Clash of the Manuscripts: Goliath & the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament — Bible Study Magazine / Patrick Fore Michael S. Heiser Goliath may have been killed three thousand years ago, but he’s still an imposing obstacle—this time to Bible scholars. But how can a story so easily followed by children be a conundrum for scholars? It happens all the time when you study Hebrew manuscripts. The story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17) presents a number of thorny problems to textual critics, scholars who specialize in studying manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible to determine the precise reading of the original text. Let’s look at two examples. How Tall Was Goliath? First Samuel 17:4 notes that Goliath’s height was measured at “six cubits and one span,” about nine feet, six inches. That measurement comes from one Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic text, a text that was fixed around 100 AD by the Jewish community in Israel. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were other editions of the Hebrew Bible.

One of those was the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament,1 was translated. The Septuagint at times disagrees with the Masoretic text. The Septuagint has the height of Goliath at four cubits and one span, or about six feet, six inches. The only Hebrew text of 1 Sam 17:4 found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also reads “four,” and the Jewish historian Josephus describes Goliath as, “a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness.2” The textual evidence is clearly on the side of the shorter Goliath, but that has no real importance for interpretation.

Archaeologists have long noted that male human skeletal remains from the biblical period have an average height of slightly less than five and a half feet, so even the shorter Goliath was quite a bit taller than most people the Israelites had ever seen.3 The relatively diminutive stature of Israelites also helps us understand the comment in 1 Sam 9:2, that “from his shoulders upward [Saul] was taller than any of the people.” Saul should have been the one fighting Goliath, not David, and so the story makes clear who had God in his corner. Saul had been rejected as king; David was now Israel’s champion. A Man of Vast Bulk: Goliath's Height Who Killed Goliath? The second example is much trickier. Second Samuel 21:19 records the violent death of Goliath but appears to flatly contradict the account in 1 Sam 17, where David slays the giant: Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Unless David and Elhanan are the same person,4 we have a pretty clear problem that needs resolution. The key to unraveling the statement that Elhanan killed Goliath is found in 1 Chr 20:5, which is a parallel passage to 2 Sam 21:19: Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. This verse allows us to say that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother, not the more famous warrior defeated by David. That might erase the tension between 1 Sam 17 and 2 Sam 21:19, but now we have a contradiction between 1 Chr 20:5 and 2 Sam 21:19! Fortunately, there’s a way out of this mess, but it’s complicated. Get ready for some scribal detective work—pay close attention to the colors. The word in brown (ʾoregim), colored three times, is exactly the same.

It means “weaver,” but in the first line of 2 Sam 21:19 it is awkwardly placed after the name “Jaare.” The only way to make sense of this was to make the word part of the proper name, and so we have “Jaare-Oregim” in our verse. This raises suspicions for those who work in the Hebrew text since our word in brown is never used in conjunction with a proper name anywhere else in the Bible—it is always a common noun. Further in 2 Sam 21:19 the brown word appears twice­—this also doesn’t happen anywhere else in the Bible. Taking these oddities together suggests very strongly that somewhere along the chain of copying the text of 1 Sam 17 one scribe made a mistake in 2 Sam 21:19 that caused a subsequent scribe some trouble. Most likely, we have a situation where a scribe knew he had a defective text and tried to improvise the best way he could. Explaining why this is the best approach to our problem requires reconstructing the scene of the crime. Our first step is determining if our brown word was indeed mistakenly repeated.

We can test that idea by removing it to see what we get. When we remove the word, the verses are nearly identical in form and meaning. This is a solid lead that some scribe in the past encountered a manuscript with the extra brown word and had to somehow deal with it. We’ll put the brown word back in a moment to explain the other errors in the manuscript so we can reach a complete solution. Our next step is to notice that the red letters in the text are identical but are not translated the same way. This is because of the small word highlighted in blue that follows the red-lettered word. In 2 Sam 21:19 the word consists of two letters and is untranslated because its sole job is to mark the direct object of the sentence.5 In 1 Chr 20:5 this word consists of three letters and means “brother of.” The first two letters of both words (תא / חא) look nearly identical. This is an important clue. At this point, we have the raw materials to reconstruct what happened.

If we assume that the scribe working on the manuscript of 2 Sam 21:19 had the wrong two-letter combination in his manuscript (תא instead of חא, the result of an error by an earlier scribe), the preceding words would make no sense. Here’s what I believe our unfortunate scribe was looking at (putting our suspicious brown word back in to illustrate his defective manuscript). Translated literally, the scribe would be reading, “And Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim killed Lahmi Goliath the Gittite.” The word that makes the sentence incoherent is Lahmi, the word colored in red. The scribe would know that this word could mean “my bread” if it was a common noun, but this would be gibberish (“And Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim killed my bread Goliath the Gittite”). He also would have known that “Lahmi” never occurred anywhere else in his Bible as a proper name or another name for Goliath. By itself, then, Lahmi didn’t even make sense as a proper name (though it would if he had been reading “brother of” instead of the direct object marker).

