Why Goliath’s Size Doesn’t Work as a Metaphor for Gath’s City Wall

Recently, a paper was released by the archaeological team currently excavating the site of the Biblical city of Gath, once the home of Goliath, the Philistine giant (link to media article here). They are exploring the 11th-10th century BC layers (corresponding to the time of David and Goliath), and they have discovered an interesting phenomenon. The thickness of the city walls happens to exactly match (in the number of cubits employed) with the height of the giant Philistine as recorded in the earliest manuscript traditions of the Hebrew Bible (which exclude the Masoretic Text). The discovery has led to talk of Goliath himself as perhaps not really a giant but rather a literary representation of the city of Gath; a way of embodying the strength of the city by personifying it as a giant soldier.
But this interpretation is not without its flaws. Here we will see why it is incoherent to arrive at the conclusion that Goliath may not have been a giant on the basis of this discovery:

1. The Biblical text explicitly refers to Goliath’s height: 1 Sam. 17:4 “And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.”
2. Height is not the same as thickness, and the words are not easily confused (gobahh “height” as in 1 Sam. 17:4, against rochab “thickness” as in Ezek. 40:5).
3. If a comparison or simile was intended, it would have made more sense to use consistent dimensions, for example Goliath’s height vs. wall height or Goliath’s thickness (perhaps a chest measurement?) vs. wall thickness. Drawing a comparison using measurement of differing dimensions (height vs. thickness) is not an effective illustration, especially as a literary device. 
4. A cubit of 54cm (21.25” as seen at Tell Es-Safi, as opposed to the common cubit of 18”) would make Goliath taller (from 6’9”to 7’11”). Biblical authors generally make less of Israel’s enemies rather than glorify them, so making Goliath any bigger actually works counter to the narrative. 
5. Nothing else in the description of Goliath has been shown to correlate with any other aspect of the city of Gath, save for the fact that he came from there. This makes the single coincidental statistic seem out of place. 
6. Adding to the cognitive dissonance of this suggested correlation is the fact that the battle in which Goliath is defeated does not take place at Gath, nor does that city fall in the aftermath of said battle. It would have been presumptuous to compare Goliath’s death with the anticipated fall of a city that was clearly still standing at the time. 
7. The repeated epithet “Goliath of Gath” serves not to equate Goliath with Gath, but to associate him with the Anakim, who were said to be of great stature (Num. 13:32-33) and known to have fled there at the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua (Josh. 11:22). The association reminds us that he comes from a land of giants, thus reinforcing the understanding that he really was an enormous warrior. 

These seven points outlined above ought to be sufficient to show that the traditional understanding of Goliath as a giant warrior is not seriously challenged by this coincidental statistic discovered at Tell Es-Safi. And we would do well to remember that earlier reports from the dig confirmed megalithic construction consistent with large inhabitants. When pressed about bodily remains of giants, officials stated that they had not found any remains of people taller than an average NBA center (see media article here) - an average that happens to be exactly the same as the height of Goliath (6’9”) according to the Greek Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls and the records of the Roman historian Josephus.
​Remember that the average Israelite man at the time was around 5’3”. Even if Gath’s inhabitants were no taller than seven feet, we are still justified in referring to some of them as giants, and the Bible's assertions in this regard continue to be upheld as truth.

- T.J. Steadman