Gili Kugler on Caleb the Giant-Slayer

CalebFaithDr Gili Kugler (the University of Sydney) has recently written an article in which she discusses the different biblical traditions about Caleb’s involvement in the spy mission to Hebron and the eventual conquest of Hebron.

Gili Kugler, “Who Conquered Hebron? Apologetic and Polemical Tendencies in the Story of Caleb in Josh 14,” Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017): 570-580.

In the Bible, there are a number of inconsistent narratives about the spy expedition and conquest of Hebron/the southern Judean hill country. These narratives provide different identifications of:

  • The leader of the conquest: either Joshua (Joshua 11.21-22), or Caleb (Joshua 15.13-14), or Caleb after being allocated the land by Joshua, who now allocates land not yet conquered (Joshua 14.6-15), or the army of Judah (Judges 1.9-10);
  • The time of the conquest: either as part of Joshua’s conquest of the whole land (Joshua 11.21-22), or after the conquest of the whole land, as one of the areas still to be conquered in the second half of Joshua (Joshua 14.6-15; 15.13-14), or after the death of Joshua (Judges 1.9-10);
  • The inhabitants who were killed: either the Anakim (Joshua 11.21-22), the Anakim who lived in great fortified cities as we saw the giants identified in Numbers 13 (Joshua 14.12), or the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Joshua 15.14), or the “Canaanites”, Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai (Judges 1.9-10);
  • The ethnicity of Caleb: a Kenizzite (Joshua 14.6-15; 15.13-14 – ‘son of Kenaz’), or part of Judah, or at least allied with Judah (Judges 1; as in Numbers 13).

Despite all these varied traditions, they all display a number of shared themes, characters, and geography – which makes it likely that we are dealing with related traditions.

So how do we account for the way these traditions developed? Scholars have usually dated the Caleb tradition as the earliest of the traditions, being placed into a pan-Israelite conquest involving Joshua. Kugler points out, though, that Joshua 14.6-15 appears to be a later supplement, interrupting the flow in Joshua 14 (and the land allocation to Judah), and also aware of Joshua 11 and its claim that the conquest of Hebron resulted in rest for the land as a whole.

Kugler views Joshua 14.6-15 as serving two apologetic purposes: (1) it justifies Kenizzite settlement and even integration into Judea, and (2) it disputes the idea that Joshua led the whole conquest, transferring the victory to Caleb the Kenizzite. She concludes that “Josh 14:6ab-15 can be viewed as a late formation in the Book of Joshua, responding to and disputing the pro-Joshuaic agenda found in the Deuteronomistic framework of the book” (p. 574). For Kugler, although Joshua 14.6-15 is directly dependent on Deuteronomy 1, it adds the detail that Caleb is a Kennizite, a detail not present in the Deuteronomistic source of the text.

This being the case, argues Kugler, the summary in Joshua 14.14, “So Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day” gives us a clue about the historical context in which a non-Judean was portrayed as having the right to the city of Hebron. Kugler points to the Edomite connections of the clan of Kenaz (Genesis 31.11, 15, 42; 1 Chronicles 1.36, 53), and suggests that Joshua 14.6-15 was added during the time of Edomite settlement in southern Judah before the exile. Joshua 14.6-15 therefore justifies Edomite settlement and lessens Joshua’s role in the conquest of all Israel.

It’s a fairly nicely worked-out possible solution – but it also has some problems.

