That which follows is Deane Galbraith’s contribution to Nephilim published by De Gruyter, 2023.
Galbraith, LLB/BCom (Auckland), BTheol (Hons), PhD (Otago), is a lecturer in religion at the University of Otago in New Zealand and President of the Aotearoa-New Zealand Association for Biblical Studies.
We are told by Deane Galbraith that, “Num 13–14 presents the Canaanite Nephilim as autochthonous, elite warriors who dwelt in the land before the Israelites.” But we will find out that such is simply not the case—nor could it be.
We get an important point that pop-Nephilologists cannot handle due to their Gigorexia Nervosa (my term for people who are obsessed with seeing giants and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen) which is, “Some interpreters have argued that the gigantic stature of the Nephilim demonstrates their angelic or divine parentage. Yet there is no clear indication in Gen 6:4 that the Nephilim are giants (Perlitt: 244 [Perlitt, L., “Riesen im Alten Testament: Ein literarisches Motiv im Wirkungsfeld des Deuteronomismus,” in id., Deuteronomium-Studien (FAT 8; Tübingen 1994) 205–46]). While mentioning their parents, their antiquity, and their fame as warriors, Gen 6:4 is conspicuously silent about their stature…”
While this is a very important point, it begs the key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Deane Galbraith’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
It is clear that Galbraith’s usage is something about subjectively unusual height but that is not in the least bit the English Bible’s usage wherein it renders (does not translate) Nephilim, in two verses, and Repha/im, in 98% of all other instances.
We will find out that we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim to it is misguided to argue in favor of the Angel view by arguing about, “the gigantic stature”—however it may be that Angelic or divine parentage would lead to subjectively unusual height.
Deane Galbraith noted that, “The conception of the Nephilim as giants is evident only in the reception of Gen 6:1–4, beginning with Num 13:33, 1 En. 6–16, and the translation γίγαντες in LXX Gen 6:4.”
Gen 6:1–4 is the only reliable biblical data we have.
Num 13:33 is one sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
1 En. 6–16 is from a Bible contradicting text, 1 Enoch, from millennia after the Torah: it has Nephilim being 3,000 ells which is miles tall—for the specifics, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
The Greek term γίγαντες/gigantes in LXX means earth-born so implies nothing about height at all.
We are told, “Perlitt observes that the mythische sense of the Nephilim as giants is a development within exilic or postexilic literature, a motif which expands in later apocalypses and pseudepigraphical literature” indeed, such is late date folklore.
It is noted that, “The earliest known identification of the Nephilim as giants occurs in Num 13:33, where the Nephilim are identified with the ‘sons of Anak’ indigenous to Canaan, who are themselves associated with gigantic grape clusters and tall cities….ʿănāk likely derives from the Greek ἄναξ, usually denoting a legendary hero or king, and frequently described as possessing abnormal stature. Numbers 13:33 therefore transfers the giant stature of Ἄνακες to the Nephilim.”
Note the continued un-English-biblical misused of, “giants” regarding, “The earliest known identification of the Nephilim as giants” but since it comes to us from the evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked then it is irrelevant in seeking to determine anything actually factual about Nephilim.
Likewise, it is only there (there in non-LXX versions), “where the Nephilim are identified with the ‘sons of Anak’” so that again, that is not only irrelevant but is impossible.
I am uncertain what, “gigantic grape clusters and tall cities” have to do with it except that the land contained both: which, by the way, pop-Nephilologist have as not gigantic clusters but actually gigantic individual grapes—see chapter, “” of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
Note the qualifying terms in that, “likely…usually” regarding subjectively, “abnormal stature” of some unknown level.
When we put the biblical data together, we would have to state, “Numbers 13:33” in non-LXX versions, “therefore transfers the” subjectively taller than 5.0-5.3 ft., “stature of Ἄνακες to the Nephilim” which is not worth its weight in Dead Sea salt anyhow, coming from an evil report.
I am unsure why the following statement was made in the manner in which it was, “Their depiction as demigods or angelic offspring is a still later development, commencing with 1 En. 6–16 and LXX Gen 6:4.” The specific reference to the LXX is mysterious to me.
This is followed by an incoherent category error, “The common sense of nĕpilîm, gibbōrîm, and ʿănākîm is of elite or royal warriors deriving especially from legendary antiquity; they can but do not necessarily possess abnormal stature or divine parentage.”
The issue is that “nĕpilîm, gibbōrîm, and ʿănākîm” are three wholly different categories.
“nĕpilîm”: unknown to have been of, “abnormal stature” but known to have been of strictly pre-flood, “divine parentage.”
