Ordinary Ancient Jewish Guy versus Goliath (per the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Josephus), Goliath (per Symmachus, the Vulgate, and the Masoretic Text), and King Og of Bashan
Notes:
- The height of Goliath varies between the various witnesses (manuscripts) to 1 Samuel 17.4 - between 4 1/2 and 6 1/2 cubits (even coming in at 5 1/2 cubits in one witness).
- Deuteronomy 3.11 only offers us the length of King Og’s coffin (which, due to uncertainty in translation, could possibly alternatively refer to his bed). So, we might expect that the giant lying inside the coffin is about a cubit shorter than the 9-cubit coffin itself, or 8 cubits.
- There was no standard measure for a cubit (the measure of a forearm) or a span (the measure of a spread hand width). So, I have estimated that 1 cubit = 45 cm, and that a span is half that.
Who are the smallest people in the Bible?
The Shuhites.
2.35m, 4.7 cubits, Ri Myung-Hun, North Korean basketballer. Why you no read you Bible? Ri Myung-Hun in the Bible!
Sweet table!
Actually here is a list of some famous giants of Canaan I have come across in my research, including the Bible’s:
Og – 8 cubits, 11 1/2 ft
Goliath – 4 1/2 -6 1/2 cubits, 6 1/2 to 9 1/2 ft
King Saul of Israel – towered head and shoulders over everyone – c. 6 1/2 ft
Egyptian Slain by Benaiah – 5 cubits 7 1/2 ft
Shasu of Anastasi I, – 4 to 5 cubits, 6 to 7 1/2 ft
Giant mentioned by Alchaeus – 4 Royal Babylonian cubits 1 span, or 8 ft
Gabbaras mentioned by Pliny, 9 feet 9 inches Roman, or 9 1/2 ft English.
Eleazar the Jew mentioned by Josephus, 7 cubits tall – 10 1/2 ft
Antonius of Syria mentioned by Nicephorus – 7 ft 7 in
Thanks, Jim.
Eleazar and Og, may represent the height of the tallest authentic giants reported from Canaan, although they could be somewhat exaggerated.
The discovery of very large human bones in a Neolithic burial at Castelnua-Le-Lez, France in 1890 inspired at least one peer reviewed stature estimate of 3.5 meters tall — or roughly the height of Og – For what it’s worth.
I suspect that Eleazar’s and Og’s heights were exaggerated. Although, it is interesting nonetheless.
I doubt that the bones of the so-called Castelnau giant were human. People have been digging up fossils and bones of mastodons, whales, and our human relatives like Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus for several thousand years, and calling them giant humans. But the original report on the finding of these bones look a bit sketchy to conclude ithe bones were human.
Well, based on my translation of the original French journal, and subsequent journals, the Castelnau bones were found in a human burial cyst. The identification of the bones as human was pretty much unanimous by the professors of anatomy, zoology, and paleontology at the University of Montpellier. In 1892 Dr. Paul Kiener prof. of pathological anatomy at Montpellier even identified pathological elements to the bones. There was some debate about height estimates, some said 3 metre, De Lapouge estimated 3.5 metre. These are probably grossly approximate estimates.
The fact that other large human bones and skulls were reported again in 1894, makes me feel they are certainly worthy of another analysis. Of course, trying to track down old bones and reports of giant skeletons can be a real easter egg hunt.
Meganthropus, or even Heidelbergensis could indeed account for the discovery of giant human like bones. There is still a debate as to how tall Meganthropus was, I have seen some estimates in old science papers go from 6 1/2 to 8 feet. Heidelbergensis has generally been put at 6 ft to 6 1/2 feet, and some bones from South Africa according to prof Lee Berger indicate some men may have routinely exceeded 7 feet.
That’s interesting, Jim. To be clear, did they identify the bones as homo sapiens, or as hominid?
Based on what I could read, the three fragments were what was identified by most anatomosts as a tibia shaft roughly 11 inches long, a humerus 10 inches, and femur mid-section about 5 inches long, 2″ wide, although the humerus was thought to be a femur by one anatomist, they all felt these were human according to the article in La Nature 1890 vol 18. The age of the find was of polished stone and Bronze, so de Lapouge believed Neolithic to before Bronze age. Out of forty skulls at Castelnau, one frontal portion of skull de Lapouge found and examined, was very large — exceeding the Polynesians in dimensions (Lapouge was a Racialist) and he believed could only have come from a man exceeding 2 meters tall if proportioned. This skull represented the same gene type found common to the dolmen people of Lozere. Modern Cro-magnon man.
Thanks for these, Jim. I’m planning on taking a closer look at these reports at some stage.
It is noteworthy, that the Castelnau bones were found towards the very lowest strata of the burial mound, so it may have been quite a bit older than the rest of the bronze age remains in that cyst. He beieved the bones probably represented one individual, as they were found in that cyst together.
But a lot of these giant reports have truth to them but can get exaggerated a foot or so . A reputed ancient 9 foot giant was reported found in Georgia, south of Russia in 2008 at Borjomi turned out to be that of a very tall man, about 7 feet or so. Big, but Not ape-shit Big. So who knows.
we were compared to giants in the bible and it states we were mere grass hoppers in there eyes meaning they were probaly 100 if not more feet. remember if real these giants were of supernatural origin and all perished in the flood. so science may not tell us every thing.
