Dr. Ed Gallagher, who since 2006 has taught courses on Christian Scripture at Heritage Christian University (Florence, Alabama), posted an excerpt from his book Satan and His Friends titled What about the Giants?
Regarding the very first sentence (of the intro to the excerpt), “A few people recently posed to me a question about the Nephilim in the Bible, which are often identified as giants” we will have to attempt to discern to what he is referring by, “identified” and by, “as giants.”
Key questions are: What is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What is his usage? Do those two usages agree?
He continues by begging the same questions, “If the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2 were just human beings and not angels, why would their offspring be gigantic? Or, actually, was the offspring gigantic?”
He then qualifies the previous statement, “are the beings that are (possibly) described as giants in Genesis 6:4 the offspring of the unions mentioned two verses earlier?”
Yet, he stated, “I do not know the answers to these questions” but he makes attempts—and then some.
He notes, “The word ‘giant’ does not appear in most English versions, I think. (The KJV and NKJV are exceptions.)” well, I do not pay him to think ;o)
Since I wrote the linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010, this is of interest to me. A quick search of 58 English versions results in that 19 employ the word giants so we can affirm that, “The word ‘giant’ does not appear in most” of the 58 consulted, “English versions.”
Now, he refers to the employment of giants as, “That interpretation” and notes that it, “goes back to the LXX, which has the Greek word ‘giant’ (γίγας) twice in verse 4, where the KJV has the word ‘giants’ and where it has the term ‘mighty men.’”
I am glad he provided the Greek since, of course, it cannot be the case that it is, “the Greek word ‘giant’” since that is a modern English word. The usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not 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.
For unknown reasons, the LXX employed gigas, which is the word for which he provided the Greek, or gigantes to render Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim and it was a terrible idea to render three different words with different meanings and different morphologies with just one word—note that, for example, it oddly has it that the gigas/gigantes became gigas/gigantes in Gen 6:4 which, of course, is circular.
Gigas and gigantes both reference the Greek false goddess Gaia and the latter means earth-born. That is part of why reading giants and imagining something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is) is a word-concept fallacy. In linguistics, the word giants would be categorized as a usus loquendi, referring to the usage of terms which may differ from technical meanings/definitions, it is a flaccid designator.
Now, it certainly seems that Dr. Ed Gallagher’s usage of giants is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average so that causes problems for him in terms of his argumentation. See, he went on to argue:
For the LXX, the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men were giants, but the Hebrew text reads differently. The NRSV represents the Hebrew well: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.” No giants here, unless the Nephilim are giants. It is also not clear from the Hebrew whether the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God or whether they were just around back then at the time of the sons of God. Also, are the Nephilim the same as the “heroes”—the Hebrew term is gibborim—later in the verse, or are the offspring of the sons of God the heroes? Or are they all one and the same?
I am unsure why he quotes the NRSV as the standard but regardless, of course, “the Hebrew text reads differently” because the languages are different but he is actually arguing that it is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average vs. the transliteration Nephilim yet, that is based on his misuage.
Also, biblically contextually, “Nephilim are giants” would mean, “Nephilim are Nephilim” which is why it is a best practice to 1) understand the usage of giants in English Bibles, 2) adhere to that usage and, 3) just ignore the word giants and just say what you mean.
He posits:
The Hebrew allows for these possibilities:
nephilim = gibborim = children of sons of God with daughters of men
nephilim = gibborim ≠ children of sons of God with daughters of men
nephilim ≠ gibborim = children of sons of God with daughters of men
The first option seems to be the interpretation of both the LXX and the targumim. The LXX is often interpreted as indicating more clearly than the Hebrew that the offspring of the marriages are giants. Certainly Philo (Questions on Genesis 1.92), our earliest interpreter of the LXX version of this story, regarded the giants as offspring of the marriages, as did Josephus (Antiquities 1.73).
It is quite a bit more that, “seems to be” since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.
And by now we know that, “The LXX…the offspring of the marriages are giants” means they are earth-born rendered from Nephilim.
