Matthew J. Goff on Sirach 16:7: Canaanite Chiefs or Nephilim?

Matthew J. Goff’s “Ben Sira and the Giants of the Land: A Note on Ben Sira 16:7” (Journal of Biblical Literature 129/4, 2010) asks whether Sirach 16:7 is talking about the antediluvian giants of Genesis 6. His answer is yes, but only with an important qualification: Sirach 16:7 alludes to Genesis 6 and early Jewish giant traditions, while primarily describing archaic Canaanite or Gentile chieftains of the land. Goff states his thesis at the start: “In this short note I address the common claim that Sir 16:7 alludes to Gen 6:1–4. I argue that understanding the verse in this way is not unreasonable but that this position needs to be qualified. The primary reference of the line is not the flood story but archaic peoples of the land. Genesis 6 and early Jewish traditions that pertain to this chapter influence Ben Sira’s description of archaic Canaanite rulers.”

For Genesis 6 research, that matters because Sirach can illuminate how a Jewish sage read Scripture, but it should not be treated as inspired commentary on Scripture. Goff’s paper is useful because it refuses both easy answers: “this is simply the Nephilim” and “Genesis 6 has nothing to do with it.”

Goff’s qualified yes to Genesis 6

Sirach 16:5–10 is a warning about God’s judgment on arrogant sin. In that sequence, the Greek text of v. 7 speaks of ancient “giants” who revolted in their might and were not forgiven. The wording naturally attracts Genesis 6 readers, but Goff immediately narrows what the allusion can prove: “I agree with the widespread view that Sir 16:7 alludes to Gen 6:1–4. The verse, however, discusses the early history of Canaan, not the antediluvian period.”

The question, then, is referent. Benjamin G. Wright, Moshe Tsvi Segal, and W. Th. van Peursen are among those Goff discusses in connection with a Genesis 6 reading. Alexander A. Di Lella and Patrick W. Skehan had argued that Ben Sira intentionally avoided the term “Nephilim” while still alluding to Genesis 6, and that the expression “chieftains of old” also referred to kings from earlier eras, such as Nebuchadnezzar.

Goff does not deny that Genesis 6 and giant traditions shape the verse. He argues that the Hebrew noun and the surrounding context point first to early rulers of the land, not to Ben Sira’s supposed opposition to Enochic mythology or to a direct identification with pre-flood Nephilim.

The Hebrew “chieftains” controls the reading

The hinge of the argument is the rare Hebrew noun usually vocalized as nāsîk, “chieftain.” Sirach survives in Greek and in Hebrew witnesses, and the Hebrew witnesses of Sirach 16:7 use the phrase often rendered “chieftains of old.” That is not the vocabulary of Genesis 6:4, which speaks of the Nephilim and the gibbôrîm. Goff’s lexical conclusion is blunt: “Reading a connection to Genesis 6 is problematized by the fact that no attestation of Kysn in the Hebrew Bible signifies the antediluvian giants.”

The biblical uses he surveys point instead to human rulers, especially Gentile leaders connected to Israel’s land and enemies. Joshua 13:21 mentions leaders of Sihon connected with Midian. Psalm 83:12 places chieftains among hostile peoples. Ezekiel 32:30 has chieftains of the north and Sidonians in Sheol. Micah 5:4 uses the term in a line about rulers raised against Assyria, though Goff treats that instance separately from the clearer examples. The word is political and historical, not a direct term for primeval giants.

That lexical constraint shapes Goff’s exegesis. If Ben Sira were simply naming the Nephilim, the surviving Hebrew gives us the wrong noun. The Syriac version’s “ancient kings” also fits the same semantic field: rulers, not monsters.

The verb in Sirach 16:7 is less secure. The Hebrew witnesses differ, and van Peursen proposed reading one form as “the ones who were brought down.” Goff does not overstate the case. He gives a cautious rendering of the probable sense: “It is reasonable, however, to understand the verse as stating that the chieftains used their strength long ago to oppose God, who punished them. Ben Sira 16:7 can thus be reasonably translated, “As he did not show favor to the chieftains of old, who rebelled [long ago] with their strength.”

The immediate context supports that direction. Sirach 16:5–10 lists judgments: a sinful band, a godless people, the neighbors of Lot, a dispossessed sinful people, and the six hundred thousand foot soldiers who died because of the arrogance of their hearts. The “chieftains of old” sit naturally in this chain of early judgment episodes tied to the land and Israel’s story. The verse is not floating in a primeval setting; it is embedded in a historical warning about proud peoples whom God did not forgive.

Why Genesis 6 still matters

Goff’s qualification does not remove Genesis 6. It explains how Genesis 6 can be present without making the Nephilim the direct subject. After considering Gilbert’s proposal that the Hebrew points instead to Genesis 14, Goff writes, “The Hebrew text of Sir 16:7 is better explained by positing that Ben Sira describes aboriginal Canaanite rulers with language that evokes Genesis 6.”

The “of old” language is one reason. Genesis 6:4 describes the mighty men “who were of old,” and Goff suggests that “chieftains of old” may reformulate that expression. One Hebrew manuscript of Sirach includes an additional term meaning “long ago,” though the Greek does not translate it. The Greek translator then makes the giant connection more visible by rendering the Hebrew “chieftains” with gigantes, “giants.”

