Having attempted to specialize in that which I term Systematic Biblical Paranormology, I was thrilled to not only encounter the Connect Paranormal Blog but that they had posted an article by Jeff OˈConnor that’s titled David vs Goliath: The Nephilim Connection Explained.
He notes upfront that, “Academic debate surrounds Goliath’s potential connection to the Nephilim, highlighted by geographical ties and size” which are the aspects I will focus on rather than the sermonizing parts about, “symbolize overcoming immense challenges…emphasizes faith and divine strength…a metaphor for facing apparently insurmountable challenges,” etc.
Bottom line is, “whether Goliath, the Philistine champion, belonged to the enigmatic Nephilim race” such that, “The First Book of Samuel…claims that the Philistine army had assembled for war against the Israelites; from their ranks, a warrior named Goliath from Gath appeared whose height is recorded as six cubits and a span (about 9 feet 9 inches in contemporary measures).”
We must pause at this point to note that such is myopic since the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 9.9-ish ft. Yet, the earlier LXX (which he does go on to reference) and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
We then move to, “Said to be ‘heroes of old, men of renown,’ the Nephilim show up in Genesis 6:4 as the children of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’” FYI: The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
He notes, “The Nephilim are addressed once more later in Numbers 13:33 when the spies dispatched to scout Canaan describe ‘the Nephilim, the descendants of Anak,’ as giants who make the Israelites seem like grasshoppers by comparison.”
This succinct statement actually packs a lot of data and requires dissection:
To what does, “addressed” refer? I can address the first POTUS George Washington right not but that doesn’t mean he’s alive—stand by.
It’s also a generic watering down of the narrative of Num chap 13 to write in terms of, “the spies” in general, who, “describe” seeing Nephilim since there were 12 spies but he’s referring to the 10 unreliable ones.
Also, there are two reports in Num 13 but he bypassed the original one, that’s accepted as is (and doesn’t reference Nephilim) and only focused on the, “evil report” by those 10 guys whom God rebuked.
Moreover, that the unreliable ones merely asserted they saw, “the Nephilim, the descendants of Anak” is myopic since he’s relying on non-LXX versions and didn’t even mention that the LXX doesn’t include any reference to Anakim in that verse.
Furthermore, as for, “as giants” well, he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English one giants so the key questions are: hat’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s OˈConnor’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
He notes, “These few biblical references have still inspired vast stories about these beings, variously understood as fallen angels, their progeny, or just a race of giants living in the pre-flood earth and maybe surviving beyond it” so that we can’t know to what he’s referring by, “a race of giants” and with, “maybe surviving beyond it” contradicting the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) and implying that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.—which is why post-flood Nephilologist are always forced to make up un-biblical tall-tales about how they got past the flood, past God.
He notes, “the Bible never specifically names Goliath as a Nephilim”: slight linguistics point, it’s be, “a Nephil” since the im ending make Hebrew words male plural.
He also references, “his remarkable size” but we know that’s based on myopia—and with remarkable size being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants.
But his point was that Goliath’s remarkable size is appealed to as evidence that he was a Nephil and yet, the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Why is that? Well, because of what we just reviewed: the only physical description we have of them is from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked which is why we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so even myopically appealing to Goliath’s upper range of height possibility, it still offers zero connection to Nephilim—besides that the only reason to even imagine post-flood Nephilim is one unreliable sentence form an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Yes, all post-flood Nephilology and giant Nephilology is based on one unreliable sentence form an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
See my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Such was my stand by comment above since being addressed merely meant mentioned, referenced, pulling into a tall-tale, etc. and not actually being there, alive, at the time.
He goes on to note, “some,” unnamed, unquoted, and uncited, “academics note that the Anakim, mentioned in relation to the Nephilim in Numbers, were believed to live in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod according to Joshua 11:22; Goliath came from Gath” but there’s no such thing since Nephilim aren’t mentioned in Joshua 11:22, “22 There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.”
As for scholars, see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
Yet, his point wasn’t a direct reference but that, “This geographical link points to a likely ancestry, from these prehistoric behemoths to the Philistine warrior” yet, the only reason to think Nephilim were behemoths—with behemoths being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as remarkable size and giants—is that one unreliable sentence.
Thus, nothing about size can be appealed to for attempted correlation nor can geographical link points since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood and so we don’t know where their geography was since it was washed away and rearranged.
It is at this point that he notes, “some ancient writings, including” the only one he mentioned, “some manuscripts of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), note Goliath’s height as four cubits and a span (about 6 feet (1.83 m) 9 inches (ca. 23 cm)), which, although still tall”—with tall being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as behemoths and remarkable size and giants—which proves the uselessly vaguely generic subjective multi-usage nature of such unhelpful terms.
Yet, he goes on to refer to, “his remarkable height” with, you know it, remarkable height being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as tall and behemoths and remarkable size and giants.
Thus, this calls into question claims of that the record of David and Goliath merely, “advances theological and literary goals…might be hyperbole meant to accentuate David’s success and God’s might operating through an improbable hero. Suggesting that the theological message,” etc., about, “overcoming monsters or giants.”
While being irrelevant to Goliath, he notes, “scant biblical allusions to the Nephilim grew in later Jewish literature, especially in the non-canonical Book of Enoch” about which you can read my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory and my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
He makes a key point at this point, “These extrabiblical traditions shaped later conceptions of biblical giants, maybe including retroactive connections between Goliath and the Nephilim that might not have existed in the original story setting” just as it is retroactive that one version of one unreliable sentence in one unreliable report by unreliable guys has become the axiomatic premise for any and all post-flood and giants Nephilology.
He concludes by reiterating what he rightly noted upfront, “the Bible never specifically names him as” a Nephil yet, he still thinks, “Circumstantial support for such a link exists in the geographical association between Goliath’s hometown of Gath and the claimed residence locations of the Anakim, connected to the Nephilim”: but, again, there’s no geographic correlation and the Nephilim connection to Anakim is a from a version of a tall-tale.
Anakim were named after Anak, Abra’s son, and were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe and there’s literally zero reliable indication that any of them had any relation to Nephilim whatsoever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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