We need to be careful to not argue for possibilities based on individual words since the fact is that the Gen 6 affair’s narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
He then looped back to linguistics:
What are nephilim, anyway? The Hebrew word seems to be related to the verb naphal, “to fall,” and so perhaps the nephilim are “fallen ones.” That is the interpretation of Aquila, the second-century Jewish Greek translator (οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες). Aquila rendered gibborim as δυνατοί, “strong ones,” or, according to a different report, δυσίατοι, “incurable ones.” The slightly later translator, Symmachus, used the word οἱ βίαιοι, “violent ones,” for both nephilim and gibborim. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate has “giants” (gigantes) for nephilim and “strong ones” (potentes) for gibborim. Despite his translation, Jerome understood that the Hebrew nephilim is more easily understood as “fallen ones,” which, he pointed out, would work well as a description of the offspring of angels or righteous men who sinned. In other words, for Jerome, the description of the offspring as “fallen ones” lends no support to the angel-interpretation.
He then wrote, “But even if the word nephilim does not mean ‘giants,’ it may be that the nephilim (whatever the word itself means) were, in fact, gigantic” by which he means, “But even if the word nephilim does not mean something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average it may be that the nephilim (whatever the word itself means) were, in fact, something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average.”
He follows with:
At least, their incredible height is implied in the only other passage in the Bible that uses the term. When the twelve spies returned to the camp after having scouted out the land of Canaan, they reported having encountered Nephilim.
There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them. (Num 13:33)
For this verse also, the LXX renders nephilim as “giants.” Whatever the word means, it seems that the Nephilim in Canaan were really big people, and that the spies expected the other Israelites to be familiar with the group of people called Nephilim and to know that they are big people. The verse also connects the Nephilim to another label, the Anakites, the descendants of Anak.
I found the qualifying term implied to be interesting in two directions—stand by.
He misrepresented the narrative and myopically generically failed to note that 12 spies were sent out and two reports were presented. Yet, the verse to which he appeals is by the 10 unreliable ones and is the second report.
Thus, it is not, “When the twelve spies returned…they” and, “reported.”
He was also myopic in not noting that he quoted a non-LXX version: we will see that this leads to his assertion that, “The verse also connects the Nephilim to another label, the Anakites, the descendants of Anak.”
Again, “For this verse also, the LXX renders nephilim as” not an English word, but as gigas/gigantes.
As for, “really big people” that is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
Surely, “the spies expected the other Israelites to be familiar with the group of people called Nephilim” since they were part of pre-flood history and as for, “big people” well, there are two issues there—stand by.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they are relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I am currently updating.
The reason I noted, “I found the qualifying term implied to be interesting in two directions” is 1) their incredible height was implied in a false fantasy tall-tale and 2) implied since the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical pop-Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Recall that I quoted the meaning of his assertion, “often identified as giants” we found out that actually regarding Nephilim often referred to one single unreliable sentence and that the others were about Rephaim/Anakim as merely taller than 5.0-5.3ft. but an unknown margin.
As for, “the [10] spies expected…to know that they are big people” keep in mind that what follows is subjective to the average Israelite male.
Dr. Ed Gallagher continued thusly:
Another reference to Anak appears in Deuteronomy, where Moses reminds the Israelites about the land of Moab.
The Emim—a large and numerous people, as tall as the Anakim—had formerly inhabited it. Like the Anakim, they are usually reckoned as Rephaim, though the Moabites call them Emim. (Deut 2:10–11)
Again, the Anakim are tall, and other names associated with them are Emim (the Moabite name) and Rephaim.
That last group comes up again later in the same chapter, again, in reference to Moab.
It also is usually reckoned as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly inhabited it, though the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a strong and numerous people, as tall as the Anakim. (Deut 2:20–21)
Moreover, there was a king named Og who was one of the Rephaim, in fact, their last surviving member (cf. Josh 13:12). And Og was big—or, at least, he had a big bed, so big it became a tourist attraction.
Now only King Og of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. In fact his bed, an iron bed, can still be seen in Rabbah of the Ammonites. By the common cubit it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide. (Deut 3:11)
There is also a valley called several times in Scripture “the valley of the Rephaim,” a term translated in the LXX as “valley of the Titans” (2 Sam 5:18) or “valley of giants” (1 Chron 11:15; 14:9). So, again, Rephaim had the reputation of being tall.
Well, “large” and, “tall” are just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as big and giants.
To simplify the pedigree: Rephaim were aka Zamzummim (or Zuzim) and aka Emmim and Anakim were like a clan of that tribe. And since the only correlation between Anakim and Nephilim is one single unreliable non-LXX version of an evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked then there is no correlation—and no correlation whatsoever, nor even an unreliable correlation, to all Rephaim.