Our scribe’s solution was to remove some letters and substitute others (colored in green). The result of these changes is “the Bethlehemite,” which makes the sentence comprehensible (“And Elhanan, son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite”). But while this makes perfect grammatical sense, the scribe’s clever attempt at dealing with his defective manuscript was what produced our problem, the contradiction with David’s slaying of Goliath! The solution to the contradiction between 2 Sam 21:19 and 1 Chr 20:5 is recognizing that 2 Sam 21:19 is a defective reading since it is the result of a scribe’s sincere effort to cope with a problematic manuscript. We can account for the oddities in 2 Sam 21:19, by working our way to the precise reading of 1 Chr 20:5. Doing so erases all the contradictions, and so 1 Chr 20:5 should be used to correct 2 Sam 21:19.

David killed Goliath as 1 Samuel 17 says, and Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. A Man of Large Strides: Goliath's Foot Size How tall was Goliath? How tall was Goliath? Subscribe to our Question of the Week : Question: "How tall was Goliath?" Answer: Goliath is a biblical character found in 1 Samuel 17. The Bible says he was a large man who fought as a champion for the Philistine army against God’s people, the Israelites. How tall was Goliath in reality? Normally, we equate him with a giant, as most Bible translations state that he was over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4, NIV). The Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text that has long been accepted by the Jewish people, states that Goliath’s height was “six cubits and one span.” Taking a cubit to be approximately eighteen inches and a span to equal six, this figures to a height of approximately nine feet, six inches. It seems Goliath may have had some Anakim blood in him (see Deuteronomy 9:2).

There is, however, a variation found in some ancient texts on the matter of Goliath’s height. A Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint , records Goliath’s height as four cubits and one span. Current measurements translate this to about six feet, six inches. While this would shorten Goliath some, he still would have been quite a bit taller than the average man’s height at that time—about five and a half feet. There are other sources that corroborate the shorter measurement, including one Hebrew text among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. The NET Bible goes with the shorter height, saying that Goliath was “close to seven feet tall” (1 Samuel 17:4). When it comes to the deviation between these measurements , it is important to note a couple things. First, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The difference may be due to how the measurements were translated into Greek for the Septuagint. Second, the measurement of a cubit is not precise, since a cubit was based on the distance from a person’s elbow to the tip of a finger.

Thus, the length of a cubit would vary somewhat, according to the one doing the measuring and the length of his arm. Regardless of Goliath’s precise height, we know from God’s Word that he was a formidable opponent. He was not only tall—at least a foot taller than David, and possibly several feet taller—he was also strong. His bronze armor alone weighed 125 pounds (1 Samuel 17:5), and he carried a giant-sized spear (verse 7). There was a reason that Goliath was the “champion” of the Philistines (verse 4). In the end, however, a young man named David, armed with only a simple sling, a few rocks , and faith, defeated this enemy of Israel. David proved stronger than Goliath because he had the almighty God on his side. How Tall Was Goliath? Fun With Cubits | Blogcritics Home / Culture and Society / Science and Technology / How Tall Was Goliath? Fun With Cubits How Tall Was Goliath? Fun With Cubits Posted by: Mental_Floss June 25, 2007 in Science and Technology 12 Comments Please Share...

0 0 Just how long is a cubit? It depends on whom you ask. Noah’s cubit was somewhat longer than the Egyptian, Greek and Roman cubit. For Noah, the cubit was the measurement from his elbow to the tip of his middle (longest) finger. This inexact measurement likely caused great problems throughout the world, particularly in Africa, where a cubit could range anywhere from less than 12 inches (for pygmy cultures) to more than 36 inches (for the Watusi). Most sources agree that a cubit in the Bible was equal to 21.8 inches, an Egyptian cubit was equal to 20.6 inches, a Greek cubit was equal to 18.3 inches, and a Roman cubit was equal to 17.5 inches. To complicate things, there is another type of cubit. A “short” cubit is the length of the forearm, not including any part of the hand. Scholars believe that this unit was occasionally used in the Bible as well, as in the case of the height of Goliath.

Said to be “six cubits and a span” tall, David’s target would have been nearly 11 feet tall using a regular cubit, but a more likely height of 6’ 9” using the “short” cubit. Because humans were shorter during ancient times, a man of that height could have been considered a giant, despite the fact that he would have had difficulty dunking on Patrick Ewing. 11 days ago Vince It sounds plausible, but I think the Bible really indicates a height of over 9ft. simply because the weight of his armor is said to be roughly 125 pounds. Add to that a 15 pound helmet, a 37 pound spear, and a shield of Zeus knows how much, we’re talking several hundred pounds of equipment. By contrast, the full plate of medieval knights averaged around 50 lbs, the biggest swords no more than about 12 (most around 5lbs.), and shields weighing less than 15lbs, and a Halberd of around 9lbs. Now does it really sound credible for even a man of 6′ 9″ to be wielding several hundred pounds of equipment and being able to fight?

