You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.
I once wrote an article titled Was Samson buff? since he is generally depicted as looking like a pro-bodybuilder even though we have no physical description of him—besides that he wore long hair.
Thus, I was fascinated to read TJ Steadman discussing Samson from the angle of whether he was a “giant” (whatever that means—something about unusual height).
In his book “Answers to Giant Questions” TJ Steadman made matters very clear by noting, “Of the fact that Samson was not actually a giant, there is no doubt” (p. 247).
Clear enough.
He even went on to address “The suggestion by some, supported by rabbinic musings from the medieval period” that Samson “must have been an enormous giant,” and he is “sorry to burst that bubble, but there is solid archeological evidence to disprove” this on the basis on that he need not have been an enormous giant to push the dual pillars in the Pagan temple (p. 249)—which archeology has proved need not have been the case as the such twin pillars were close to each other.
Clear enough.
Yet, he then writes:
In case there was any doubt that the writer of Judges was really casting Samson as a giant, consider the evidence from archeology.
Recently (in 2013), excavations of the ruins of a fifth-century AD Jewish synagogue in Galilee uncovered elaborate mosaics of colored tiles on the synagogue floor…
One shows a very large man lifting upon his shoulders the complete assembly of a city gate structure. It is a depiction of Samson making off with the gates of Gaza…
The particular significance of this mosaic artwork is the fact that it preserves evidence of a tradition of portraying Samson as a giant – a tradition stretching back at least as far as the authorship of Judges.
Thus, there is evidence set in story (or ceramic, if you must!) that the stories of the actual giants must have been circulation for that whole time, otherwise, the caricature would have been confusing and meaningless. (p. 250)
So, “there is no doubt” that he “was not actually a giant.”
And, “rabbinic musings from the medieval period” (5th-15th centuries) are mistaken in claiming he “must have been an enormous giant” due to “solid archeological evidence.”
Yet, we can know that “the writer of Judges as really casting Samson as a giant” not because therein, Samson was physically described but we can know this due to “evidence from archeology” which dates to “a fifth-century AD…synagogue floor,” of the same medieval period whence such claims were rejected.
This seems like a contradictory manner in which to argue.
Moreover, what “whole time”? From the writing of Judges, written circa 1045-1000 BC, until the fifth century AD?
But why confusing and meaningless unless Samson was physically large (which is never once stated about him) since anyone could see the depiction and get the idea of power, strength, God’s victory being accomplished, etc.?
Lastly, this seems to all be premised upon the assertion “the stories of the actual giants must have been circulation for that whole time”—circa one and a half millennia—but that is a non-sequitur since it does not consider that such a depiction could have come about spontaneously, especially if it proceeded forth from the fertile imagination of an artist.
Now, if a medieval period synagogue floor is to be accounted as solid archeological evidence then why refer to rabbinic musings from that very same period as being disproved by other solid archeological evidence when it all dates from the that whole time period?
Moreover, he wrote—and it is riotous when an author knows they are saying (at the very least) unusual things:
Wait a minute – isn’t that supposed to be “Samson and Delilah?” No, you read it right. Before you even flip the Bible open to Judges and refresh your memory on Samson, you will probably already be aware that Samson’s most obvious trait was his superhuman strength. This is the most in-your-face connection to the giants that you are likely to encounter, but what if there was a lot more to that story than we previously realized?
We don’t have space to recount the entire story of Samson, but you can find it in Judges 13-16. Samson’s father Manoah (sounds like Noah) came from a place called Zorah, near Eshtaol. That area which became the tribal homeland of Dan, has all kinds of Biblical associations with supernatural evil, as we noted earlier when we looked at the Biblical use of “the hornet.” So, the author has given us a hint that we are reading something about a bad person, and yet he reminds us of Noah to get us thinking in the right frame of reference. When we think “Noah,” we think of two things: giants and deliverance.
Yes, “his superhuman strength” and while Samson had his bouts of unethical behavior, he always seems to have repented and was made a judge by God Himself as announced by an Angel so that his “supernatural” power was Godly, not in “connection to the giants”—whatever TJ Steadman may mean by “giants” in this case, it certainly cannot be anything good.