As for Og indeed, “he had a big bed” so what of it? We have no physical description of him (not until utterly wildly exaggerated folklore from millennia after his time) and indications are that the bed was a ritual object, not something on which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Indeed, there was a, “the valley of the Rephaim” regardless of how someone translated/rendered it centuries/millennia later.
He continued thusly:
If we put all these verses together, we can construct the following equivalencies.
Nephilim > Anakim = Rephaim = Emim (Moabite name) = Zamzummim (Ammonite name)
They are all very tall. It may be these tall people, and not all Amorites (= Canaanites; but see Gen 14:5; 15:20), that Amos has in mind when he describes the Amorites as very tall.
Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them,
whose height was like the height of cedars,
and who was as strong as oaks;
I destroyed his fruit above,
and his roots beneath. (Amos 2:9)
It is actually:
“Nephilim.”
And completely separately:
“Anakim = Rephaim = Emim (Moabite name) = Zamzummim (Ammonite name).”
Since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then no one can be correlated to them based on any height.
Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.
In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they are only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literally then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.
Dr. Gallagher then notes:
What happened to the Nephilim (or the Anakim or Rephaim or whatever)? The Israelite conquest reduced their number (cf. Num 13:22; Josh 15:14; Judg 1:10). While Joshua made war on the Anakim (Josh 11:21–23), he did not eliminate them completely; some remained in towns such as Gath (Josh 11:22). Have you heard of Gath before? That is Goliath’s hometown (1 Sam 17:4). Gath was also the home of other words associated with a certain “Rapha” (= the Hebrew word; think: Rephaim) often translated “giant” (2 Sam 21:16–22; 1 Chron 20:4–8).
It is not, “Nephilim (or the Anakim or Rephaim or whatever)” it is either Nephilim or the Anakim or Rephaim.
Nephilim did not exist post-flood in part since God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, sure, “The Israelite conquest” was about Rephaim in general, Anakim in specific, along with others: Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.
He continued directly with:
So, were the Nephilim giants? According to biblical scholar John Day, “It is clear that the Nephilim are to be understood as giants” (p. 81), an interpretation arising from the evidence we have just examined, particularly the appearance of the Nephilim in the Promised Land (Num 13:33) and the association of the inhabitants of the Promised Land with great height (Amos 2:9), along with the association of the Nephilim with other tall people (Anakim, Rephaim, etc.; Deut 2:10, 20–21; 3:11). Of course, the problem with associating the Nephilim with the descendants of the sons of God in Genesis 6 is that there were still Nephilim in the land of Canaan in the time of the Israelite conquest. Why wouldn’t they be destroyed by the flood? And, in fact, it may be that Genesis 6:4 means that the Nephilim were already on the earth, before the union between the sons of God and daughters of men, a point argued not only by Day in recent times but already by Augustine centuries ago (City of God 15.23).
Do you see how hard writers who do not tell us their usage of giants make it for readers? We had to derive clues and constantly keep his usage in mind so as to not adhere to his fallacies.
Again, biblically contextually, “were the Nephilim giants?” would mean, “were the Nephilim Nephilim?”
We now need to ask for Day’s usage of giants, why he thinks, “Nephilim are to be understood as giants” and how and why, “It is clear.”
Now, given Dr. Gallagher’s usage of giants his, “evidence” was 1) misusing that word, 2) myopically appealing to one unreliable non-LXX sentence, 3) misrepresenting Num 13:33, 4) (mis)using it as a hermeneutic via which to (mis)interpret other verses, 5) using an unreliable sentence as a faulty premise that commits a category error which results in non-sequiturs, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, “we have just examined, particularly the appearance of” a fantasy tall-tale about, “the Nephilim in the Promised Land” for which the speakers were rebuked by God.
And, of course, “great height” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as large, tall, big, and giants.
And we get into fundamental theology proper issues with the question, “Why wouldn’t they be destroyed by the flood?”
We already did away with the speculation that, “Nephilim were already on the earth, before the union” whatever that may have to do with post-flood Nephilim.