  1. Joshua 14 knows both the all-Israel tradition in Joshua 11 and the Caleb-alone tradition in Numbers 13, where Caleb gets fully behind God (i.e. wholeheartedly follows God). The latter is a statement from the near-final form of Numbers 13 (often termed the ‘Priestly’ or ‘post-Priestly’ layer, but final form will do) . Joshua 14 also interrupts the ‘Priestly’ land allocation in the second half of Joshua. So how can we place Joshua 14.6-15 in the pre-exilic period, if it is post-Priestly? That seems highly unlikely.
  2. Moreover, Edom continues to have significant control over the southern highlands in the exilic and post-exilic periods. So in fact almost any period during which the Hexateuch was written might fit the alleged Edomite interest in the text. It is arbitrary to allocate an Edomite genealogy to the pre-exilic period.
  3. More problematically for Kugler’s proposal, it is reasonably clear that the Calebite traditions were already inconsistent before Joshua 14.6-15 was composed. That is, the inconsistency is not a result of deliberate polemic, but is a pre-existing literary difficulty that the author of Josh 14.6-15 had to deal with. We already have two conflicting Caleb-traditions before the composition of Joshua 14: (1) Num 13-14/Deut 1.36 makes Caleb a Judean hero; (2) Joshua 15, Judges 1, AND Judges 3 – the latter not mentioned by Kugler – all call Caleb the ‘son of Kenaz’ (and this latter identification is multiply attested and arguably independent). So the inconsistency, where Caleb is either Kenizzite or Judahite, was already in existence before the writing of the supplementary Joshua 14. Joshua 14, therefore, is not easily explained as a response to a historical situation which introduces a polemic; it’s a literary harmonization. In response to contradictory traditions, Joshua 14 says: Caleb is a Judean AND Kenizzite!
  4. Moreover, if this harmonization had a chance of success, it is likely that people at the time Joshua 14.6-15 was written simply did not any longer distinguish a Kenizzite from a Judahite. At the very least, we don’t know if they did make a distinction between Kenizzites and Judahites. Noth for example assigns the distinction of Kenizzites and Judahites to a very early, pre-J historical stage, in which the Kenizzites were part of a 6-tribe alliance which later became the tribe of Judah. Although I don’t follow Noth’s historical reconstruction, it illustrates how the distinction of Kenizzites from Judeans might simply have been ‘ancient history’ at the time of writing Josh 14.6-15.
  5. And there’s no other indication of any pro-Edomite polemic in the passage, either, apart from the older Kenaz-Edom connections.

Sure this makes Joshua 14.6-15 inconsistent with Joshua 1-11, but we can say the same about much of Joshua 12-19, where Joshua’s total conquest of all Israel is changed into a partial conquest with many parts of the land still occupied by its previous inhabitants. And yet, pre-modern readers managed to interpret the final book of Joshua as a harmony. Is it too much to expect that the hamonizing supplementer who wrote Joshua 14.6-15 thought what they had written was in harmony with the account in Joshua 11, rather than engaging in some subtle ‘polemic’?

Caleb was inserted in Joshua 14 as a Judean hero. This was in tension with the Ephraimite/Northern basic tradition in Judges 1-12, and contrary to the older traditions in which he was a Kenizzite and possibly an Edomite. But it was consistent with the Judea- and Jerusalem-centred traditions in the final stages of the book of Joshua.


Benjamin Netanyahu claims historical basis to Abraham’s purchase of Tomb of Patriarchs. But forgets that the Giants owned it.

At the beginning of his weekly cabinet meeting, on 9 July 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu read from Genesis 23.16, 19-20. This passage narrates the story of Abraham’s purchase of a tomb for the burial of his wife, near the city of Hebron.

16 Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants…. 19 After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah facing Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. 20 The field and the cave that is in it passed from the Hittites into Abraham’s possession as a burying place.

Hebron is a city in Palestine which is currently under military occupation by Israel.

On 7 July 2017, UNESCO voted to recognize the Mamluk-era Old Town of Hebron (Al-Khalil), including its first-century CE Tomb of the Patriarchs (the Ibrahimi mosque), as a protected World Heritage site.

In response, Netanyahu argued, based on the legendary account in Genesis 23, that Hebron was Jewish. “The connection between the Jewish people and Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs is one of purchase and of history which may be without parallel in the history of peoples.” Netanyahu also had a bit of a tantrum, and said that he wouldn’t pay $1 million from Israel’s United Nations membership dues, but would instead transfer the funds to the establishment of The Museum of the Heritage of the Jewish People in Kiryat Arba and Hebron.

But did Abraham really buy the tomb?

According to Genesis 23, Abraham bought the tomb from a Hittite man named Ephron. However, Abraham’s legal title to the land is highly questionable, in light of the rival account in the Torah, in Numbers 13. Here, the city of Hebron clearly belongs to three Giants (Anakim), named Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai. It doesn’t belong to Hittites at all. So on the basis of Numbers 13, we have to question whether the Hittite Ephron ever had a good legal title to give to Abraham. Hebron, according to this account, belonged to Giants.