“gibborim”: a mere descriptive term for might/mighty—thus, it is applied to Nephilim, Angels, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc. ().
“ʿănākîm”: who were strictly a post-flood clan of the Rephaim tribe, only “possess[ing] abnormal stature” since they were taller than average, and not of, “divine parentage.”
Deane Galbraith asserted that, “Both Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 include interpolations that attempt, in different ways, to harmonize the apparent death of the Nephilim in the flood with their postdiluvian appearance in Canaan. In Num 13:33, the Israelite spies claim that they had seen Nephilim in Canaan, before an interpolation, not included in LXX, qualifies that they had seen only the Nephilim’s descendants, the Anakim (cf. 13:22).”
That is a generic and scholarly-speak statement which fails to interact with the narrative of the latter verse.
Gen 6:4 does not even hint of an interpolation that attempt to harmonize post-flood Nephilim.
There is no, “postdiluvian appearance” of Nephilim in Canaan.
What we were told was a claim of, “the Israelite spies” was, again, the merely assertion within an evil report (which contained five mere assertions) of the ten unreliable ones whom God rebuked.
Moreover, “Likewise, Gen 6:4’s claim that ‘the Nephilim were on the earth in those days [i.e., before the flood],’ is followed by the phrase ‘and also after,’ which harmonizes the text with the purported existence of postdiluvian Nephilim in Num 13:33.”
Note that, “the flood” was artificially inserted into a text that does not refer to it—in fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later, v. 17.
Verse 4 tells us exactly to what days it is referring but the quoter of it here dissected it just before the key data point. Only by Moreover, “Likewise, Gen 6:4’s claim that ‘the Nephilim were on the earth in those days [i.e., before the flood],’ is followed by artificially inserting the flood can that then be artificially appealed to in order to fallaciously conclude that it, “harmonizes the text with the purported existence of postdiluvian Nephilim in Num 13:33” which it would not have to do in any case since Num 13:33 is unreliable.
The verse reads, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
Thus, “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1 as, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose”) and so, “afterward” meant just that: after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.
Deane Galbraith wrote in an oddly typical manner whereby data is touched upon, moved away from, circled back to again, moved away from, touched upon again, etc.
Thus, at this point we are told, “When the Israelite spies describe the Nephilim in Num 13:32–33, the narrative explains that the spies are spreading an ‘evil rumor.’ The rumor, despite being motivated by the spies’ fear of the strength of the land’s inhabitants (13:31), is based on the essential truth of the extraordinary height of the Nephilim.”
Again, this was not about, “the Israelite spies” in general so we are still being misinformed. And an, “evil rumor” is not just about gossip, which might be true, thus, it is a fallacious conclusion to jump to the supposed, “essential truth of the extraordinary height of the Nephilim.”
Even seller of un-biblical tall-tales, Gary Wayne will admit (when pushed) that such is not necessarily an essential truth. After years of asserting Nephilim were “giants” (by which he means very, very, very tall) it just took me asking him one little question for him to admit he does not know how big they were—and then, he went on to say he will keep asserting they were “giants.” What sense does it make to refer to the height of someone who’s height you don’t know?
Watch it unfold during our debate.
Moreover, “For the spies’ description of themselves as grasshoppers by comparison with the Nephilim (Num 13:33) is broadly consistent with the narrator’s report that a cluster of grapes in Eshcol grew so large that it could only be carried between two Israelites (13:23–24) and with the report of the twelve spies that the Canaanite cities were ‘fortified exceedingly high’ (13:28).”
Again (and again), it was not, “the spies’” in general and, “the narrator’s report” was that they presented an evil report and were rebuked. But yes, a cluster of grapes was large: what of it? And yes the, “twelve spies” (we actually do not know who or how many were behind it but the attempted specificity is appreciated nevertheless) about, “fortified exceedingly high” calls for another what of it? Perhaps it is a case of the non sequitur that large things must have been built for and by large people.
Furthermore, “Two further references in LXX to the Nephilim, albeit not employing the term, occur in Bar 3:26–28 and Sir 16:7. Baruch 3:26–28 describes the ‘giants’ as famed experts in war who in their lack of wisdom did not follow God and so were destroyed by him. According to Sir 16:7, God ‘did not forgive the ancient giants, who revolted in their might.’ The words ‘ancient giants’ (γιγάντων τῶν ἀρχαίων) translate the Hebrew nsyky qdm (princes of old), and both Hebrew terms along with bgbwrtm (in their might) have strong resonances with Gen 6:4.”
Those apocryphal texts are not only not employing the term Nephilim but in employing γιγάντων/gigantos are employing earth-born and so still not telling us anything about their height—nor of post-flood Nephilim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.