(That was an honest question by the way. If you think yes, please give reasons why.) Thanks for your time. Joey Medically, a man over 7’6″, in modern times or any time would be suffering from giantism (whatever the word is), and is weaker, by far, than a man of a more normal functional height like 6′ to 6’6″. I’m 5’8″ myself and am built to handle heavier weights as far as pushing/carrying around, than men much taller than myself. Although if he were a true giant, like a different race or almost a different species, then I guess a 10’+ height could explain the heavy weights of those weapons. I figure I couldn’t throw a 37 pound spear far enough to kill anything other than my own foot. Jon Tim Dial you need to actually research height during different ages and stop making up stuff and posting it on line. There is a ton of actual scientific evidence that people today are taller than they were a few hundred years ago. care package There are two main problems with that angle of your religion.

One is how evolutionary ‘arguments’ come about (is like this) – Skeletons of all heights are found, including some dead village people that were short. Let’s use those village people to represent all mankind and say everyone was short then (while we guess at their age based off the tools we find near and how deep the dirt is), that way it helps the evolutionary argument we all came from dumb short half apes. Two, who said taller is better? Are taller people more fit for survival? Don’t taller people need more resources? Wouldn’t it make sense to keep us all 3 feet tall? Let’s make it Three. Three, how do they measure something like that? Collect all skeletons from all places ever found and get an overall average? Speculations of the past is not science. Science is observational. You can believe it all you want. care package There are two main problems with that angle of your religion. One is how evolutionary ‘arguments’ come about (is like this) – Skeletons of all heights are found, including some dead village people that were short.

Let’s use those village people to represent all mankind and say everyone was short then (while we guess at their age based off the tools we find near and how deep the dirt is), that way it helps the evolutionary argument we all came from dumb short half apes. Two, who said taller is better? Are taller people more fit for survival? Don’t taller people need more resources? Wouldn’t it make sense to keep us all 3 feet tall? Let’s make it Three. Three, how do they measure something like that? Collect all skeletons from all places ever found and get an overall average? Speculations of the past is not science. Science is observational. You can believe it all you want. bliffle Obviously evolution is wrong. After all, it’s only a theory and not a fact. I locked a dog and her pups in my car and in a few hours they were all dead. If evolution were a fact instead of a theory they would all be alive today. If I survive the beating my brother promises when he gets back it will be because of Gods will not some flukey theory that depends on chance! Search hebrew - How tall was Goliath? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange How tall was Goliath?

up vote 8 down vote favorite In 1 Samuel 17 , David intends to battle against Goliath and ultimately wins by slinging a single stone into his forehead before decapitating him. As Wikipedia can confirm, there are multiple accounts regarding the height of Goliath, but there doesn't seem to be a canonical source that indicates an accurate height. Is there a canonical reference to Goliath's height? asked Apr 10 '12 at 20:29 stevie migrated from scifi.stackexchange.com Apr 10 '12 at 21:32 This question came from our site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. Septuagint Masoretic QSam 4 and the Septuagint read "four cubits" in Hebrew and Greek respectively. The Masoretic Hebrew texts on which the King James and later translations are based all have "six cubits". Most people do not consider either QSam 4 or the Septuagint as "canonical". It also depends on what you mean by "accurate". In general, the ancients did not have ready access to standards and the same terms were used for different standards, so accuracy was usually relative to some locally accepted standard.

So for us, the stated measurements give some range of possibilities but not something precise according to our modern ideas of precision. Four cubits was an adequate height for Goliath with respect to pre-exilic standards of nutrition and possible use of the larger Sumerian cubit . By Second Temple times there might have been pressure to revise the text to maintain the same height according to the Roman cubit which was nearly 20% shorter , or the same impression of height relative to a better nourished population. Another reason to make it six cubits is the meter and alliteration of I Samuel 17:4: v'yetse ish habenayim (And a warrior went out) mimahanot plishtim (read "plishtayim" - from the camp of Philistine) Galyat shemo, mi Gat gov'ho (Goliath his name, from Gat his height) shesh amot v'zeret (six cubits and a span) "arba" (four) wouldn't have the same alliteration as "shesh" (six) with "ish", "plish" and "shmo".

I wonder if it wasn't a children's rhyme that got elided into the text. The discrepancy between the older Qsam 4 source and the Masoretic text could also be explained by the fact that Saul was himself "a head above the rest "(1 Samuel 9:2), so Goliath had to be taller than that, and four cubits just does not sound high enough to meet that requirement, even if it was the original wording. A Hasmonean or Pharisaic editing from four cubits to six might have sounded more accurate to most people and thereby helped the these parties in their arguments against the general veracity of the Sadducee transmission of the tradition. (The identification of the Qumran texts with the Sadducee priests deposed by the Hamoneans was made by Prof. Rachel Elior of the Hebrew university.) In any event, we understand the impression that the text intended to give the reader. According to a NET Bible note : Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches.

So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres”). However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold. See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 286, 291. So the first point of confusion is that the text might have been changed as it was copied by scribes over time. (This is actually somewhat rare. The Dead Sea Scrolls strongly support the Masoretic manuscripts that were the result of centuries of copies made by hand.) So the text might have originally read "four cubits and a span" rather then "six cubits and a span" due to the story being exaggerated. The second point of confusion is that the cubit has several definitions over the years.