Therefore, under the legal principle of Nemo dat quod non habet (a person cannot grant a better title than they have), Abraham never legally bought the land. He could only have bought it from its legal owners, the Giants. If we treat the Torah as history, we must respect the legal ownership of Hebron by ancient Giants.

… unless, of course, both Genesis 23 and Numbers 13 are just legends, and neither should be cited as “history” by a modern Prime Minister.

But then, might the Israeli government have to admit that the notion of modern Israel’s right to “Greater Israel” (Kol Yisrael) might itself be based on legends?


Because “On the Shoulders of Giants” Seemed Cliche?

wiseIn the Acknowledgments section of his recent book, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (Yale Press, May 2015), Michael Wise thanks those who have gone before him in this area of scholarly research.

Yet Michael Wise does not resort to the hackneyed phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants” in order to describe his reliance on the insights of prior researchers. Instead, he offers the following acknowledgment:

Every scholar is well aware that in almost any area of research we enter as grasshoppers a land formerly (and sometimes presently) indwelt by Anakim. (p. x)

That’s very big of Michael Wise.


Diagnosing Goliath: Gigantism, Acromegaly, Pituitary Tumours, etc

gigantismIn modern times, various medical experts (and many people who are not medical experts) have attempted to diagnose the cause of Goliath’s gigantic height. One recurring suggestion is that poor old Goliath was suffering either from gigantism or acromegaly, caused by excessive growth hormones.

Malcolm Gladwell, in David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants (2013), traces this diagnosis of Goliath’s stature to a 1960 article in the Journal of the Indiana State Medical Association, “Hereditary Hyperparathyroidism” (53: 1313-1316). Since then there have been a number of supporters, including Gladwell himself, S.W. Lamberts (1992), Dag Moskopp (1996), M. Feinsod (1997), Vladimir Berginer (2000), Vladimir Berginer and Chaim Cohen (2006), and Stephen K. Mathew and Jeyaraj D. Pandian (2010).

For a number of reasons, such endeavours cannot rise above sheer speculation.

  • First, the height of Goliath in the probably older LXX version is only 6 3/4 feet. Even given an average male Philistine height of just over five feet, Goliath’s height is hardly a sure sign of any medical abnormality.
  • Second, the details of the story are dubious. Famously, in 2 Samuel 21, it is “Elhanan” who kills Goliath of Gath, not David. So when modern medical experts draw inferences from the details in the story about David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17, the grounds for doing so are poor.
  • Third, the story in 1 Samuel 17 emphasizes theological reasons for David’s victory (David has faith in his god Yahweh, while Goliath mocks this god). To treat such a story as good data for medical diagnosis is, therefore, very misguided.

Such considerations have not put a stop to efforts to diagnose Goliath. The latest medical article on the subject is by Deirdre E Donnelly and Patrick J Morrison (“Hereditary Gigantism-the biblical giant Goliath and his brothers”, Ulster Medical Journal, May 2014; 83(2): 86–88).

Donnelly and Morrison take the Bible at face value, seemingly accepting that there was a “Flood” and that the Bible is a good witness to giants at the dawn of time:

Giants have been around since time began; they are first described in the Bible in the book of Genesis (6:1-4)…

Giants lived together as a number of separate races, before and after the Flood….

The giants from Gath were present after the Flood. One possible answer to the often raised question of why the Nephilim giants, present before the Flood were not eradicated by it, could be that new mutations in the AIP gene (or other genes) caused new families of giants to appear

Although it shouldn’t have to be said – the worldwide “Flood” is not an historical event! Donnelly and Morrison’s analysis of medical conditions developing in periods defined “before” and “after” the Flood is, well, silly.

Donnelly and Morrison proceed to connect the name of one group of giants mentioned in the Bible, the ענקים (Anakim) to the Hebrew term ענק (necklace). Which is fair enough. But from this they suggest that the term might possibly refer to the goitre. They then leap to the fabulous conclusion that Goliath’s condition was “hyperthyroidism, possibly due to underlying pituitary gland, or other endocrine, dysfunction”.

