How Tall Were the Giants in the Bible?

(Photo from The Seattle Times story found HERE)

It is interesting how from time to time certain subjects pop up with unusual frequency. Over the past couple weeks I have talked to multiple people who were curious about the height of the giants in the Bible.

There is a great deal of information circulating on the internet about these giants along with various theories connecting them to demons, aliens, and various types of governmental and/or scientific conspiracies. I am not going to take the time to deal with all of that, but given all the misinformation I did think it might be helpful to answer the basic question about their height.

Internet references vary widely in their claims but many of them are in the 20 to 30 foot range, and several have heights up to 450 feet tall! Since the Bible is often used to provide support for the idea that these giants existed, I would like to look at what the Bible actually says about the height of the ancient giants.

The Bible does record that giants existed in the ancient world and mentions them in several places. Most of these references do not provide exact height dimensions but describe people of great size and power. A typical example is the report of the spies who were sent to scout the land in Numbers 13 who said,

“…all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  (Numbers 13:32-33 ESV)

or the record in Amos chapter 2 where the Lord says…

“Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks..." (Amos 2:9 ESV)

While clearly references to very large and powerful people, it is not necessary for us to assume that these are literal proportions. It is far more likely that this is figurative language. The point is that they were very large and not that they were actually as tall as trees or could squash normal men under their feet. We can be confident that this is figurative language because there are a few places in the Bible where we are given size dimensions for those who are called giants. Although still remarkably large, they are nowhere as large as some of the internet sources claim.

For example, in 1 Chronicles 11:23 we learn that one of David’s mighty men struck down an Egyptian who was a "man of great stature" who was 7 foot 6 inches tall. The Bible does not refer to this man specifically as a giant, however, he is given special attention as a result of his uncommon height. If there were 450 foot tall men around, I am not sure 7’6” would have been that impressive.

Of course, the most famous giant is Goliath of Gath (2 Samuel 15:21-22). In 1 Samuel 17:4-7 we are told exactly how tall he is. Most translations follow the Hebrew Masoretic text for this verse which reads, "And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span." That is 9 feet, 9 inches tall.

Interestingly, even this height is challenged because there are variant readings of this verse. Many of the oldest versions say Goliath was 4 cubits and a span (6’9”), which is why some English versions, such as the NET, record his height as "close to 7 feet tall".[1] Some argue that the size and weight of Goliath’s armor indicate the 9’ number is more likely. In any case, Goliath is between 7 and 10 feet tall. This is a big man, but nowhere near 20 or 30, let alone 450 feet!

Perhaps even more remarkable than Goliath, however, is the giant named Og who was king of Bashan and likely the tallest man mentioned in the Bible. The Book of Deuteronomy records the following:

"For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit." (Deuteronomy 3:11 ESV)

The Rephaim were considered giants and although the Bible does not give us Og’s specific height, his bed is 13 feet 6 inches long and 6 feet wide. If we assume that the king had a bed that fit him comfortably, it seems reasonable that he was likely between 10 and 12 feet tall.

Again, this is extreme size but nothing close to 20, 30, or 450 feet. Based on the various references given in the Bible it appears the giants of the ancient world were generally between 7 ½ and 10 feet tall. Nowhere in the Bible are there any people who are said to be anywhere close to 20 feet tall.

Where do people get these extreme figures? The exaggerated figures result partially from a blending of biblical texts with ancient mythological texts. Most ancient cultures had stories about giants. Pagan mythological references, as well as non-biblical Jewish literature such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher are frequently referenced.[2]

In an effort to boost the credibility of these books it is sometimes pointed out that although they are not biblical books, the Books of Jasher and Enoch are referenced in the Bible. We need to keep a couple things in mind regarding this. First, the Books of Jasher we now have (there are as many as 5) are not the same Book of Jasher the Bible references (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18). They are much later texts that have been given the ancient name. Second, simply because the Bible references a book does not mean that everything in that book or by that writer is true, good, or even helpful.