It's a non-standard unit of measure that corresponds to the length of the human forearm. Similarly, a span was designed to be about the width of a splayed, human hand. However, according to Wikipedia: In ancient times, a span was considered to be half a cubit. As noted above, the approximate length of a cubit is 18 inches and a span is half that. So if you take the Masoretic text as gospel (so to speak), that works out to being 9' 9". But if you follow Josephus, it would be more like 6' 9". That's still very tall by modern standards. Summary There's considerable uncertainty about the text and some uncertainty about the units of measure, but the NET Bible rendering seems appropriate and conservative: Then a champion came out from the camp of the Philistines. His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was close to seven feet tall.—1st Samuel 17:4 ( NET ) up vote 6 down vote Is there a canonical reference to Goliath's height?

As others have said, there cannot be a canonical reference to Goliath's height because measures were not standardized and there is no conclusive evidence to calibrate the measurements given beyond giving us a rough range. As a matter of speculation, however, I favour understanding Goliath to be towards the top end of the range we have, for the following reasons: His armour weighed 5,000 shekels (or about 55kg) which seems to be far higher than the weight of a typical suit of armour for a person of normal size. The surface area of a man twice the height of another would be roughly four times, so a 9' Goliath would have roughly twice the surface of a 6-7' man, and of course the extra weight would require a much stronger man to be able to move with it on (never mind fight). The reaction of the Israelites to Goliath seems a little extreme for a man who is merely tall - on the other hand a man above 9' and built like an ox may have been a truly terrifying sight: All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid.

ESV There "is irrefutable evidence" of a man as tall as 8'11" (and strong evidence that there have, in the more distant past, existed humans much bigger even than that) - so such a height is clearly not beyond the limits of credibility. up vote 2 down vote With 4 cubits and a span I arrive at about 2.34 m, which would amount to even more than 7' 8''. We have to consider the older cubit (of Salomon's time and before), not the later and shorter cubit of the time the Chronicles were written. 1 Kings 6:2 Solomon Builds the Temple ... Now the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, its width twenty, and its height thirty cubits. Ezekiel 43:13 Dimensions of the Altar These are the measurements of the altar in cubits (the cubit is one cubit and a handbreadth) 2 Chronicles 3:3 This is the foundation which Solomon laid for building the house of God: The length was sixty cubits (by cubits according to the former measure) and the width twenty cubits.

old cubit = new cubit + handbreadth 0.52 m = 0.45 m + 0.07 m (approximately) 1 Samuel 17:4-11, King James Version (KJV) And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. And he had an helmet of... Traditional | Alphabetic 4And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. 5And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.#armed: Heb. clothed 6And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.#target: or, gorget 7And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

8And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. 9If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us. 10And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together. 11When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid. Goliath's Height: How Tall Was He? - Bible Study With Randy Bible Study With Randy Goliath’s Height: How Tall Was He? There are two different biblical traditions on Goliath’s height. Exactly how tall was he? Did you know that there are two different biblical traditions for Goliath’s height?

The Hebrew text (MT) of 1 Samuel 17:4 lists Goliath’s height at “six cubits and a span,” while a copy of the book of Samuel from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam[a]) along with copies of the Septuagint (LXX), list Goliath’s height at “4 cubits and a span.” For all you mathematicians that may be reading this, that is a two cubit difference. “Great,” you might say, “what exactly is a cubit?” A cubit is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger, or roughly, 18 inches. We have to add the word “roughly” because, quite obviously, the length from one person’s elbow to the tip of their middle finger may be shorter or longer than that of someone else. To add to the confusion, in the ancient Near East, some countries had what was known as the “royal cubit,” as well as the “common cubit,” which would be a bit shorter. Royal cubits varied from country to country.

For example, the royal cubit in Egypt was 20.65 inches, while in Babylonia it was 19.8 inches ( Clyde E. Billington, “GOLIATH AND THE EXODUS GIANTS: HOW TALL WERE THEY?,” JETS, 50/3, 2007, pp. 489-508 ). Depending on the size of an individual, the common cubit would be even less than the royal cubit. Given that the common height of an ancient Israelite was somewhere between 5 feet and 5 feet 3 inches, this could make the common cubit somewhere between 16-17 inches. Billington notes that an 18 inch cubit would mean the person was about 5 feet 8 inches (taller than most Israelites of this period). Goliath’s height was either 4 or 6 cubits and a span. A span is the length between the thumb and the little finer with the hand spread as far apart as possible. These various measurements of the cubit are only the beginning of the uncertainty regarding Goliath’s height, because we also must consider how long a “span” is.

