David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Where are the giants? The ancient Gigantes. Remember the Titans, the Cyclops, and all the sons of Uranus and Gaea? These fought the Olympians in the Gigantomachy. But even the 5th century BC historian Herodotus dispensed with mythical foundations in The Histories. And Homer (ca. 850 BC) but mentions the Gigantes in The Odyssey (vii). Pausanias (2nd century AD) of course makes nothing of the ancient stories in his Guide to Greece.
What’s lacking in the ancient Greek tales of Titans is the measurements, the detailed description of height and weight. All that is given is description of power and account of deeds. Giants seem to be an account of natural phenomenon otherwise unaccountable, like earthquake, storm, volcano, etc. Normal man could make such noise on a small scale, but, for the big time, his imagination projected big men.
Comanches did the same mind trick on occasion. The piles of prehistoric mastodon bones they found out on the dry west Texas plains they likened unto the pellets of giant owls. There was an evil Owl that, like a boogie man, snatched up children who wandered off into mischief.
David holds up the severed head of the slain Goliath.
Many cultures of the world have their tales of giants. But, interestingly, only the Bible offers some detailed measurements. (Leave it to the Jews to be accurate and exact!) Remember Goliath? He was six cubits and a span. Research shows this to mean Goliath was over nine feet tall. The head of the spear he used weighed six hundred shekels of iron–some 20 pounds. Of course, it is difficult to know exactly what the modern equivalents are for the ancient measurements, but, it is clear that the Hebrew story means to be exact, unlike any other ancient accounts. And, too, the Hebrew story occurs around 1000 BC. There is a lot of written history by that point. This is not comparable to a myth, in the sense that it is preserved imagination from eons before. The age of myth making was long gone by the end of the first Iron Age.
So where are the giants? What has taken their place? The refusal to believe uncomfortable things? Science, we call it? Certainly, the global tyrannists have undermined any real public confidence in science.
In Elie Wiesel’s The Night Trilogy (1960), he observes with candor the refusal of the eastern European Jews of his homeland to believe that Germany was persecuting Jews. Optimists often deny the forecasts of gloom. It is their nature. Courage never succumbs to ill winds of public gossip (news media). But, sometimes optimism can be dangerous. Well-being sometimes is better procured by realism.
Yet, on the matter of believing the unbelievable, we have some basic psychological law to deal with. For those who say they believe the Bible, they simply need to consider the height of Goliath. Six cubits and a span. A cubit is 17 or 18 inches, from elbow to finger tip. A span is the width of the palm. Do we believe Goliath was over nine feet tall? According to the Bible, there was a whole tribe of giants, called Anak (Anakim), east of Jordan. They terrified the the Hebrews, and part of the reason they failed to enter the Promised Land the first opportunity (Numbers 13:33).
Anak may have been a community of pituitary hypertrophs, but they were not mythical. (Even as late as 1940, Robert Pershing Wadlow reached 8.11 feet at the age of 22, when he died, and showed no signs of cessation). The point here is that, in all probability, the dearth of giants is related to the impossible logistics of daily life. The nephilim or Rephaim of Genesis 6:4 may have mythical elements, but the same word is used of Anak. Whatever the case, the phantasms of myth must never obscure the anomalies of earth.
All this, I say, to encourage those patriots in the land who are witnessing the destruction of America. We never thought it would happen here. We never believed America would utterly rot within. We couldn’t, we wouldn’t believe such a thing. No such giants. No such mythical terror. And yet, we see it, before our very eyes. And still, most of us find it hard to really believe it. We may assent to startling facts, but, emotionally, we disguise it. If we really felt it, there would be a forceful revolution in a matter of weeks. Washington would be surrounded by the people, an armed populace, and the DC traitors would be put in chains.
We are weak in faith, perhaps. Preoccupied with the giant logistics of complexity in our own lives. Distracted by our personal aspirations. Willing to look the other way, willing to live with ominous news, without taking it to heart.