We do have copies of the Book of Enoch referenced in the Bible (Jude 1:14). Enoch is a Jewish religious book written during the time between the Old and New Testaments but although well known to both Jews and Christians it is not part of either the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. Intertestamental books like Enoch are important and helpful because they provide insight into the language and culture at the time the New Testament was written, but they are not inspired and therefore not reliable as foundations for doctrine and teaching. In fact, much of what they contain fall into the category of myths and fables that we are warned to avoid (1 Tim. 4:7).

In any case, the 7^th chapter of the Book of Enoch specifically references the height of the giants. The translation I have says, “And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.”[3]  An ancient ell is roughly a cubit or 18 inches. Therefore, the text actually says that these giants were 4,500 feet tall. Many supporters of the extreme figures argue this is a textual error and the verse should read 300 ells, or 450 feet.

Just to put this in perspective, the Statue of Liberty is 151 feet tall. Even if you include the base, she is only 305 feet tall. To give you an idea of the size we are talking about, if the faces on Mount Rushmore had bodies, they would be 465 feet tall.

Compared with these numbers, the 20 and 30 foot references coming from ancient mythological literature do not seem quite as incredible. The bottom line, however, is that none of these extreme figures, including 20 and 30 feet, come from the Bible. The giants whose heights are recorded in the Bible are between 7 and 10 feet tall and one had a bed that was a little over 13 feet long.

---

[1] Examples listing Goliath as around 7 feet include the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel. The ancient Jewish writer Josephus also follows this reading.

[2] Often there are also various problematic archaeological and journalistic references as well.

[3] R. H. Charles and W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Enoch (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), Enoch 7:2–4.

Book Review: Scot McKnight: The Heaven Promise

http://christianaudio.com/the-heaven-promise-scot-mcknight-audiobook-download

There has been no shortage of books on heaven in recent years. Some of them have been fairly solid biblical examinations of the doctrine of heaven and others have been fanciful, if not unfortunate stories that stimulate much discussion about the topic while adding very little in the way of biblical wisdom. In his latest book, The Heaven Promise, Scot McKnight explores the most frequently asked questions about the topic including:

1. What about near-death experiences?
2. What about rewards in Heaven?
3. Who will be there?
4. Is God fair?
5. Will there be families in Heaven?
6. What about children who die?
7. What about cremation?
8. What about Purgatory?
9. Will there be pets in heaven?
10. Why should we believe in Heaven at all?

McKnight examines each of these questions with a mixture of storytelling and biblical exegesis. He relies heavily on a combination of quotations from scholars and theologians who have previously written on the topic and anecdotal stories from people he has met or heard about. 

On a few occasions, he points out a few thought provoking observations that are often neglected in discussions on the topic such as the unity of believers or the nature of the Kingdom mandate and how those influence our thinking about Heaven. More generally, however, he is providing answers, observations, and interpretations that are fairly standard within Christian discussions on the topic.

There are various theological questions bearing upon the way McKnight answers his questions that some believers may wish to examine carefully. His understanding, for example, of the nature of the Kingdom and the responsibilities that implies for our current mandate as Christians to pursue the realization of the Kingdom now is certainly a debated point even among conservative believers. His view on this as well as his views on Christ’s descent, cremation, family relationships, and several other matters are commonly held but are not consensus views. Nevertheless, McKnight is free to present his case and he does provide reasons for his views that are developed enough for a popular work such as this.

Some readers will no doubt be charmed by McKnight’s liberal use of adjectives and his slightly schmaltzy descriptions, other might find it mildly annoying. In either case, it is obvious that he is doing his best to capture the imagination of his readers. The narration was mostly well done but at times I am not sure that Jay Greener captured the rhythm and pacing that McKnight intended.