In the ancient world, a span was the distance between the tip of the thumb and the little finger when the hand was spread apart. Billington estimates that a person who is 5 feet tall would have a span of about 7 1/2 inches. At 6 feet tall, my own span measures 8 3/10 inches. Like a cubit, the length of a span depends on the size of the person. Two spans are usually considered to make a cubit, although they are in fact a little short of a cubit. By using the conventional 18 inch cubit and 9 inch span (both of which seem too large for an ancient Israelite), Goliath’s height either comes to 9 feet 9 inches (MT), or 6 feet 9 inches (4QSam[a] and LXX). These are the heights we frequently hear referenced by pastors and teachers when commenting on 1 Samuel 17:4 . However, if we adjust the size of the cubit and span to what would be more likely for an ancient Israelite, then, according to Billing, 16.5 inches would be a reasonable cubit and 7.5 inches would equal a span.

Some quick calculations make Goliath’s height, according to the MT, to be about 8 feet 9 inches (8.875), and according to 4 QSam(a) and the LXX to be about 6 feet 1 inch (6.125). This second figure seems impossibly low for a “giant” like Goliath and we might be tempted to automatically throw it out as a possibility. However, two considerations should be borne in mind. First, we should not judge Goliath’s height based on modern standards, but rather on ancient Near Eastern standards. Today someone who is 6 feet or taller is a common occurrence, but remember, most people in the ancient world were nearly 9 inches to 1 foot smaller. Second, it is important to examine the textual evidence for each reading. In other words, which reading, “4 cubits and a span,” or “6 cubits and a span,” seems to have the most solid evidence for being the original reading?

Illustration of David Killing Goliath by Anton Robert Leinweber — Image by © Lebrecht Authors/Lebrecht Music & Arts/Corbis To summarize, we have seen that Goliath’s height depends on the size of both the cubit and the span, and which reading of the text is the most reliable. This means that Goliath’s actual height could have been anywhere between 6 feet 1 inch and 9 feet 9 inches. Before continuing, when seeking the truth about Goliath’s height, we should caution ourselves concerning our own prejudices. For some, a person 9’9″ is out of the realm of reality, and they would therefore be inclined to the “more reasonable” reading of 6′ 9″ – 6’1″. Others, however, raised on the traditional story of David defeating the giant Goliath, would almost consider it a sacrilege to suggest that Goliath might be in the 6 foot range, as opposed to the 9 foot range. Whichever way our prejudices run, they do not help us get at the truth of Goliath’s height.

Only by examining the evidence, which includes the height of people in the ancient world, the relative lengths of a cubit and span, and the textual evidence for the most reliable reading, will we be be able to come to a conclusion that seems plausible. Which Reading of 1 Samuel 17:4 is the Most Reliable? The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text copied by scribes known as the Masoretes. Our English Bibles traditionally follow the reading of the Hebrew manuscripts known as the Masoretic text (MT). As a result, I find myself partial to the MT. Anytime there is a suggested reading that is different, I want to hang on to the reading of the MT. Why? It is no doubt a very reliable tradition of the text so that’s one reason. But I must admit that the other is, because I’m used to the readings found in the MT (which admittedly is not a good reason). On this particular passage, however, bible scholar, J. Daniel Hays argues in a very convincing way for the reading found in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam[a]) and the Septuagint (LXX).

In other words, he argues that the text should read “4 cubits and a span” (you can find one of his articles, a response to Billington, here ). His reasons are summarized below. The earliest Hebrew manuscript, 4QSam(a), which dates to the middle of the first century BC, reads “4 cubits and a span.” Hays points out that this particular manuscript is 1 ,000 years older than our earliest copy of the MT (935 AD), although he admits that the reading “6 cubits and a span” found in the MT goes back to at least 200 AD. “The major early Septuagint texts all have this reading.” Hays also notes that Josephus refers to Goliath’s height as “4 cubits and a span.” Hays points out the well-known fact that the MT of 1&2 Samuel has a number of scribal errors. Furthermore, although 1 Chronicles does not include the story of David and Goliath, he notes that where 1 Chronicles is parallel with 1&2 Samuel, Chronicles always agrees with the reading of 4QSam(a) and the LXX when it differs from the MT.

Hays also argues that it is much easier to explain how “4 cubits” was changed to “6 cubits” rather than the other way around. The word for “cubit” in verse 4 and “hundred”in verse 7 look very similar in Hebrew. Hays says that a scribe copying the manuscript accidentally looked down at verse 7 and saw the number “6” (as in six hundred) and copied it into verse 4. This is a well-known copying mistake called “parablepsis” (“a looking by the side”). The story never refers to Goliath as a giant. This is an interesting observation frequently overlooked. Although the story clearly does reference Goliath’s size, which would be intimidating whether 4 or 6 cubits is the correct reading, it does not focus on it. I will have more to say about this below. Some argue that the weight of Goliath’s weaponry and armor better fits someone who is 6 cubits rather than 4. However, Hays goes to great lengths to demonstrate that regular-sized people (e.g., in the military) often carry this kind of weight.

