The Times of Israel article (a blog post, really) A Giant Mystery: Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim in the Bible was coauthored by Roger D. Isaacs (“independent researcher specializing in Hebrew Bible studies”) and Adam R. Hemmings (“Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society and graduate of the University of Chicago and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London”).
The article begins by noting, “Scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible are a selection of words that refer to peoples who were interpreted to be giants.” This instantly begs the question: if they are interpreted to be giants (by whom, BTW?) then the key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Isaacs’ and Hemmings’ usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Perhaps we will get replies within the article, perhaps not—we shall see (or not see).
They note, “Three words: nephilim, rephaim, and anakim” have, “roots…buried deep and are almost impossible to dig up” and yet, “they refer to groups rather than giants” which seems like a false dichotomy since they could refer to groups of (whatever) giants (means).
They write, “Nephilim…are described as the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and human women in Genesis…The root verb from which this word is constructed is n-p-l meaning ‘to fall.’”
They view that as a problem since, “Scholars suggest that this might be because the ancient authors thought these being so large they were liable to fall, or make others fall (TDOT, v. 9, 497).” I’m unsure who the unnamed and unenumerated plural scholars are but I’ve never heard of any such thing—and they don’t inform us to what the citation refers. But note that we had a reference to, “being so large” without indication of why we should think that they were and with, “large” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as, “giants.”
For whatever reason, they opt to go about, “looking to other languages. In Egyptian there is the word npr.tyw, which means ‘Shore/Bank/Edge Dwellers’” so that, “If,” and that is a big IF, “nephilim is a loanword from or at least in some way related to Egyptian, then…Nephilim may therefore have a relationship to a group of people living on a shore or edge of something”—or something, for whatever it’s worth.
Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “Another group, who some say like the Nephilim also had giant qualities, are the Rephaim” yet, since they haven’t told us that Nephilim possessed any, “giant qualities” (whatever that means) nor who the, “some” are nor that Rephaim possess whatever, “giant qualities” are.
Yet, they go on to refer to Rephaim as, “mythical giants” even though the only relevant biblical statement about them is that they were, “tall” (רוּם rûm) on average (Deut 2)—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Again, for some unknown reason, they opt to that, “In Egyptian, we find the word r-pꜥt (hereditary prince – a variant of the more full jrj-pꜥt), which might indicate the leader or leaders of the group in question.” Ergo, “Perhaps the Rephaim were considered nobles” well, the noble ones were, such as King Og of Bashan. For details on this, see Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings then qualify a statement thusly, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan were terrified of the huge stature of the inhabitants, including the Anakim, although Moses’ lieutenants, Joshua and Caleb, did not report this, perhaps suggesting it was an exaggeration.”
There’s no suggestion and it was more than an exaggeration, it was a straight up fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale. See, when they generically say, “As described in Numbers 13” that fails to elucidate that they’re referring to one single sentence from an, “evil report” by 20 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. The reason why Joshua and Caleb did not report that in their report, which was accepted as is, is what I just noted about the 10.
Since they misstated the sentence, let us add key details, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan” 10 of them, “were terrified” at the prospect of confronting what the as is report noted which is that there were multiple strong (not, “huge”: with “huge” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants, large, and tall) people groups inhabiting large and well-fortified cities and about whom that they were all, “of the huge stature” was part of the evil report—also, note that reference to Anakim is missing from the evil report in the LXX version.
Once again, Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “The Egyptian Execration Texts mention Anak as a name of enemies of Egypt in the Levant, which would be extrabiblical evidence for the group. Other hints are also available in Egyptian: ꜣnq (aneq) is a priestly title (Wb 1, 11.8), whilst Ynk (Yenek or Yanqa) is a place in Syria” and no, they also don’t tell us to what this citation refers.
They note, “The words Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim above all refer to peoples, tribes, or groups. Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants, but the words themselves would not support this theory.”
Now, it’s accurate to say that those are, “tribes, or groups” since Anakim were a clan or the Rephaim tribe but and we could call Nephilim a tribe, I suppose, yet, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
As for, “Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants” again: we’re not told who are the, “Some” nor to what, “giants” refers nor why they see them that way—whatever way that may be.
And we are left hanging since the article ends with unexplained appeals to Egyptian and is peppered with watered down vaguely generic terminology that is never elucidated.
Thus, I will have to attempt to answer the key questions for them:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
It merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
What’s Isaacs and Hemmings usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Apparently, something about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply