post of danger. Then Titus Manlius, son of Lucius, the same who had freed his father from the vexatious persecution of the tribune, proceeds from his station to the dictator: "Without your commands, general, I would never fight out of the ordinary course, not though I should see certain victory before me. If you permit me, I wish to show that brute, who insolently makes such a parade before the enemy's line, that I am sprung from that family which dislodged a body of Gauls from the Tarpeian rock." Then the dictator says, "Titus Manlius, may you prosper for your valour and dutiful affection to your father and your country. Go on, and make good the invincibility of the Roman name with the aid of the gods." His companions then arm the youth; he takes a footman's shield, girds himself with a Spanish sword, fit for a close fight. When armed and equipped, they lead him out against the Gaul, who exhibited stolid exultation, and (for the ancients thought that also worthy of mention) thrust out his tongue in derision. They then retire to their station; and the two being armed, are left in the middle space, more after the manner of a spectacle, than according to the law of combat, by no means well matched, according to those who judged by sight and appearance. The one had a body enormous in size, glittering in a vest of various colours, and in armour painted and inlaid with gold; the other had a middle stature, as is seen among soldiers, and a mien unostentatious, in arms fit for ready use rather than adapted for show. He had no song, no capering, nor idle flourishing of arms, but his breast, teeming with courage and silent rage, had reserved all its ferocity for the decision of the contest. When they took their stand between the two armies, the minds of so many individuals around them suspended between hope and fear, the Gaul, like a huge mass threatening to fall on that which was beneath it, stretching forward his shield with his left hand, discharged an ineffectual cut of his sword with a great noise on the armour of his foe as he advanced towards him. The Roman, raising the point of his sword, after he had pushed aside the lower part of the enemy's shield with his own, and closing on him so as to be exempt from the danger of a wound, insinuated himself with his entire body between the body and arms of the foe, with one and immediately with another thrust pierced his belly and groin, and stretched his enemy now prostrate over a vast extent of ground. Without offering the body of the prostrate foe any other indignity, he despoiled it of one chain; which, though smeared with blood, he threw around his neck. Dismay with astonishment now held the Gauls motionless. The Romans, elated with joy, advancing from their post to meet their champion, with congratulations and praises conduct him to the dictator. Among them uttering some uncouth jests in military fashion somewhat resembling verses, the name of Torquatus was heard: this name, being kept up, became afterwards an honour to the descendants even of the family. The dictator added a present of a golden crown, and before a public assembly extolled that action with the highest praises.

And, indeed, of so great moment was the contest with respect to the issue of the war in general, that on the night following the army of the Gauls, having abandoned their camp in confusion, passed over into the territory of Tibur, and from thence soon after into Campania, having concluded an alliance for the purpose of war, and being abundantly supplied with provision by the Tiburtians. That was the reason why, on the next year, Caius Pætelius Balbus, consul, though the province of the Hernicians had fallen to the lot of his colleague, Marcus Fabius Ambustus, led an army, by order of the people, against the Tiburtians. To whose assistance when the Gauls came back from Campania, dreadful devastations were com[Pg 459]mitted in the Lavican, Tusculan, and Alban territories.

David & Golaith:

1 Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; they were gathered at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim. 2 Saul and the Israelites gathered and encamped in the valley of Elah and formed ranks against the Philistines. 3 The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. 4 And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span. 5 He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. 6 He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. 7 The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron, and his shield-bearer went before him. 8 He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants, but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” 10 And the Philistine said, “Today I defy the ranks of Israel! Give me a man, that we may fight together.” 11 When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.

12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years. 13 The three eldest sons of Jesse had followed Saul to the battle; the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. 14 David was the youngest; the three eldest followed Saul, 15 but David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem. 16 For forty days the Philistine came forward and took his stand, morning and evening.

17 Jesse said to his son David, “Take for your brothers an ephah of this parched grain and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers; 18 also take these ten cheeses to the commander of their thousand. See how your brothers fare, and bring some token from them.”

19 Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel were in the valley of Elah fighting with the Philistines. 20 David rose early in the morning, left the sheep with a keeper, took the provisions, and went as Jesse had commanded him. He came to the encampment as the army was going forth to the battle line, shouting the war cry. 21 Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army. 22 David left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage, ran to the ranks, and went and greeted his brothers. 23 As he talked with them, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him.