Saul’s answer to David as to why he cannot fight him references Goliath’s skill as a warrior, not his height. Some argue against the “4 cubits and a span” reading by saying if Saul was “head and shoulders” taller than anyone else in Israel, and the average Israelite was 5 feet to 5 ‘3″, then Saul would be nearly as tall as Goliath. Hays says that this is precisely the point! Tall Saul should have been the one to face tall Goliath. The interest of the story is to demonstrate Saul’s fear and lack of faith, as he was the most likely candidate to confront Goliath. Conclusion: Goliath’s Height Photos such as these found on the internet are bogus. No archaeologists in the Middle East have ever uncovered a human of this size. Goliath was a descendant of the Nephilim but his height did not consist of the exaggerated height shown here. Although I have always been inclined toward the reading of the MT, as noted above, I must admit that Hays presents some strong arguments. The most convincing to me include what he calls “the external evidence.” This concerns the textual evidence.

The fact that 4QSam(a) is earlier than the MT and that it, and Chronicles, and the LXX, always agree with each other whenever there is a variant is compelling. The well-known problems of scribal errors in the MT of Samuel also contributes to this, as does the fact that parablepsis is a plausible argument for how the reading got changed. Furthermore, Josephus, living in the first century AD is also a witness to the reading “4 cubits and a span.” Hay’s “internal evidence” includes examining the text which involves a discussion of Goliath’s armor and the fact that he is never mentioned as a giant. This was interesting and I agree with Hays to a point on this. However, while 1 Samuel 17 does not call Goliath a giant, there are two other passages that infer he was a descendant of the Nephilim. Joshua 11:22 speaks about the conquest of the land, especially focusing on the Anakim (descendants of the Nephilim, see my other related posts here and here ). This passage states that the Anakim only remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (all Philistine cities!).

It should be recalled that Goliath is from Gath. The description of his tall stature certainly suggests a connection with the descendants of the Nephilim. Furthermore, 2 Samuel 21:15-22 relates four stories of Philistines who are killed by David’s men. Each one is said to be related to the “giant” (the word is “rapha” which is the singular of Rephaim). This reference is to Goliath and here he is associated with the Rephaim, who were also considered to be descendants of the Nephilim. Therefore, although the story in 1 Samuel 17 may not refer to Goliath as a “giant,” it seems certain that other passages indicate he was a descendant of the Nephilim. However, I still believe the “external evidence” that Hays produces argues for the “4 cubits and a span” reading. Goliath could be a descendant of the Nephilim without being over 9 feet tall. Considering the average height of an Israelite at this time, someone who is roughly 6 1/2 feet would certainly be an intimidating presence.

Finally, in spite of all of the fantastic (trick) photography on the internet, no remains of people who were 9-10 feet tall have ever been found in the Middle East. These pictures of so-called Nephilim are dubious (see photo above on left). Since the average height in the ancient Near East was between 5 feet and 5’3,” and since archaeology seems to confirm this (at least to this point), and since the textual evidence leans toward the reading of “4 cubits and a span,” I conclude that Goliath was most probably on the taller side of the 6-foot range, as opposed to the 9-foot range of the MT. More from my site 1 Samuel 17:4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the … six cubits According to Bp.

Cumberland's calculation, the height of Goliath was about eleven feet ten inches; but Parkhurst estimating the ordinary cubit at seventeen inches and a half, calculates that he was nine feet six inches high. Few instances can be produced of men who can be compared with him. Pliny says, `The tallest man that hath been seen in our days was one name Gabara, who, in the days of Claudius, the late Emperor, was brought out of Arabia: he was nine feet nine inches.' Josephus mentions a Jew, named Eleazar, whom Vitellius sent to Rome, who was seven cubits, or ten feet two inches high. Becanaus saw a man near ten feet, and a woman that was a full ten feet. And, to mention no more, a man of the name of John Middleton, born at Hale, near Warrington, in Lancashire, in the reign of James the First, was more than nine feet high. Dr.

Plott, in his history of Staffordshire, says, that `his hand, from the carpus to the end of the middle finger, was seventeen inches, his palms eight inches and a half broad, and his whole height was nine feet three inches; wanting but six inches of the height of Goliath of Gath.' Jump to Previous On Biblical units of measurements On Biblical Units of Measurements John Byl, Ph.D. Neither the Biblical unit of length (the cubit) nor the Biblical unit of volume (the bath) are known accurately. These two units are related in the account of Solomon's molten sea. Some time ago Gerry Bouw wrote an interesting article in connection with this. 1 In it he raised a number of points that merit further discussion. The Cubit There is general agreement that the cubit was the length measured from the elbow to the tip of the extended middle finger. Although there have been various attempts to determine the precise length of the cubit, none are without problems. According to Powell, the best estimate for the cubit is 50 cm (19.7 inches) give or take 10%. 2 The cubit was further subdivided into fingers, handbreadths, and spans.