Like grasshoppers – but is this meant literally? Two points say no. First, the description comes in an “evil report” given by the bad spies (other than Caleb and Joshua), who are trying to dissuade the Israelites from entering the promised land. Second, Isaiah 40.22 describes the inhabitants of the earth as grasshoppers in comparison to God’s vantage point from heaven – but on any literal scale, we would be much smaller, wouldn’t we? So the simile “like grasshoppers” is both an exaggeration and intended figuratively to contrast the heights of the Israelites and Anakim.
Pingback: Dwayne (“The Rock”) Johnson to play Goliath and Taylor (“Jacob”) Lautner to play David in Scott Derickson’s Movie, Goliath? | Remnant of Giants
Using someone’s bed or sarcophagus as yardstick for his real size seems to me unwise — rulers are megalomanics by nature. ;) There are no giants burried in the pyramids either.
It probably is covered on the site somewhere, but I watched a doc that aired that recent archaeological research showed that the description of the weapon of Goliath was not refering to its weight/size but to its design, i.e. it refers to a specific kind of spear with loops/straps that allowed it to be thrown much better. Ancient equivalent of an uzi. Sorry, did not get to write down a reference.
The tallest man who has ever lived, at least as proven (film footage), was
Robert Pershing Wadlow, 2.70 m. In 2009 the tallest living man was Sultan Kosen, 2.50 m, feet size 36.5 cm. So Goliath’s 4.5 cubits is perfectly realistic. Rumanian basketball player Georghe Muresan is 2.31 m, so the common idea that Goliath would have been a cripple with such a size is not valid; see this modern David and Goliath shot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muresan.jpg
Rationalizing legends, Adrian – now that’s the fool’s task, all the way to from Euhemeros to Velikovsky to Provan, Long, and Longman. I like to think it is better to work out the probable meaning of biblical texts, than to waste effort on inventive “what if?” scenarios.
That’s right, a fool would suggest tall people could have existed in Biblical times who were as tall as modern NBA players. Because, we all know that there is no variation within human stature and all ancient men were 1.65 meters and 65 kilograms.
4.5 cubits, which is between 6 ft 7 and 7 feet tall, is an outlandish height, since no one could have been this tall in ancient times, it’s more important to “work out” the probable meaning of the text, by denying what the text actually says.
LoL. Wasting efforts by suggesting 7 feet tall men actually may have existed in ancient Palestine which could have inspired legends of giant warriors is simply too “far out” for modern academia to digest…The ramifications of “real giants” would shatter the anthropological world!
……I’ve gotta go now, the Lakers are on.
Um… it’s not the argument that there were men who were 6 feet 7 – that’s fine by itself. In fact, the story of Goliath could quite well have derived from the story of a person about that height.
The problem Adrian’s approach is that he attempts to euhemerise everything about Giants – so he argues also that Og’s 13-foot sarcophagous (which is ascribed to the last of the Rephaim – elsewhere identified as giants) might have contained a “realistically” tall individual, and that the reference to the weight of Goliath’s spear might not have been referring to the weight at all. This shows a pattern of euhemerisation in interpreting biblical texts, rather than any attempt to establish the best interpretation. And that is a fool’s game.
The ancients of the Mediterranean pretty much admit that occasional giants were seen in their lands, some as groups, others solo freaks.
There is a small list of several such notable giants which historians mentioned, no doubt heights have probably been exaggerated somewhat, but the picture is clear that variation of human height was as common in the past as it is today. In fact, without modern medicine, persons afflicted with pituitary gigantism and other height related disorders could conceivably have been more prevalent, since no treatment was available, assuming they lived long enough to reach their full height. Life before the industrial period was often savage and short, if you hit your 40th birthday you were in good shape.
Of course, I quite agree.
Diane, better take your own advice of “work out the probable meaning
of biblical texts” rather than go projecting your fancies in it in the name of
“anti-euhemerisation”:
1) Obviously, the text says Og was a gaint in stature and reputation,
and I think the context implies the ‘bed’ was a public monument aimed
at impressing the Hebrew tourist. What it does nót say is “go do the
math”. That’s a fool’s game, especially as we do not know exactly what
the obejct was, and as we would not do so in any known case. E.g. the
sarcophagus of Cheops (not even public) was 260 cm, and according
to your logic (subtract a cubit) that would imply he was some 50 cm taller
than your average Egyptian… Nope! So it is the naive math I objected
against, not to the fact he was a ‘giant’ (he is called part of the Rephaim
after all), as long as that term is not colored by our own prejudices
of what ‘giants’ ought to be.
2) To understand a text one needs the linguistical and cultural background
of the author, and researching that is not “inventive” – projecting modern
ideas however is. Warfare is among that background, and the doc masterly
showed the spear type (I forgot whether it was a Philistine speciality, don’t think
so, but it was an innovation at the time), from archaeological data, and
it showed very well why a weaver’s beam with its loops was chosen for the
comparisson, of all possible analogies, and the ancient reader would probably
have chuckled at the apt comparisson. Whereas you want to go out and
measure weaver’s beams (not likely standardized in weight and size to begin
with) and do some projecting in the name of all modern Disney Giants…. ;)
Pingback: The Bible and Macrophilia: He Thong’s Goliath Art | Remnant of Giants
Is Giant Gonzalez in the Bibible?