24 All the Israelites, when they saw the man, fled from him and were very much afraid. 25 The Israelites said, “Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel. The king will greatly enrich the man who kills him and will give him his daughter and make his family free in Israel.” 26 David said to the men who stood by him, “What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” 27 The people answered him in the same way, “So shall it be done for the man who kills him.”

28 His eldest brother Eliab heard him talking to the men, and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David. He said, “Why have you come down? With whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down just to see the battle.” 29 David said, “What have I done now? It was only a question.” 30 He turned away from him toward another and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.

31 When the words that David spoke were heard, they repeated them before Saul, and he sent for him. 32 David said to Saul, “Let no one’s heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.” 33 Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for you are just a boy, and he has been a warrior from his youth.” 34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father, and whenever a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, 35 I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth, and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and kill it. 36 Your servant has killed both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God.” 37 David said, “The Lord, who saved me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of this Philistine.” So Saul said to David, “Go, and may the Lord be with you!”

38 Saul clothed David with his armor; he put a bronze helmet on his head and clothed him with a coat of mail. 39 David strapped Saul’s sword over the armor, and he tried in vain to walk, for he was not used to them. Then David said to Saul, “I cannot walk with these, for I am not used to them.” So David removed them. 40 Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the wadi and put them in his shepherd’s bag, in the pouch; his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Philistine.

41 The Philistine came on and drew near to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him. 42 When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was only a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance. 43 The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 The Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the field.” 45 But David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This very day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head, and I will give the dead bodies of the Philistine army this very day to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel 47 and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not save by sword and spear, for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand.”

48 When the Philistine drew nearer to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; then he cut off his head with it.

When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. 52 The troops of Israel and Judah rose up with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron. 53 The Israelites came back from chasing the Philistines, and they plundered their camp. 54 David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his armor in his tent.

Remarkably similar stories. What to make of it?

[StephenGoranson]

Beats me. Are you claiming something?

[rgprice]

I'm not claiming anything, I'm asking a question.

In both stories were are presented with the following:

Two armies separated by some chasm (bridge/valley).

A champion of the opposing side who is described as being massive in size comes out and requests a fight against a challenger to settle the conflict.

The one who decides to take the challenge is described as being slight in stature.

The Roman hero is noted to have, "valour and dutiful affection to your father and your country". He is urged to, "make good the invincibility of the Roman name".

The power of the Israelite hero is noted to come from, "the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel." His actions will ensure , "that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel."

As a result of killing the giant champion in both cases the opposing armies flee.

That's the observation. The question again: What to make of it? I'll note here that I find many parallels between Livy's History of Rome and the Deuteronomistic history in the Jewish scriptures. Aeneas is driven from his homeland into a new territory where he establishes a family that gives rise to a new nation. Abraham is driven from his homeland to a new territory (Goshen) where he establishes a family that gives rise to a new nation. Romulus and Remus are saved from execution as infants by being sent down the river in a basket, as is Moses. Romulus and Remus are saved by wolves and gypsies, while Moses is saved by royalty. In both cases the establishment of the law is fundamental to the founding of the nation. Roman law is established by an elected counsel of representative men who create the law to serve the people. Israelite law is handed down by God for the glory of God.

I still have not formulated an opinion on what all of this means, but clearly there are some striking similarities and I have barely scratched the surface of Livy's history. Maybe these were just common themes? Maybe its coincidence? Maybe both the Jewish and Roman writer were influenced by a common set of stories? Maybe the Romans copied the Jews? Maybe the Jews copied the Romans? Note that Livy's work is itself a recapitulation of other earlier Roman works of history.

[John2]

I still have not formulated an opinion on what all of this means, but clearly there are some striking similarities and I have barely scratched the surface of Livy's history. Maybe these were just common themes? Maybe its coincidence? Maybe both the Jewish and Roman writer were influenced by a common set of stories? Maybe the Romans copied the Jews? Maybe the Jews copied the Romans? Note that Livy's work is itself a recapitulation of other earlier Roman works of history.