Not satisfied with these leaps of fancy, Donnelly and Morrison then reconstruct Goliath’s alleged family tree “from Samuel and Chronicles” (by which they must surely mean the giants mentioned in 2 Sam 21:15–22 and its parallel in 1 Chron 20:4–8). Some of these giants are said to have six fingers, a not uncommon symptom of gigantism. In their reconstructed family tree, Donnelly and Morrison indicate members affected by the hereditary autosomal dominant pituitary gene with black shading,  and indicate the presence of hexadactyly (six-fingeredness) with the + symbol:


The big problem here is that 2 Sam 21:15–22 and 1 Chron 20:4–8 don’t actually mention any family relations. Donnelly and Morrison seem to have read the term “offsprings of the Raphah” (ילידי הרפה) in these passages a little too literally. The term refers generally to the giants of Gath as descendants of the Rephaim/Giants. How Donnelly and Morrison came up with Goliath’s three sons, is more puzzling, but it is not from reading anything in the Bible. In addition, their inclusion of Lahmi as brother of Goliath appears to be ignorant of the well-known interpretation of this phrase as a harmonization with 1 Samuel 17. Elhanan is made to kill Goliath’s brother, rather than Goliath himself, thereby removing the embarrassing contradiction with the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 (in which David, rather than Elhanan, kills Goliath). Lahmi does not appear in the more original 2 Samuel 21.  There is simply no “family tree” to be reconstructed here. So the authors’ conclusion about a “hereditary” condition is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Donnelly and Morrison go on to explain that Goliath was killed due to impaired vision, caused by his autosomal dominant pituitary gene. Here things descend into pure speculation:

Goliath was killed by David who threw a stone at his forehead (Samuel [sic] 17:49). This gives further evidence that he suffered from pituitary gland dysfunction; a pituitary tumour pressing on his optic chiasm, and consequent visual disturbance due to pressure on his optic nerve, would have made it difficult for him to see the stone in his lateral vision. Pituitary giants look impressive in terms of stature, but may not have speed and agility to match their perceived strength. David, having agility, particularly having declined the heavy set of armour that was offered to him, and being skilled at sling shots, may have found a way around the fearsome looking giant by firing a sling shot from the side of the battlefield….

Goliath himself had a shield bearer precede him, possibly to indicate to Goliath the direction of the approaching foe.

Donnelly and Morrison then cite the other medical experts who have speculated on Goliath’s condition, as “fact”:

The fact that Goliath may have had a pituitary tumour was recognised by Vladimir Berginer in a paper in 2000.

For the reasons provided above, the conclusions of those who have attempted to diagnose Goliath are far from “fact”. The modern diagnosis of Goliath is an entirely misguided enterprise from the get go. It is made more absurd in this case by the misinterpretation of biblical passages as involving a “family tree” where there is none in fact. In their acknowledgements, the authors thank “the theological reviewer who carefully checked our statements on the Biblical giants for accuracy and who provided very helpful comments including original Hebrew text”. Donnelly and Morrison would have received better advice if they had been told to stick to the diagnosis of living patients and leave biblical characters alone.

Believing in the Nephilim with L.A. Marzulli: On The Trail of The Nephilim

L.A. Mazulli, On The Trail of The NephilimProphecy in the News recently interviewed L.A. Marzulli about his book On The Trail of The Nephilim. It is interesting to consider what drives a theory which many would dismiss as conspiratorial or, conversely, to consider the contextual and social factors which make it compelling to Marzulli and to many of his readers.

According to Marzulli, discoveries of giants skeletons in Ohio and Indiana have been covered up by the scientific community, because it contradicts the presuppositions of their Darwinistic worldview:

It comes down to this: that we are – academia, and the scientific community runs under a Darwinian worldview, a Darwinian paradigm. Everything is filtered through that… through Darwinism. And unfortunately, or, I should say, fortunately for us, as Christians, these skeletons go against the Darwinian paradigm. It makes no sense.

Similarly, on the L.A. Marzulli website, the summary of the book describes scientists and archaeologists as involved in a “cover-up”:

This book is the culmination of a lengthy search for the physical evidence of the Nephilim, the Giants of Old Testament lore. A significant cover-up has taken place over the years, reducing these double-digit, gigantic hybrids to the dustbins of history. You’re going to read about the organizations behind this Darwinian-flavored scheme and why they hate the bones and skulls of the Nephilm so much. They’ll go to incredible lengths to make this evidence disappear!