But we shouldn’t put too much hope in the 2010 congressional elections. The dye is cast. The trend is set. The lies of the Left are dominant. While we luxuriated in freedom, they planned our destruction. They have won. Without firing a shot, the tryannists have “changed” America.
Now we have a real giant on our hands. We need courage, but also accuracy. Deadly aim. We need someone to talk directly about what a nation is, what a nation requires to be a nation, and what we will have to sacrifice in order to remain the nation the founders intended. The problem right now is this: many people can’t comprehend the need to preserve the foundations of the country. They have succumbed to the giant already.
16 responses so far ↓
1 Smile // Oct 21, 2009 at 2:06 pm
We’re mostly a fearful people, full of doubt.
Hmm, just like in the Bible.
It’s curious that the Bible is so quickly relegated to myth, by some. As if anything that doesn’t fit our human reasoning is absurd or only an analogy. Yet, these same people will believe many other things with far less evidence.
Some of these will see no problem in speaking to a person who has died, the same can think it ridiculous to have a discussion with the Holy Spirit.
It’s a special aversion to all things Christian. Other religions aren’t subjected to nearly as much derision.
Look at global warming. This was on the basis of twelve trees (known to be of a type faulty for this process) and plenty of other misinformation. It’s amazing how dogmatic people are on this, regardless.
BTW, a great book on this is ‘The Case for Christ’ by Lee Strobel. Have you read it?
Have a good evening, Dr. Yeagley, and fear not but only believe
2 David Yeagley // Oct 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I wish I were a better shot. Giants have their vulnerability, accord to the Xena legends as well.
No, I haven’t read the Strobel book. I don’t read much Christian literature, for some reason. I study the Bible incessantly. For a thousand years. I’ve read a few Christian books, though, but, I’m probably not up on the ‘jargon.’ A real paster would be up on it all…
3 John Sandusky // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Actually a story very similar to that of David and Goliath appears in the Iliad, where the young Nestor fights and conquers the giant Ereuthalion.
Also, the earliest manuscripts of the story of David and Goliath that follows the story of Nestor, has Goliath measuring in at a much more realistic 6 feet 6 inches.
In the Pseudo-Philo account, Goliath and David were cousins and a more plausible account is told when the slayer of Goliath turns out to be an angel.
Speaking to Goliath, he (David) says: “Hear this word before you die: were not the two woman from whom you and I were born, sisters? And your mother was Orpah and my mother Ruth…” After David strikes Goliath with the stone he runs to Goliath before he dies and Goliath says, “Hurry and kill me and rejoice,” and David replies, “Before you die, open your eyes and see your slayer;” Goliath sees an angel and tells David that it is not he who has killed him but the angel.
America needs more divine intervention from Gods messengers, or is America, Goliath, and the stoning is just around the corner.
4 John Sandusky // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath
5 David Yeagley // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:31 pm
John, I generally don’t consult Wikipedia when in comes to biblical studies. Also, when I was at Yale, I became familiar with the major anti-semitic German trends in “scholarship,” and I learned early on that one cold not trust “higher criticism.” It is all based on the false premise that whatever was written down first is the basis for all that was written down later.
Yet, the same anti-semitic, atheist “scholars” scoff at anything written down in the Bible, saying that oral tradition underwent generations of “evolution” before it ever became written down.
Such unbeliever “scholars” want it both ways, like most liberals.
Oral tradition and written tradition are not at all necessarily related. When something is written down is no indication of what oral tradition it came from originally.
I saw too many inconsistencies in scholarship, methodology, and motive, when I was in theology school. I feel perfectly confident in believing what the Bible says. No intellectual embarrassment whatsoever.
And, no, I don’t believe in global warming or climate change. Do you?
6 David Yeagley // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:54 pm
So, you don’t believe the books of Samuel were written when they say they were written? Most biblical scholars do believe they were from the 1000’s or the perhaps the 10th century. Homer wrote down his stories a good while after, if we’re going to play the scholar’s chronology game. And, I’m talking biblical scholars, not Wikipedia quotes.