My first guess (after comparing the two accounts) was along the lines of "maybe these were just common themes," and after looking into Livy's bio, I see that he was educated in rhetoric, and after looking into rhetoric, I found this:

Rhetoric has its origins in Mesopotamia. Some of the earliest examples of rhetoric can be found in the Akkadian writings of the princess and priestess Enheduanna (c. 2285–2250 BC). As the first named author in history, Enheduanna's writing exhibits numerous rhetorical features that would later become canon in Ancient Greece ...

Rhetoric thus evolved as an important art, one that provided the orator with the forms, means, and strategies for persuading an audience of the correctness of the orator's arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

I don't know if the "David and Goliath" theme goes back to Akkadian writings, but there appears to have been some tried and true ways among rhetoricians for persuading audiences that pre-date Greek times, so maybe Livy and the OT are reflecting this.

[John2]

I found something interesting about the David and Goliath story that I'd never noticed before.

Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jair, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (2 Samuel 21:19)


Although this is a brief account two details support the conclusion that it’s the same “Goliath” apart from the fact that it’s an uncommon name. First “Goliath the Gittite” means the same as “Goliath of Gath” (1 Samuel 17:4), and second, the expression “the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” occurs in both accounts but nowhere else. The size of the spear was clearly noteworthy and it’s highly unlikely that there would be two different people with the same name from the same city whose spears were noteworthy. It’s likely that the story of Elhanan killing Goliath was taken over and adapted as part of the legend of David’s fighting prowess and added to Samuel later. The fact that both Elhanan and David were from Bethlehem may have made it easy to appropriate a story about a local hero and apply it to another local boy.

https://stephencook.com.au/2020/04/04/d ... or-legend/

If this is the case, I think the "common theme" idea could still hold true, since the later account could have been created by someone who was skilled in pre-Grecian "forms, means, and strategies for persuading an audience."

[rgprice]

I found something interesting about the David and Goliath story that I'd never noticed before.

Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jair, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (2 Samuel 21:19)


Although this is a brief account two details support the conclusion that it’s the same “Goliath” apart from the fact that it’s an uncommon name. First “Goliath the Gittite” means the same as “Goliath of Gath” (1 Samuel 17:4), and second, the expression “the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” occurs in both accounts but nowhere else. The size of the spear was clearly noteworthy and it’s highly unlikely that there would be two different people with the same name from the same city whose spears were noteworthy. It’s likely that the story of Elhanan killing Goliath was taken over and adapted as part of the legend of David’s fighting prowess and added to Samuel later. The fact that both Elhanan and David were from Bethlehem may have made it easy to appropriate a story about a local hero and apply it to another local boy.

https://stephencook.com.au/2020/04/04/d ... or-legend/

If this is the case, I think the "common theme" idea could still hold true, since the later account could have been created by someone who was skilled in pre-Grecian "forms, means, and strategies for persuading an audience."

This is interesting. Of course there are many possibilities, but this just comes to mind.

The original story is what we find in 2 Samuel 21, i.e. a legend about Elhanan son of Jair killing Goliath. But the writer of 1 Samuel, working much later, has hear the Roman story of Titus Manlius and the Gaul. Keep in mind that Livy was not the first to write about this, in fact Livy's account specifically comes from a prior account, which Livy embellishes. So anyway, the writer of 1 Samuel re-works the legend of Goliath to make it more like the Roman version, which he found more impressive and interesting. But, as I say, the Jewish writer turns parts of the Roman story on its head, as in other places where Jewish accounts mimic the Romans. Instead of the hero honoring his Roman ancestry and the Roman nation, he does it for the honor of Yahweh, etc.

Now, this is all speculation, but it seems to make some sense. Of course, this would imply the writing of 1 Samuel no earlier than the 4th century, and more like the 3rd or 2nd.

[andrewcriddle]

One should note the probably independent account in Aulus Gellius

I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured: 7 "In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. 8 In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. 9 The combat ceased. 10 As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, p197 he should come forward. 11 This no one dared do, because of his huge size and savage aspect. 12 Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. 13 This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. 14 He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. 15 Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. 16 Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. 17 While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. 18 After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. 19 Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus."