Overall, the book is a vast improvement over the many pop culture treatments of Heaven to which we have been subjected. Unfortunately, however, the book does not add much of any importance to the discussion that one cannot find in other books on the subject written by conservative Christians. The book is likely to be most helpful to those who have not previously studied the biblical teaching on the subject.

* I received a free copy of this book from christianaudio.com as part of their Review Program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Ezekiel's Daniel

The book of Ezekiel mentions the name Daniel three times. I was recently asked if I could clarify the chronology to explain how those to whom Ezekiel was prophesying would know about Daniel since Daniel is younger than Ezekiel. I commend the brother for paying such close attention to his biblical timelines! In this article, I will attempt to briefly examine the major issues around Ezekiel’s reference and explain why I think this is a reference to the prophet Daniel.

The question has long been debated by critical scholars. The traditional view is that Ezekiel’s Daniel is the same person as the prophet Daniel who was his younger contemporary. Critical scholars, however, often raise several arguments against the traditional view.[1] First, they doubt the younger Daniel could have gained a sufficient reputation to be named by the older prophet, especially along with Job and Noah.

They also point out that the spelling of the name in Ezekiel דנאל (dn'l or Danel) is different from the spelling used elsewhere to refer to the prophet Daniel דניאל (dny'l or Daniel). Historically, those who rejected the traditional view often argued that the reference was to a mythic figure of the same name.[2] In the 1930’s, however, scholars began translating ancient Canaanite texts and the argument that Danel was a mythic figure became strengthened because one of the ancient tales from Ugarit, known as the Tale of Aqhat features a wise man named Danel. This discovery of an ancient Canaanite “hero” using the same name led to a general consensus among critical scholars that this was the probable background for Ezekiel’s reference.

First, let us take a look at the actual references. The first two occur in the 14^th chapter of Ezekiel, both within the context of the coming judgment of God:

“…even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 14:14 ESV)

“…even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.” (Ezekiel 14:20 ESV)

In both of these cases, Daniel is pointed out for his righteousness alongside Noah and Job. The point is that even the intercession of these righteous men would not be enough to restrain God’s judgment. In this context Daniel is an example of the highest standard of righteousness.

The next reference to Daniel comes in chapter 28 within the context of God’s oracle of coming judgment against the King of Tyre:

“…you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;” (Ezekiel 28:3 ESV)

The reference here is God mockingly judging the king for his pride and arrogance with Daniel as an example of a very wise man.

The first question we will address is the spelling difference. Spelling variations are common in the Old Testament and are not by themselves significant. In this case, the un-pointed Hebrew names are exactly the same and even most critical scholars accept that the names may have both been pronounced Daniel. The spelling variation is therefore interesting, but inconclusive. What makes this argument interesting is the reference to the Canaanite figure of the same name, to which we will return shortly.

Second, we must answer is how likely is it that Ezekiel and his audience would have known about Daniel as an example of righteousness and wisdom? This is further complicated by the third reference because in order for those who received Ezekiel’s prophesy to understand the reference, the fame of Daniel had to have spread beyond the Jewish community. Would Daniel be famous enough to be mentioned in the same category as Job and Noah, and to be considered an example of wisdom at such a young age to both Jews and non-Jews? While admittedly remarkable, it is not impossible.

Daniel would have likely been no older than his early 30’s when Ezekiel was called but was already in Babylon for over a decade. Daniel was taken captive in the 3^rd year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Dan. 1:1-6). Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years, then his son, Jehoiachin replaced him and reigned for 3 months before being exiled (2 Kings 24:8[3]). Ezekiel begins his prophetic ministry in the 5^th year of Jehoiachin’s exile. Therefore, Daniel would have been in Babylon for 12 or 13 years when Ezekiel was called. It is possible that another 10 to 20 years may have passed before this specific prophesy was given.