The Torah itself helps explain why a writer could move between Canaanite rulers and giant language. Numbers 13 reports the spies seeing Nephilim in the land and says that the Anakim come from the Nephilim, though Goff notes that the precise relationship is not clarified and that this statement is probably a gloss. Deuteronomy 1:28 and 9:2 describe the Anakim as tall and powerful. Amos 2:9 pictures the Amorites as tall as cedars and strong as oaks. Goff draws the implication: “Since the Torah associates the nĕpîlîm with some of the early inhabitants of Canaan, it should not be surprising that Ben Sira, who relied extensively on the Torah, describes archaic Canaanite leaders with language that derives from Genesis 6.”

This is the key nuance. Ben Sira does not have to choose between “Genesis 6 imagery” and “Canaanite rulers.” In the biblical narrative world he inherited, giant language was already attached to the land in some texts and traditions. Goff’s reading lets Sirach 16:7 echo Genesis 6 while keeping its primary historical focus on ancient Gentile chieftains whose power became opposition to God.

Giant traditions explain the moral coloring

Goff also uses early Jewish giant traditions, especially 1 Enoch and the Qumran Book of Giants, in a limited historical way. He is not treating those writings as doctrine. He uses them as evidence for how Genesis 6 was being interpreted before and around Ben Sira’s world: giants were remembered for immense strength, violence, rebellion, arrogance, and judgment without forgiveness.

One biblical bridge is Ezekiel 32. The chapter pictures defeated nations in Sheol and includes “mighty ones” and “chieftains” who once terrified the land of the living. Goff notes that several scholars emend part of the Masoretic Text so it reads like a Genesis 6 allusion to mighty men who fell long ago. On that reading, Ezekiel already places chieftains and primordial mighty ones in conceptual proximity. Goff’s comparison is careful: “The original Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32 presumably asserted that the antediluvian Myrwbg and Mykysn of early Israel were both defeated and are now in Sheol. Ben Sira does not describe the chieftains and the primordial giants as now residing in the netherworld. But the sage, like Ezekiel, presents early Canaanites and the creatures of Gen 6:4 as groups that have a degree of compatibility.”

That “degree of compatibility” matters more than exact identification. Ezekiel gives Goff an analogy for how traditions about terrifying ancient powers could overlap. Sirach can speak of chieftains, not Nephilim, while still drawing from a moral and imaginative storehouse shaped by Genesis 6.

In 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants, the giants’ strength becomes violence. They defy God’s order, inspire fear, and seek mercy only to be denied it. Sirach 16:7 has a similar cluster: strength, rebellion, and no divine favor. Goff therefore says, “Ben Sira 16:7 also reflects the influence of early Jewish traditions regarding the gibbôrîm of Genesis 6. This explains why the chieftains struggle against God by using their strength.”

Other Jewish texts show a similar pattern. 3 Maccabees 2:4, Josephus’s Antiquities 1.73, and Wisdom 14:6 associate ancient mighty figures with arrogance and exemplary destruction. Some sources pair giants and Sodom as parallel warnings. Goff is not claiming Ben Sira depended on each later witness; the narrower point is that Sirach 16:7 makes better sense within this stream of interpretation than as a bare reference to Genesis 14 or as a hidden anti-Enochic maneuver.

His closing formulation brings the issue into focus: “The core issue regarding Sir 16:7 is not the sage’s opposition to Enochic traditions, as Di Lella and Skehan suggest. Rather, it is that the verse reflects an understanding of archaic Canaanite rulers that is shaped by the language of Genesis 6 and early Jewish traditions about the primordial giants of this chapter.”

Where the evidence is strong, and where it is limited

The strongest part of Goff’s case is lexical and contextual. The Hebrew nāsîk points to rulers, and Sirach 16:5–10 points to early judgment scenes connected with Israel’s story and the land. The Genesis 6 allusion is real, but it works through language, association, and moral pattern rather than direct naming.

The main caution is textual. The Hebrew of Sirach 16:7 is fragmentary and not fully settled. Goff’s preferred sense—chieftains using strength against God and being punished—is plausible, but it remains a reconstruction. The Ezekiel 32 parallel is also attractive but partly text-critical, since it depends on an emendation rather than the plain Masoretic wording.

The theological boundary is just as important. Sirach, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Giants are historical witnesses to Jewish interpretation, not additions to Scripture. They can show how Genesis 6 was read in the Second Temple period; they cannot expand what Scripture requires Christians to believe.

Conclusion: takeaways for Genesis 6 research

Takeaways: Sirach 16:7 should not be used as a simple proof-text that Ben Sira “mentions the Nephilim.” Goff’s better reading is that Ben Sira speaks of archaic Canaanite or Gentile chieftains while describing them with language and themes shaped by Genesis 6 and Jewish giant traditions.

That makes the verse valuable, but in the right category. It is evidence for Second Temple interpretation of Genesis 6, not a new canonical data point. It shows how giant imagery could migrate from the primeval world into reflection on the early peoples and rulers of Canaan: immense strength, arrogant rebellion, and judgment from which power cannot save.

Jake Mooney is a lay researcher and the author of the novel The Descent of the Gods, with 25+ years studying Genesis 6. Chasing the Giants is where he brings Bible-first research together on the topic to help separate what we can really believe vs what is purely sensationalism.

Research method: I treated Scripture as the authority and used Sirach, 1 Enoch, the Book of Giants, and later Jewish witnesses only as historical evidence for interpretation. Goff’s conclusions were weighed by separating his direct source claims, reasonable inference, and theological caution.

If you want more careful, Scripture-first work on Genesis 6, giants, and the unseen realm—without the hype—consider subscribing to the free monthly newsletter.