According to Powell (and to most commentators) these are probably structured into the system: 4 fingers to a handbreadth, 3 handbreadths to a span, and 2 spans to a cubit. This yields a handbreadth as 1/6 of a cubit. Bouw, on the other hand, takes a handbreadth to be 1/4 of a cubit. He bases this on a typical handbreadth of 4.5 inches, which would be about 1/4 of a cubit. However, this handbreadth presumably includes the thumb. The handbreadth as equivalent to 4 fingers implies that the thumb should be excluded: measure along the base of the four fingers. This yields about 3 to 3 1/2 inches, which is close to 1/6 of a cubit. It should be noted that Josephus also gives 24 fingers to the cubit, 3 and 4 fingers to the handbreadth. The Septuagint translates the handbreadth of Ex. 25:25 as four fingers.

Thus, taking all of this into consideration, I take a handbreadth to be 1/6 of a cubit. The Molten Sea The measure of the bath is, if anything, even more uncertain than that of the cubit. Most estimates range from 20 to 47 litres. The Bible seems to indicate a linkage between the cubit and the bath in the measurements of Solomon's molten sea (I Kings 7:23-26; II Chron. 4:2-5). These texts tell us that the sea was round, had a diameter (from brim to brim) of 10 cubits, a circumference of 30 cubits, a height of 5 cubits, and a thickness of a handbreadth (i.e., 1/6 cubit). Unfortunately, different values for the volume are given: 2000 baths in Kings and 3000 baths in Chronicles. There are two other pertinent ancient sources for these numbers. The Septuagint version gives the same dimensions, except that it gives a circumference of 33 cubits in Kings and 30 cubits in Chronicles.

In Kings no volume is given; in Chronicles it is stated to be 3000 measures. Josephus 4 states that the sea was a hemisphere of 10 feet diameter holding 3000 baths. All commentators agree that the top was circular. A radius of 5 cubits would thus yield 31.4 cubits. This can be reconciled with the 30 cubits by taking the numbers as rounded off (i.e., a precision of 1 significant digit rather than the 3 of the 31.4). It is evident that at least some of these numbers are rounded off since both the volumes and lengths are given to only one significant figure. Since the lengths are easier to measure, it seems natural to assume that the lengths are more precise than the volume. Or, as Bouw and others have suggested, since the sea is stated to have a brim like a cup, the circumference may well have been measured beneath the brim. In this case the actual radius, omitting the brim, would be somewhat less than 5 cubits. Hence there need be no conflict.

In this case the outer radius would be R = 30/2p = 4.77 cubits and the inner radius r = R - 1/6 = 4.61 cubits. The inner height would be h = 5 -1/6 = 4.83 cubits (assuming the bottom is as thick as the sides) or, perhaps, it might be the same as r. What about the shape of the sea? This is critical if we are to relate the bath to the cubit. Although Josephus says it was a hemisphere, other commentators are divided as to whether it should be a cylinder or a hemisphere (or even a cone). The volumes for the various shapes would be: Vh = (2/3)p r3 = 205.2 cubes (i.e., cubic cubits); Vcyl = p r2 h = 322.5 cubes; VCone = Vcyl/3 = 107.5 cubes. Taking the cubit at 50 cm, one cube equals 125 litre.

Then we can calculate the following estimates for the bath: Volume 0.1075 cube/13.4 lr 0.036 cube/4.5 lr A possible uncertainty of 10% in the cubit corresponds to an uncertainty of 30% in the estimate of the bath. This uncertainty is further increased if we take into account that the number of baths (whether 2000 or 3000) may be rounded off to the nearest 100 (or even 1000). This could increase the uncertainty to as much as 55%. If this is to be reconciled with estimates of the bath obtained through other means (i.e., at least 20 litres) then the only viable candidate is the cylinder at 2000 baths, with the hemisphere at 2000 baths and the cylinder at 3000 baths being the only others having even remote chances, within a 55% uncertainty range. (We note in passing that the 37 litre bath obtained by Bouw must be a miscalculation.) The Shape of the Sea What was the shape of the molten sea?

Josephus states that the sea was a hemisphere. Also favouring the hemisphere is the fact that the height equals the radius. This must be considered as purely coincidental if it were a cylinder. Furthermore the phrase round all about suggests a hemisphere. For a hemisphere the 12 oxen with their hindparts underneath the sea would not add to the height of the top of the sea (which is for the priests to wash in), as would be the case for a cylinder (one would estimate that this would add at least a cubit). On these, and other, grounds Scott argues that the shape was hemispherical. On the other hand, Powell and Hognesius both favour a cylinder, although they give no strong grounds for their preference (other than this makes the numbers work out better). All in all, I would conclude that the evidence favours a hemisphere but that a cylinder can't be conclusively ruled out. 2000 or 3000? Hognesius 7 suggests that the Chronicler assumed a cubit one handbreadth larger than the normal cubit (Ezek.

40:5 refers to a long cubit as one handbreadth longer than a common cubit). This would increase the volume by (7/6)3, or 59% (i.e., from 2000 baths to 3179, or roughly 3000). The obvious difficulty with this explanation is that the linear dimensions in Chronicles agree with those in Kings, demonstrating that the same cubit is meant. Thus one would have to argue that the Chronicler either did not know that the cubit in Kings was in fact shorter or that he deliberately exaggerates. Again, either possibility is unacceptable for inerrantists. Using the large cubit ((7/6)x50 = 58.3 cm) would increase all the volumes in the Table by a factor of 59%. In particular, this would increase the bath (for the hemisphere at 2000 baths) to 20.5 litres; for the cylinder at 3000 baths it comes to 21.3 litres.