Therefore, although Daniel is younger than Ezekiel it is reasonable that his reputation may have spread by the time Ezekiel is active. The first two chapters of the book of Daniel indicate that Daniel became an important advisor in the court of Nebuchadnezzar very soon after arriving in Babylon and may very well have been famous after only being there a couple of years. The early events of his life, if well known, would have made him famous for precisely the attributes mentioned by Ezekiel, namely his piety and his wisdom, specifically the wisdom to see secret or hidden things (Dan. 2:27-28).

Those arguing for a non-biblical Daniel sometimes point out that neither Noah nor Job are Jewish and argue the inclusion of a famously wise Canaanite would better fit with the other examples. They also submit that a Canaanite reference makes more sense in an oracle to Tyre than does a Jewish prophet. These arguments, however, are not very strong. Although Daniel is Jewish, he is an example of faithfulness lived out in a pagan context and thus complements the others because all three are examples of righteous men who did not live in the Promised Land. It is also not clear that Ezekiel intends any particular significance to the selection of his examples beyond their usefulness as examples of righteousness.

The most persuasive argument to my mind, however, is the overall context of the Ezekiel references. While the Tale of Aqhat depicts the Canaanite Danel as wise, he is not presented as an outstanding example of righteousness. Noah and Job are not Jewish but both worship Yahweh. The Canaanite hero Danel is a polytheist and an idol worshiper. H. H. P. Dressler makes the point clear that it simply makes no sense for Ezekiel to appeal to an idolater who worships false Gods as an example to encourage his people to forsake idolatry. Rather, Daniel is a perfect example of godly wisdom in contrast to the idolatry and false wisdom of Ezekiel’s audience.

Ezekiel’s references to Daniel are not without some difficulty but they involve no logical inconsistency. The most natural reading and the best interpretation, in my opinion, is that by the time Ezekiel is writing the prophet Daniel is already well known for his righteousness and wisdom. When we consider the things the Lord did through him, it is not all that surprising that his reputation would have spread quickly. I suspect the strongest underlying motive of many critical scholars in rejecting the prophet Daniel as the reference is because if Ezekiel’s is talking about Daniel he helps establish the early date of the book of Daniel. That would involve recognizing the supernatural element in Daniel’s prophecies, something that most critical scholars are not eager to accept.

---

[1] The actual critical arguments (and the responses to them) are rather sophisticated. My goal here is to give the general idea. For those who are interested in a more thorough review of the issue I recommend the Bible.org article by Dan Wallace as a good place to start: https://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

[2] Part of the reason why many were reluctant to accept this as a reference to biblical Daniel is because they insisted the book of Daniel was actually written much later.

[3] 2 Kings recounts that Jehoiachin is 18 years old at the time he becomes king but 2 Chronicles records him as being 8 but both confirm that he reigned around 3 months. The discrepancy is possibly a copyist error, the 18 year figure seems more likely given the events in the text although some have argued that both are correct based on possible regency years, etc.

Book Review: David P. Murray- Christians Get Depressed Too

http://christianaudio.com/christians-get-depressed-too-david-murray-audiobook-download

We all know that as believers we are to have the joy of the Lord but as a result of the cookie cutter categories of Christian pop culture, many believers have a difficult time coming to terms with those who are apparently believers and yet struggle with depression and anxiety. There are even many believers who think that a “true” Christian cannot get depressed and that any mental or emotional issues are either the result of sin or demonic oppression. Beyond the popular misconceptions are various disagreements among Christian counselors regarding the issues and how to respond to them.

Thankfully, David P. Murray offers this brief, practical, and caring book on the subject.

Dr. Murray is the pastor of Grand Rapids Free Reformed Church, is Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, has written various other books and is the author of the head heart hand blog (http://headhearthand.org/blog/).

Dr. Murray points out that the common misconceptions about depression and mental illness within the Church are not only unhelpful but can actually be hurtful by increasing the burden of pain and guilt on those who are already suffering. Murray argues from biblical examples that depression is actually something that can and does happen to believers. He insists that we need to overcome the overly simplistic idea that every emotional and mental issue is the result of sin and faithlessness. He argues that the church has a responsibility to help those who suffer and that Christians, particularly pastors and caregivers, should study depression so they understand what it is, what causes it, and how to best help those who suffer from it.