Baruch Halpern apparently has no problem with the chronological authenticity of 1 and 2 Samuel. Even a German-based scholar like J. Maxwell Miller doesn’t find it necessary to question the chronology of the books of Samuel.
What I’m saying is, if you count written stories as precedents, Samuel came before Homer. If Homer is based on Greek oral tradition, you have no way of knowing when the origin of those stories were. He could easily have borrowed from sources outside Greece, like…Palestine.
7 John Sandusky // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“Except for a few passages in Aramaic, appearing mainly in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, these scriptures were written originally in Hebrew during the period from 1200 to 100 bce. The Hebrew Bible probably reached its current form about the 2nd century ce.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259039/Hebrew-Bible
The Iliad dates from 12BC to 8 or 9BC.
I don’t know exactly when the Iliad or any of the Books of the Old Testament were written and neither do you. Furthermore, pointing out possible stories of the ancients that possibly predate Biblical accounts and yet are clearly similar promotes an open and healthy mind.
There are scholars that claim the first works of the Old Testament were written in Mesopotamia and that the story of the Great Flood was a re-telling of the Sumerian version of the epic event that dates from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BCE) (Dalley 1989: 41-42).
Doctor, you are free to be as perfectly comfortable with your choice of beliefs as you see fit. But I will say this — I question the sincerity of a person’s beliefs that so quickly claims scholars are bigots that don’t parrot their own.
8 Billy Reynolds // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Doc, I think John proved your point about scoffing atheist intellectual liberals…
did I add bigots to that?
If one gets away from Google (you know the search engine created by that orthodox jew and the atheist college boy) one finds the wisegeek claiming:
Job is considered as written between 2166-1876 BC. Genesis, Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are dated at about 1400 BC. Joshua and Judges are dated at sometime between 1400-1000 BC. Ruth, Samuel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written between 1050-900 BC. Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Nahum, and Zephaniah were written in the 800s- 700s BC. Jeremiah, Daniel, Kings, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, and Lamentations are dated in the 600s BC. Haggai, Zechariah, Ester, Chronicles, Ezra, Malachi, and Nehemiah were written from around 600- 440 BC.
Guess it all depends on what you believe the Bible to be, that shapes the way you believe what’s in it and where (and when) it comes from.
9 Billy Reynolds // Oct 22, 2009 at 12:00 am
By the way… I thought we were talking about 9 foot giants and the decline of white America?
Both could be an extreme view of an unprovable hypothesis.
Didn’t someone also say the redman was finished? I know better than to believe everything I read on the internet.
10 David Yeagley // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:36 am
Billy, gotta love it!
Hey, I’m always up for a good academic debate. No hard feelings here.
John: I simply assert that oral tradition precedes written account, and, that being the obvious case, the writing down of a story is never the origin of the story itself. But, in our I,II Samuel case, the writing down preceded Homer’s writing down. I think that is indisputable, even in academic circles. Homer collected stories without knowing their age or origin. Mary Lefkowitz, and even Richard Poe, do not dispute this. But this kind of story collecting isn’t how the Bible came into being, historically.
Here is a quote from the Cambridge History of the Bible (1970):
For the most part we are limited to what actually stands in the Old Testament books, and any speculation about the process involved in the formation of these books must be such as to provide an explanation of how the material came to be as we now have it..
Make sense? It means that the Biblical text pretty much is what it says it is. In house Jewish history, most of which is varified by royal records left by surrounding nations.
Billy I don’t know where you got your information about the dates of the books, but, there is definitely debate about that. Indeed, it is all debated, professionally. Professors get tenure off essays on single syllables. Believe me, I’ve seen it all. I went through hell at Yale Divinity.
Just, in this case, I think it is quite clear that Samuel preceded Homor, even in the written phase. It cannot be probable that a Jew in the hills of Judea in 1000 BC could have known of any supposed “giant” tale in the Grecian isles. I think it is obvious that the Greek myth was either borrowed from Palestinian folklore, or simply represents some psychological (Jungian) archetype. The detail of the Goliath story, however, would represent one fancy, dressed-up archetype!