So there is a double thrill of secret knowledge: both in the ‘knowledge’ of giant skeletons and the confirmation that the Bible reveals the truth about the past.

Another comment by Marzulli shows how his theory reduces the dissonance caused by Yahweh’s genocide of entire nations, during what the book of Joshua presents as the Israelite settlement of the land. How does he reconcile the image of the Israelite God in Joshua – disregarding the lives of entire peoples and killing men, women, and children alike – with the Christian conception of a loving God who wishes to save all people? You, quite literally, demonize the enemy:

The theory is, as Joshua and Caleb pushed into the Promised Land, we see all those different tribes: Nephilim tribes – Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, the Canaanites, Perizzites – all these Nephilim tribes. And I believe each one had, perhaps, a different physical charactistic.  So as Joshua and Caleb come into the Promised Land, what we see, in my opinion, is this diaspora. The giants realise, the Nephilim realise,  the mandate has gone out to wipe them all off – men, women, children. And remember, these are demonic, hybrid beings, they are Nephilim. And no grace and mercy is shown by a loving – the same loving God in the Old Testament that we serve today – no difference. The judgement is severe, its final, and the giants see this, know this.

The explanation not only takes account of the Anakim and Rephaim mentioned in Numbers 13-14 and Deuteronomy 1-3, but other peoples usually not considered giants – even the Canaanites. And so the theory that the people of the land were all demonic hybrids safeguards the Christian God’s loving nature.

A further impetus for Marzulli’s theory comes in the form of the widely held idea that elements from the beginning of time will be repeated at the end of time: the Urzeit/Endzeit association. One reason these ancient ideas are so thrilling to Marzulli and his readers is that they foreshadow, and appear to provide evidence for, the end of time, including the expected return of Jesus, God’s destruction of all enemies (including the demons and Darwinians):

Jesus says, sorts of admonishes us, gives us a very clear warning: it will be like the Days of Noah when I return – I’m paraphrasing – it will be like the days of Noah when the Son of Man returns – which immediately begs the question: what differentiates the Days of Noah from any other time in history. And of course it’s the presence of the Fallen Angels coming down, having – doing the unspeakable – having sex with the women, and creating this hybrid entity or being known as the Nephilim. In my opinion, this has happened all through our history. The first incursion, of course, is Genesis 6. But then there’s another incursion. We see the same penalty meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah: wipe them all out; there’s not a shred of grace or mercy with Sodom and Gomorrah. We see the same thing again when they push into the Levant, when Joshua and Caleb go into the Promised Land, the same idea: there’s not a shred of grace or mercy.

Here the eschatological expectation is combined with a further apologetic explanation for God’s lack of grace or mercy shown towards the original inhabitants of the Promised Land.

Although regularly dismissed as a fringe or conspiracy theory, we can see ways in which L.A. Mazulli’s theory gains credibility by appealing to other important beliefs of the wider Christian community and offers dissonance resolution in respect of conflicts and doubts regarding evolutionary science and ethical doubts concerning the conquest narratives which have also concerned a much wider section of contemporary Christians.

Recent Giant Scholarship

Israeli Ministry of Tourism logoWhat are biblical scholars saying about the Giants in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible? The latest word in biblical scholarship can be found here:

Galbraith, D. (2013). “Manufacturing Judean Myth: The Spy Narrative in Numbers 13–14 as Rewritten Tradition”(Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy)

Among the findings:

(1) the Hebronite traditions (concerning the Judahite leader Caleb, the city of Hebron, and ‘the sons of Anak’ who inhabit Hebron) are not vestiges of ancient legend which have been preserved in the text, but are all secondary to the spy-rebellion tradition derived from dtr Deut. 1;

(2) gigantic stature was first attributed to the sons of Anak and Nephilim in the composition of Num. 13–14, and to the Anakim and Rephaim of Deut. 1–3 in post-deuteronomistic Hexateuchal additions which harmonised the text with the expansionary Num. 13–14;

(3) the extension of the term ‘Rephaim’ to denote entire giant peoples throughout their associated territories also originates with the Hexateuchal harmonisations in Deut. 1–3;

And a detailed interview with the author can be found on Jim West’s blog, Zwinglius Redivivus:

“Scholars You Should Know: Deane Galbraith”

I know, I know – such gratuitous self-publicity…