He avoids getting dragged into the theological and psychological controversies surrounding the subject but his balanced treatment gives the listener confidence that he is familiar with them, understands them, and is presenting what he finds to be most practical and helpful. His purpose was to write a book that those who are suffering and those who care for them can use. Readers and listeners who want a more technical or theological treatment will need to go elsewhere. He does, however, include a number of biblical references and a helpful appendix of other works that would be of interest to those who want to study more.

The practical nature of the book can be seen in how Murray organizes the material. He condenses the topic into 6 sections that are organized the following way:

-The Crisis – Why should we study the topic?

-The Complexity – What is the appropriate attitude to approach the topic?

-The Condition – What is it and what does it look like?

-The Causes – Why does it happen?

-The Cures – What can be done?

-The Caregivers – How we can help those in need.

To tackle such a complex topic so briefly and practically is a very difficult thing to do. Dr. Murray has done an outstanding job and has produced a balanced, yet conservative and biblical, treatment of the topic that is both informative and helpful. As a friend of several believers who struggle with depression and the father of an autistic child, I appreciated the wisdom and balance with which Dr. Murray addressed the issue. It is a testament to both his writing ability and pastoral care that he is able to avoid the tendency to reductionist oversimplification in such a short work. He provides a good example of the informed humility that he is encouraging others to pursue.

The work is concise, well written, and easy to follow. The production was well done and Dr. Murray’s reading was well paced and articulate (in that remarkably dramatic way that only a Scottish accent can accomplish). For anyone who is struggling with depression or knows someone who is, this is a great place to start. Other more comprehensive works are available but this is the best short introduction to the topic I can recall.

* I received a free copy of this book from christianaudio.com as part of their Review Program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Agape Love?

There has been a lot of talk this past week about love. In light of the Supreme Court decision, many in the broader culture are celebrating what they see as a triumph for love in the establishment of marriage rights for homosexual couples. They are also using various arguments based upon what they understand as principals derived from love to urge those who are not celebrating the decision to change their minds. Meanwhile, many Christians are trying to ensure they are not seen as unloving, while doing their best to express support for a biblical understanding on the issues. In various conversations, I have heard believers try to distinguish their understanding of love with what the culture is talking about by using the term “agape love”.

Agape love, we are told, is the highest form of love. It is said to be a self-sacrificial love and devotion. It is understood to transcend physical desires and is the highest expression of pure love. It is the kind of love God demonstrates though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As such, “agape love” is understood as a technical term for a kind of love that is uniquely identified with perfect and divine love.

This understanding of agape love as a type of “super love” is not new. It has been around in Christian circles for a very long time. The special status of agape in part comes from the fact that the Greek language has many words that can be translated by the single English word love. Depending upon the context, each of these may carry a slightly more specific connotation than the general term love and agape can have the meaning of selfless and pure love.

Greek contains a word that is often related to sexual desire (ερος / eros) and another often associated with what we would call friendly affection (στοργἠ / storge). The Greek terms for love we find frequently in the Bible are phileo (φιλἐω) and agape (ἀγἀπη). It is often argued that phileo is a warm affection similar to what brothers might experience. It is said to involve a tender care and fondness. This is not an affection we would have for an enemy. We are told, however, that agape love is much higher and noble. It is supposedly the sacrificial kind of love that we are called to exhibit even to those who persecute us, etc.

Many preachers have milked these distinctions to emphasize the differences between mere feelings of affection and the transcendent love that God has for us, and we are to have toward others. The problem with this, as DA Carson points out in his book Exegetical Fallacies, is that the word agape is not actually a technical term for a higher form of love. We recognize that most words have a range of meaning (called a semantic range) and agape is no different. It is sometimes used for the kind of love many Christians associate with it, but not always. Even in the Bible, the word is used in various ways.