This agrees with David & Goliath in that the Gaul is decapitated after death but in other ways seems less similar.
Both Livy and Aulus Gellius are probably dependent on Quintus Claudius (Aulus Gellius explicitly). Who is certainly later than the Book of Samuel.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

One should note the probably independent account in Aulus Gellius

I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured: 7 "In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. 8 In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. 9 The combat ceased. 10 As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, p197 he should come forward. 11 This no one dared do, because of his huge size and savage aspect. 12 Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. 13 This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. 14 He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. 15 Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. 16 Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. 17 While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. 18 After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. 19 Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus."

This agrees with David & Goliath in that the Gaul is decapitated after death but in other ways seems less similar.
Both Livy and Aulus Gellius are probably dependent on Quintus Claudius (Aulus Gellius explicitly). Who is certainly later than the Book of Samuel.

Andrew Criddle

Well yes, if Claudius is from the first century BCE. But the story can certainly pre-date that time. There were Roman writers of history who wrote in Greek from at least the 3rd century BCE. Samuel is a part of the Deuteronomistic history, and thus if one follows the hypothesis for the Hellenistic origins of the Pentateuch, Samuel would necessarily date from the 3rd century or later.

I think given that there are actually two Goliath stories in the books of Samuel, clearly at least one of the stories within Samuel is a re-working of an account of Goliath. Why did one of the writers decide to offer a different version of the Goliath story? I think Cook correctly points out that the version of 1 Samuel is the re-working of the earlier version of the story in which it is Elhanan son of Jair who kills Goliath.

Now, if someone is "taking over and adapting" the story of Elhanan killing Goliath and transforming the account into a story where David does the killing, we already know than this person is taking liberty with the story and modifying it to suit their agenda. Why, then, would we not suspect this same individual from taking over adn adopting another story as well? If you're stealing a wallet from a car, why not steal some jewelry too?

So to me, these two things come together to greatly increase the case for the writer of the David vs Goliath story having adapted his account from some Roman version of the story. I would think most likely a version of the story that was written in Greek, not Latin.

The more I look at these two accounts, but the I'm convinced there is a dependency. In both cases the hero is specifically named a youth.

This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge.

When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was only a youth

Out of curiosity, is there any linguistic connection between "Gaul" and "Goliath". I don't necessarily expect there to be on the assumption that the account of Elhanan and Goliath actually pre-dates the Roman story. But nevertheless, in English at least "Goliath" sounds a lot like "Gaulish".

[andrewcriddle]

One should note the probably independent account in Aulus Gellius

I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured: 7 "In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. 8 In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. 9 The combat ceased. 10 As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, p197 he should come forward. 11 This no one dared do, because of his huge size and savage aspect. 12 Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. 13 This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. 14 He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. 15 Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. 16 Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. 17 While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. 18 After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. 19 Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus."

This agrees with David & Goliath in that the Gaul is decapitated after death but in other ways seems less similar.
Both Livy and Aulus Gellius are probably dependent on Quintus Claudius (Aulus Gellius explicitly). Who is certainly later than the Book of Samuel.

Andrew Criddle

Well yes, if Claudius is from the first century BCE. But the story can certainly pre-date that time. There were Roman writers of history who wrote in Greek from at least the 3rd century BCE. Samuel is a part of the Deuteronomistic history, and thus if one follows the hypothesis for the Hellenistic origins of the Pentateuch, Samuel would necessarily date from the 3rd century or later.
.........................................................

The problem is that although Claudius used earlier sources we don't know what they said. In particular I see no evidence that there was an early Greek source for this story. It seems unlikely that the story of David and Goliath is based on either an entirely hypothetical Greek version of Titus Manlius or on a probable but non-surviving 3rd century BCE Latin account of Titus Manlius.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

You are right andrew, unless we can identify this narrative about Manlius and the Gaul in an earlier source, like, Gnaeus Naevius, Quintus Ennius or Fabius Pictor, then it is difficult make a case for Samuel being dependent on a Roman account. But do note that Livy says, "for the ancients thought that also worthy of mention". Would Livy have considered Q. Claudius "an ancient"? I would say not. So Livy must have known of some much earlier Roman version of the story.

On the flip side, is there any case to be made for dependency in the other direction? Did the Roman writers borrow from the story of David and Goliath?