National Catholic Register posted an article titled The Mystery of Biblical Giants, From Goliath to the Nephilim by Bradley Shumaker (“attorney and military veteran. He is an Associate Editor at The Everyman, and his articles have appeared in The Everyman and The Catholic Post.).
Since the title appears to juxtapose Giants and Nephilim, that begs the following questions the answers to which we will have to keep an eye out to see if they are answered directly or by implication: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the National Catholic Register usage? Do those two usages agree?
It’s noted that, “the Old Testament contains several mysterious references to ‘giants’” which is reliance on one or another modern English version and we are then immediately told about Goliath, “the most famous giant” about whom it’s noted:
In some Bible versions, Goliath is listed as being 6 cubits tall, which is about 9 feet. Writings recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls listed Goliath’s height as only 4 cubits, which would have made him about 6 feet 9 inches tall. In the New American Bible (NAB), Goliath is specifically identified as being “6 and a half feet tall” (1 Samuel 17:4). Thus, as it turns out, while he certainly may have been large, the most famous giant in the Bible does not appear to have been gigantic (in the same way that most people have historically understood this term).
The Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX 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.
Having been offered no definition/meaning nor usage of giant, Bradley Shumaker then told, “does not appear to have been gigantic” without being told what is, “the same way that most people have historically understood this term” so that’s meaningless.
But let’s grant that most people’s usage is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height by some unspecific level above the parochial average: and that’s as useless as it sounds.
We might as well get this out of the way at this early stage since that’s all the linguistics we’re going to get out of Bradley Shumaker: biblically contextually, “the most famous giant” means, “the most famous Repha” since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles is that 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
Next to be mentioned are, “Anakim/Anakites” about who we’re told, “The first mention of the Anakim in the Bible appears in Genesis 6” but that’s not the case, they weren’t even close to existing at the time: they didn’t until centuries post-flood.
It’s also noted, “A note in the NAB describes them as ‘tall aboriginals’ whom the Israelites likened to the Nephilim (mentioned below)” we will have to see about the latter statement (since it’s hyperbolic, at best) and tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants.
About the latter, Bradley Shumaker notes:
Numbers 13:33 refers to them as “a race of giants.” Another note in this same chapter describes them in more detail as “an aboriginal race in southern Palestine, largely absorbed by the Canaanites before the Israelite invasion. Either because of their tall stature or because of the massive stone structures left by them the Israelites regarded them as giants.”
Numbers 13 also tells of twelve scouts who were sent by Moses to reconnoiter the land of Canaan. What they reported back was having observed huge men who were so large that they felt like “mere grasshoppers” compared to them (Numbers 13:33).
To say, “Numbers 13:33 refers to…” is too generic since the hermeneutical key questions are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.
We know by now that biblically contextually, “a race of giants” means, “a race of Rephaim”: Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.
Numbers 13 is misrepresented since it wasn’t the case that, “twelve scouts…reported back” that claim: there were 12 spies but without telling the readers, Bradley Shumaker is referring to and relying on the 10 unreliable ones who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God.
Thus, what they said wasn’t true: see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
As for, “giants…tall…giants…huge…” the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were subjectively, “tall” (Deut 2).
And, Num 13’s, “evil report” refers to the fantasy tall-tale height of Nephilim, not Anakim—some merely suppose since the falsehood asserts they were (impossibly) related then they were both very, very tall but that’s piling one assertion atop another—and the LXX doesn’t even mention Anakim in that verse.
Next up are Rephaim about whom we’re told:
The word Rephaim is a Hebrew word for “giants.” According to the Bible, they were a people who were said to be tall, like the Anakim. They were known as the Emim by the Moabites (Deuteronomy 2:11) and the Zamzummim by the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:20).
While their exact height is not certain, a strange passage from 2 Samuel 21:20 describes one of them as having “six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.” King Og of Bashan was the last of these “giants,” who was said to have slept in a bed that was 9 cubits in length (Deuteronomy 3:11), or possibly as much as 13 cubits long, according to other Bible translations.
If, “The word Rephaim is a Hebrew word for ‘giants’” then that begs the question of what giants not just, “in the same way that most people have historically understood this term” but according to the ancient Hebrew understanding: which we can’t get since that’s a modern English word.
Yet, we know that the root rapha ranges from dead to healing and has nothing whatsoever to do with height of any sort: see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010 and the whole chapter about them in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
It’s not Rephaim, “known as the Emim” but known as Zamzummim as an aka with Emmim and Anakim being like clans of that tribe.
Indeed, “tall…their exact height is not certain” besides that they were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
Indeed also, extra digits were only stated about one single Repha.
And, “Og of Bashan was the last of these ‘giants’” you know by now means, “Og of Bashan was the last of these ‘Rephaim.’”
And his bed is irrelevant: merely assuming one can derive his height from it piling assumption atop assumption: that was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Next are the Nephilim about whom we’re told, “may have been giants” which circularly redundantly means, “may have been Nephilim.” It’s clear from the article that Bradley Shumaker’s researched this issue by just reading notes on the NAB version (New American Bible) and so noted, “the NAB only makes use of the term ‘Nephilim,’ and does not specifically label them as giants” which begs the question: what’s the NAB’s usage of that word? See why it’s better to just ignore that word and just say what one means?
That’s especially the case when we’re told, “the NAB…does not specifically label them as giants” and/but, “An NAB footnote goes on to suggest that the Nephilim may have been a ‘race of giants.’”
Refreshingly, we’re then told, “While other Bible versions translate the word Nephilim as ‘giants,’ it is entirely possible the name might merely have been a reference to the name of their tribe.” Indeed, especially when we have to juggle, compare and contrast what any given user means by giants. In fact, it may not even be that if we had asked, they would have said something like, “Our tribe is called Nephilim” since that term is likely what latter Israelites called them as they reflected on pre-flood history and used a derisive term of them.
It’s noted, “Other scholars have translated the Nephilim as ‘tyrants’” and the root word naphal means fall/fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc.
We’re also told, “their placement in the Bible comes immediately before the description of the Great Flood” since that is the only time they existed, since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., and that’s part of the proof that the Num 13 evil report is false: and, by the way, since that’s the only physical description we have of them then we’ve no reliable physical description of them.
Bradley Shumaker ends by asking and answering, “So Do Giants Exist?” as per an un-biblical usage of that term, and answers as per how, “most people have historically understood this term,” so that, “references to giants are found throughout the pages of the Old Testament” all we know is that they were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.