For example, in 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul uses the word agape to describe the love that Demas had for the world which led to him abandoning Paul. The word has sufficient semantic range that when the Septuagint translators were working to produce a Greek copy of the Hebrew Bible, they used the word agape to describe the incestuous lust Amnon had for his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:4). In the same way, the word phileo is used at times to describe the type of love that many often associate with agape. For example, it is the word used to describe the love the Father has for the Son in John 5:20.

I think we are right to emphasize the pure, holy, selfless love of God as the standard to which all love should be measured. I am also sympathetic with believers looking to define concepts of love and affection in a biblical way. We should just be careful about making technical distinctions based upon biblical language that the writers themselves did not intend. As always, we need to pay attention to context in order to understand how a particular author is using his or her terms. All of the Bible, however, points us to the love of God in Christ. In Him we see all the fullness of love personified, agape and otherwise.

The Structure of Jude

One of the more difficult things for beginners to grasp when using the inductive method is the ability to identify structure in the text. It is important not to get discouraged by this. It gets easier with practice. It is also important not to worry about making every detail “fit” into a structure. If you do that, you will likely begin to see things that may not be there. Although the structure can have a significant impact on our interpretation, if a given structure is really there, other indicators will support the resulting interpretation. For example, we do not need to know that Psalm 119 is an acrostic poem to recognize it has a unified theme and was intended to be memorized or meditated upon.

One of the more common structures students are likely to encounter is Chiasm. Chiasmus is a literary structure where ideas are mirrored or paralleled in such a way that they are either reversed or reflect back on themselves. The word comes from the Greek letter Chi which looks like our English X which itself exhibits a similar mirroring effect.

One of the most famous chiasms in English is Kennedy’s famous statement, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” You will notice that the ideas within the statement reverse and the second half reflects back on the first half. When these kinds of structures are extended over larger sections of a text they are often called inverted parallelism. When it is a longer section of text involved, often the parallels will build to and from an emphasized central point.[1]

I am working through an introduction to inductive study with a group using the book of Jude. Recently, the question came up as to if Jude has this kind of structure. Since there were several in the group who missed the discussion, I thought it might be helpful to post something on the subject.

I think Jude has what I might call a “loose” chiastic structure. I would not push the significance of it too far or insist that we can discern exactly Jude’s intention in using it but I think elements of it are clearly there. Notice the following repetition of elements in the book [followed by the verse number]:

 A.  Address to the Beloved [3]

       B.  Ungodly people have come in (long ago designated…) [4]

             C. “I want to remind you…” [5]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [5]

                      E. He has “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” [6]

                          F. These people blaspheme [8]

                              G. Michael did not blaspheme against the devil but appealed to                                                God’s Word [9]

                           F. These people blaspheme [10]

                       E. “The gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” for them [13]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [14]

             C. “You must remember” [17]

        B. It was predicted ungodly people would come in [17-18]

A.  Address to the beloved [20]

Why would the illustration of Michael and the devil be central to the parallel? The men who have crept in are not submitting to the Word or the Church, they are criticizing the church, and they are twisting the grace of God to serve their own ends. They are rejecting God’s authority. They ultimately put themselves in a place of judgement over God and His people.

Their rejection of authority and their blasphemies are contrasted to Michael’s submission to God’s authority. Despite his high position, Michael does not even speak against the devil as boldly as these men speak. Even the archangel does not presume to exercise his own judgment or authority as do these men. The centrality of Christ and  His authority are therefore emphasized by Michael's example of pronouncing God's Word rather than speaking from His own authority. This is precisely what these men fail to do and why they will be judged.