Yet, if the cubit of the old standard were indeed that large this would increase the height of Goliath (6 cubits and a span, according to I Sam.17:4) from 10 feet 8 inches, already huge, to an incredible 12 feet 5 inches! (It is interesting to note that both Josephus and the Septuagint give Goliath's height as 4 cubits and a span (7 feet 4 inches); the Egyptian killed by Benaiah was 5 cubits tall (8 feet 2 inches or 9 feet 7 inches for large cubits) and, like Goliath, has a spear like a weaver's beam I Chron. 11:23). It might be better to argue that the bath unit of the Chronicler was different from that of the author of Kings. This is in fact done by Powell. He suggests that the 3000 baths is likely the result of Astrological miscalculation, perhaps by misapplying the rule for the ratio (2:3) of liquid to dry capacity.

The difficulty is that the ratio works the wrong way: 2000 liquid baths equals 1333 solid ones. Thus either the Chronicler made a mathematical blunder, as Powell suggests, or it was the author of Kings who applied the solid bath. In the latter case the actual value would be 3000 liquid baths (corresponding to 2000 solid baths). It has been suggested that the discrepancy could be due to a copying error. It is of interest to note that in Kings there is mention of 20 measures (Hebrew: kor) of oil (I Kings 5:11), while the parallel passage in Chronicles refers to 20000 baths of oil (I Chron. 2:10). Elsewhere a kor is said to equal 10 baths (Ez. 45:14). How do we reconcile these? One could speculate that this is a copying error not found in the original manuscript. 8 Could the same perhaps be true of the 2000 (or 3000) baths? However, we need not resort to such conjectures.

An easy resolution is to assume, as Bouw and others 9 suggest, that the 2000 baths refers to the normal level whereas the 3000 baths refers to the maximum capacity. This implies that the actual capacity of the molten sea should be taken as 3000 baths. The 3000 figure has in its favour the fact that it is the one used by both the Septuagint and Josephus. Another Linkage? There is mention also of 10 lavers measuring 4 cubits each and containing 40 baths (I Kings 6:38). These were for rinsing off what was used for the burnt offering; the sea was for the priests to wash in (II Chron.4:6). These seem to have been round (I Kings 6:31), with a diameter of 4 cubits and a depth of at most 3 cubits (Josephus gives 4 cubits), the height of the frame (I Kings 6:27).

Assuming a cylindrical shape, and a thickness of one handbreadth, this yields a bath of at most p(2- l/6)2(3- 1/6)/40 = 0.75 cubes = 93.5 litre. This seem much too large. Perhaps the actual depth of the lever was much less than 3 cubits; or the lever was normally only partially filled. In either case, this is of little help in determining the size of the bath. Conclusion There exists too much uncertainty regarding the length of the cubit and the shape of Solomon's molten sea for a precise determination of the size of the bath unit. The preferred figure of 3000 baths and a hemispherical shape suggests a bath of 8.6 litre, with an uncertainty of at least 30%. A cylindrical shape would give a bath of 13.4 litres. These figures are significantly smaller than estimates of the bath obtained through other methods (primarily archaeological). It is, however, noteworthy that the homer (10 baths) was derived from the armload. Powell estimates that a donkey could carry about 90 kg.

This would equal 90 litres of water, or 9 litres per bath, in excellent agreement with the 8.6 litre estimate based on the hemisphere and 3000 baths. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Gerardus D. Bouw, 1992. Biblical Units of Measurement, The Biblical Astronomer, 2(62):10-14. 2 Marvin A. Powell, 1992. Weights and Measures, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:897-908. 3 The Works of Josephus, (translated by W. Whiston, Hendrickson Pub. 1980), Antiquities of the Jews 3.6.3. 4 Josephus, op.cit., Antiquities 8.3.5. 5 For an account of these see Kjell Hognesius, 1994. The Capacity of the Molten Sea in 2 Chronicles IV 5: A Suggestion, Vetus Testamentum XLIV, 3:349-358. 6 R.B.Y.

Scott, 1958. The Hebrew Cubit, Journal of Biblical Literature 77:205-214. 7 For an account of these see Kjell Hognesius, 1994. The Capacity of the Molten Sea in 2 Chronicles IV 5: A Suggestion, Vetus Testament XLIV, 3:349-358. 8 Actually, the 1 Kings reference refers to 20 baths of pure oil and designates them for Hiram's household. 2 Chronicles 2:10 states that those amounts (including 20,000 baths of oilwithout the word pure) are for Hiram's servants and laborers. (Ed) 9 This was suggested also by John W. Haley, 1874, Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (reprinted in 1977 by Baker Book House), p. 382. Translated from WS2000 on 3 September 2005 by ws2html.

Question: The height of which biblical character was 6 cubits and a span?
Answer: Goliath