I wonder if it is supernatural that men who are right around 6 ft tall can lift 1,000 lbs? I ask because you can watch strong-man or power-lifting competitions any day and witness that.
In fact, one of the reasons for writing my article Was Samson buff? was to point out that if Samson looked like a pro-bodybuilder—much less (or much more) if he was a “giant”—then his feats of strength may have been a sight to behold but would not exactly be surprising.
I would love to see a movie depict Samson like a scrawny, skinny, little pencil-necked geek—now that would make his feats of strength surprising. His strength did not come from his muscles, did not come from his height, did not come from his hair, but came from God—period.
Again, I find it distasteful, to say the least, to prejudiciously declare that someone is “a bad person” to be associated with “all kinds of…supernatural evil” just because they were born in an “area” that is generally associated with such.
There is not the slightest little tiny hint in the whole Bible that Samson’s parents were of any sort of ill character. The exact opposite is the case, actually, in that they are very, very concerned about ensuring they are loyal to and thus, obedient to God.
Yet, TJ Steadman argues that Samson—and his parents—exhibit, “Two associations with giants, a supernatural birth with suspicion around the fatherhood (grammatically speaking, the text is intentionally ambiguous about whether it was the angel or Manoach who caused the conception of Samson), and now a forbidden intermarriage should be telling us loud and clear that some familiar themes are coming to haunt young Samson.”
If “a supernatural birth” is an “associations with giants” then the same goes for Isaac and Samuel and others including Jesus.
In fact, “a supernatural birth with suspicion around the fatherhood” doubly denotes “associations with giants” in Jesus’ case.
About the text being intentionally ambiguous: it is not.
Judges 13 notes that “the Angel of the Lord appeared to the woman [Manoah’s wife who became Samson’s mother] and said to her, ‘Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son…the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”
She informs Manoah, “A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God” and what he said.
Then “Manoah prayed to the Lord, and said, ‘O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born.’”
“And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again” and again she told Manoah what happened, he went with her and said, “let Your words come to pass!” the Angel reiterated the situation, Manoah offers to prepare a meal, the Angel of the Lord replied, “I will not eat your food. But if you offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the Lord” which is what was done, and “it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar—the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar!”
Now Manoah was certain that it was the Angel of the Lord and is afraid because “We shall surely die, because we have seen God!” but his wise and holy wife notes, “If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time.”
Is this a story about bad people involved in “all kinds of…supernatural evil” or of loyal people to whom God sends a messenger and from whom God accepts a sacrifice?
Right after I stopped quoting, it is stated, “So the woman bore a son and called his name Samson.”
So could it be that the Angel impregnated her? The actual key question is why even bother imagining such a thing? It is actually because TJ Steadman wants to build a narrative so if it is not there, he will insert is therein even if by just implying it.
Now, there is only a one time sin of Angels in the Bible and the sentence was incarceration (see Jude and 2 Peter 2) so what TJ Steadman is implying, or outright suggesting, is that “the Angel of the Lord,” mind you, may have been a sinner—even if he was sent on a specific mission by God Himself—so that this would be a second instance of a sin of at least one Angel in that it would have been “a forbidden intermarriage.”
In short, where TJ Steadman not seeking to weave a tall tale, he would never even imagine imagining proposing any such thing.
And now we know why it is that—as I quoted him in Intro to TJ Steadman’s book “Answers to Giant Questions”—when he claims that his book “will draw out some of the more interesting and theologically significant messages that are regularly overlooked in your average church setting” many of his claims are not overlooked. Rather, they are looked at very carefully and are rightly rejected or are instantly dismissed by those who know that which the Bible states about such issues.
TJ Steadman has written something that I appreciate, “I don’t buy into the modern ‘science fiction view’ of ancient texts. There are no ancient inscriptions that really depict ancient aliens, UFO’s and all that kind of thing” (p. 429).
Yes, he does seem to buy into, and perpetuate, the modern (that which I term) theo-sci-fi view of ancient texts wherein “giants” (whatever that means) are peppered everywhere you look.
And if you look and do not see one, then you invent one—especially if you can use the vague, generic, subjective and undefined English word “giants” to water-down and paint various very different ancient terms in different languages with a broom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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