[1] Chiasmus and inverted parallelism can be helpful to the interpreter but they can also be tricky. There are some people who see it everywhere and then try to cram every text into a chiastic structure. As I mentioned, we don’t want to impose structures upon the text that are not there. Scholars often argue for enormous, complex, and subtle, structures in various texts that even if present, probably would not have been apparent to those to whom they were writing.

How Much did Nicodemus Bring?

I use the NASB as the base text for most of the Bible studies I teach. A few days ago, however, one of the students who read from the ESV asked about a translation issue in a passage about the handling of the body of Jesus.

The NASB translates John 19:39 in the following way:

“Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.” (NASB)

The ESV, however, translates John 19:39 as follows:

“Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.” (ESV)

The NASB, KJV, NKJV, NRVS, YLT, and BBE all translate the verse 100 pounds. The ESV, NIV, NET, NLT, HCSB, and others translate the verse 75 pounds.

Why are the translations different? Did Nicodemus bring around 75 pounds or around 100 pounds?

There are various reasons why translators sometimes use different words for the same verses. Sometimes the translators are using a different manuscript tradition. Sometimes there are variant readings in the ancient manuscripts themselves. Other times, the words may be difficult to translate into English so different choices are made to help the reader understand the meaning of the original. In this case, however, the manuscripts agree and variant readings are not an issue. Likewise, the words themselves are not difficult to translate.

The reason for the difference has to do with the way the translation philosophy is applied to the verse. Some translations attempt to replicate the words and form of the original languages as closely as possible while still allowing it to be readable in English. Scholars often call this approach “formal equivalence” because wherever possible the translator is trying to reproduce the form of the original. Others, however, are more concerned about expressing the meaning of the original than the exact words or form. Scholars often call this this the “dynamic equivalence” method because the concern is more about translating meaning than words.

The fact is that no major translation is purely one or the other. Every translation involves a combination of both. Rather than either/or, it is often a matter of a spectrum where some translations are more likely to apply one or the other in any given situation. In this case, for example, both ESV and NASB are formally equivalent translations, yet they make different decisions regarding this particular verse.

The words in question are the Greek words λίτρας έκατον (litras hekaton). As I said earlier, both of these words are straightforward. The word λίτρας (litras) is the word from which we get our modern word “liter” we associate with liquid measures in the metric system. It is the Greek word for pound. It is the same word, for example, used in John 12:3 to describe the amount of perfume Mary used to anoint the feet of Jesus. The other word, ἑκατόν (hekaton) is the Greek word for 100. It is where we get our modern prefix hecta/hecto, as in hectare etc., which we still use in the metric system to denote a factor of 100. Therefore, the Greek text includes the word for 100 and the word for pounds to describe the quantity Nicodemus brought.

Why then do so many translations say 75 pounds? The reason is that at the time John wrote his Gospel the λίτρα (litra) or pound referred not to our English pounds but to Roman pounds. English pounds are 16 ounces, but the Roman pound is just a little over 11.5 ounces. This means that the actual amount of weight that Nicodemus brought was around 73 pounds. Since the text makes it clear that it is not giving an exact amount, the ESV and many others translate this “about 75 pounds”.

Those who apply a more formal approach, such as the NASB, recognize that the text includes a Greek word for 100 and a Greek word for pounds that have English equivalents and so they translate it formally. ESV, however, apparently thought that most modern readers would probably not realize that the text is referring to Roman pounds. As a result, they thought formal translation of the verse was not the most accurate way of conveying the meaning of the original in English, and used a dynamic approach for this verse.

Neither of these translations are a mistake. They are simply two different approaches to handling the process of translation. I usually tend to prefer formal translations particularly for inductive studies because the reader is less dependent upon the interpretive choices of the translator. As this verse demonstrates, however, formal does not always mean more accurate in the sense of communicating the meaning of the original in English. In this case, translating the exact words of the original does not give the English reader a more accurate understanding of the original. This is why, even when using a reliable translation (and both of these are), it is often helpful to consult multiple translations when we study.