11 David Yeagley // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:39 am
John, the Illiad was written down by Homer. Homer lived after Samuel. Homer made no attempt to scientifically date the stories he was recounting. The Bible literature is generally very exact about dates. This is one of the unique things about Hebrew literature.
The geneaolgy lists, beginning in Genesis, are unique. The lists of kings (Syrian) and Pharaohs (Egyptian) do not give biographical dates of individuals, but only the chronological order of the kings. Genesis tells how long certain people lived, and even when they had certain childred. We are talking about numerical figures, not just chronological name order.
12 John Sandusky // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Is there any wonder folks why the neo-Evangelicals split from these Fundamentalists?
In 2004 Azzan Yadin suggested that the armour described in 1 Samuel 17 is typical of Greek armour of the 6th century BCE rather than of Philistine armour of the 10th century, and that narrative formulae such as the settlement of battle by single combat between champions is characteristic of the Homeric epics (the Iliad) but not of the ancient Near East. Yadin also suggested that the designation of Goliath as a איש הביניים, “man of the in-between” (a longstanding difficulty in translating 1 Samuel 17) appears to be a borrowing from Greek “man of the metaikhmion (μεταίχμιον).” Azzan Yadin’s ‘Goliath’s Armor and the Israelite Collective Memory,’ appeared in Vetus Testamentum 54:373-95 (2004).
And by the way Azzan Yadin is an Associate Professor of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University. He holds a B.A. from Hebrew University and Ph.D. from University of California Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union. Professor Yadin is the author of “Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash” (University of Pennsylvania Press, June 2004).
No doubt this learned man is a twisted-bigot bound for hell-fire in the eyes of the Fundamentalists.
13 John Sandusky // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Doctor, I think you may want to brush up on Homer. The prevailing thought now a days is that the Iliad and the Odyssey was written by more people than Homer.
Also, using your MO, the oral record of what all those people wrote in the Iliad and the Odyssey could have been passed down from the Greeks centuries before actually being written.
One must watch out for those Fundamentalist geeks and their biased position.
14 hulagirl // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:15 am
John almost made sense until he went for the pejorative “fundamentalist geek”, as if presumably only his kind can be intellectual. In any event the comment I wanted to make was w/regards to revolution. I think perhaps why the lack of urgency over what is happening can be attributed to the romanticizing of Europe, that has been happening in this country for decades. They are so hip and cool you see, it would be GOOD for America to get with the program, it’s not so bad, it works for them. Obviously that’s a stupid and ignorant opinion to hold but it is prevalent and has trickled down throughout our culture already. You know, one world, we are the world, etc etc
15 Smile // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:47 am
“Doctor, you are free to be as perfectly comfortable with your choice of beliefs as you see fit. But I will say this — I question the sincerity of a person’s beliefs that so quickly claims scholars are bigots that don’t parrot their own.”
I’ll assume you meant to say that one could “question the sincerity of a person’s beliefs that so quickly” claim ANYONE who doesn’t agree must be a bigot, because I imagine you aware that we should all look first into our own mirror.
“The prevailing thought…” By all means, popularity has its perks and followers.
16 John Sandusky // Oct 24, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Yes Smile, looking into ones mirror is a good step, but looking into ones own heart is a better one.
Above all though, don’t presume that you know full well the content of an other’s heart on such skimpy evidence as an intellectual difference of opinion.
Simply because a belief is popular does not mean it’s wrong. Unless an implacable contrarian thinker is at work.
“Doctor, you are free to be as perfectly comfortable with your choice of beliefs as you see fit. But I will say this — I question the sincerity of a person’s beliefs that so quickly claims scholars are bigots that don’t parrot their own.”
Why would you have to assume anything other than what is contained in this statement? The statement is crystal clear.
You must log in to post a comment.