He argued:
Various explanations have been proffered to explain how the Nephilim survived the flood. Michael Heiser, a modern scholar and proponent of the angel-interpretation of Genesis 6:2, proposed either that Noah’s flood was a local event (and so it did not kill all the Nephilim) or that after the flood more angels cohabited with women and produced more giants. Augustine’s solution (City of God 15.23) is just to say that sometimes there are really tall people. He acknowledges that some people think the sons of God must have been angels because the offspring were giants. But he counters that there are still sometimes really tall people in the world—he mentions an example of a really tall woman in Rome in recent times—and he points out that the text of Genesis says that there were giants on the earth in those days and afterward, suggesting that the giants were not necessarily connected to this particular incident of sons of God mating with daughters of men. It seems that John Chrysostom (Hom. Gen. 22.12) also thought that the giants had nothing to do with the marriages of Genesis 6:2. There is a rabbinic tradition (Talmud, Zevaḥim 113b §12) that the giant Og (later king of Bashan; Num 21:33) survived the flood by hitching a ride on board Noah’s ark.
Note that the, “Various explanations” do not include the biblical one: that there was no such thing as post-flood Nephilim, in any way, shape, or form, that is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical since God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and the only indication of it is one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
As for, “Nephilim survived the flood” that contradicts the Bible five times (Gen 7:7, 23; Heb 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20 & 2 Peter 2:5) since that is how many times God told us who survived the flood but Nephilim are not mentioned.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but his Nephilology was not altogether biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy.
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”.
I also included him in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
He uncritically just picked up that one unreliable sentence, ran with it, applied it, turned it into a hermeneutic and so opted to reduce the scope of the flood just to be able to conclude that there were post-flood Nephilim. Yet, that was a fool’s errand since the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they did not make it past the flood.
That, “more angels cohabited” post-flood is not only an un-biblical fantasy story but also implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
And Augustine’s supposed solution is incoherent since, again, we cannot correlated anyone to Nephilim based on even something as generic as, “really tall people”—see my whole chapter about his views in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?
The, “rabbinic tradition” regarding Og (which is very late dated (circa 400-500 AD), anachronistic, and a category error) is that to which I referred as, “utterly wildly exaggerated folklore from millennia after his time.”
Moreover:
Then again, giants may have survived the flood if the guy that built the ark was himself a giant. Some people in antiquity thought there may have been evidence for this view, that Noah was a giant, and they found it in Nimrod. In Genesis 10:8–12 there is a man named Nimrod, a “mighty hunter” or “mighty warrior.” Here the term gibbor is used for Nimrod, which earlier had been used in connection with the Nephilim. Is the text telling us that Nimrod is a giant? Indeed, the LXX translate gibbor in this way (γίγας, Gen 10:8–9). But remember, Nimrod is the great grandson of Noah. So if Nimrod is a giant, maybe it is in his genes? Some ancient Jewish sources speculate that Noah may have been (or may have been thought to be) the offspring of an angelic father and a human mother. There has also been the belief that Abraham was connected to giants.
Well, that is a big IF since that, “if the guy that built the ark was himself” was something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average is something for which we have no indication.
And that if is a non-sequitur premised on, “the term gibbor is used for Nimrod, which earlier had been used in connection with the Nephilim” which is tragically myopic since he did not tell us that that is a mere desriptive term for mighty and gibbor/im is also used of Angels (Psa 103:20), Gideon (Jdg 6:12), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), some of King David’s soldiers (1 Chron 11:11), even God Himself (Isa 9:6), etc.
And we have seen that the LXX translators/renderers did odd things with gigas/gigantes so we cannot simply appeal to, “the LXX translate gibbor in this way.” As for, “Some ancient Jewish sources” well, the term ancient is subjective since yes, those are ancient to us but from millennia after the Torah which is more ancient still. And, those claims are from Midrashim which are in the genre of sermonizing homilies, not history.
Dr. Ed Gallagher includes a section titled, “Giants Outside the Biblical Tradition” which I will bypass since it is premised on his misusage of giants so he can just throw anyone into the mix who was said to be something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average.
An interesting note he added is:
Some Christians saw a connection between the giants descended from angels in Jewish tradition, and the giants in pagan Greek tradition. For example, in the late second century, Athenagoras explained that the offspring of the angels and humans were the giants, written about even by Greek poets (Plea 24.6). No doubt Athenagoras found compelling the stories about giants not only because of the testimony of the Enochic writings and other Jewish and Christian traditions, but also because they find a close parallel in Greek accounts.
That is fair enough since pre-Tower of Babel, humanity lived in relative proximity but thereafter we spread abroad taking with us what was then commonly known and shared history which, with time and telling (and aggrandized augmentation) became myth and legend.
For a taste of this, see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
Recall that he noted, “I do not know the answers to these questions” but he certainly wrote in an affirmative manner as if he does know and yet, his conclusions are non sequiturs based on fallacious premises.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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