Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Giants in Scripture and in the world

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—

when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown”.

Genesis 6:4

  

As the above text indicates, giants have existed both before and after the great Flood.

 

Evidence for giants can be found throughout the world – though one always has to be on guard against fakes:

Were There Giants? What the Evidence Actually Shows - ScienceInsights

“By the 1800s, public fascination with giants was so intense that it became profitable to fake them. The most famous case is the Cardiff Giant, unearthed on October 16, 1869, on a farm in Cardiff, New York. Two laborers digging a well hit stone three feet down, cleared the soil, recognized the shape of a foot, and eventually uncovered a ten-foot-tall stone figure of a man. Crowds paid to see it, and many believed it was a petrified ancient giant.

The whole thing was a setup. The farm’s owner, William Newell, had buried the statue the year before. His cousin George Hull, an atheist and amateur science enthusiast, had carved it to make a point about the tension between science and religious faith. Hull wasn’t wealthy, and the scheme was also designed to make money, which it did. The giant became so popular that P.T. Barnum offered to buy it. When the owners refused, Barnum simply made a replica and displayed that instead, claiming his was the real one. The owners tried to sue, but the judge reportedly said, “Bring your giant here, and if he swears to his own genuineness, you shall have your injunction.” By December 1869, Hull confessed, and the hoax collapsed”.

 

President Abe Lincoln, himself of unusual configuration, which some call “gigantism”, is purported to have been interested in the discovery of giants in North America.

 

 

The ancestors of the giants, the Anakim, about whom the Israelite spies reported (Numbers 13:33), had apparently survived from the raid of the four northern kings at the time of Abram - about half a millennium earlier - when giant peoples such as the Rephaïtes (Deuteronomy 3:11), the Zuzites (Deuteronomy 2:20 links them with the Zamzummim, another clan of great stature) and the Emites, “a people great, numerous, and tall” (Deuteronomy 2:10-11), were overcome (Genesis 14:5).  


Later, as the army of Israel will make its way through Transjordania (Dr. Osgood distinguishes this region, as IV, from the Early Bronze III civilisations in Canaan), they will encounter, and defeat, the fearsome Og, giant king of Bashan.

(The account of Og’s defeat is recorded in several passages, including Numbers 21:33-35Deuteronomy 3:1-11, and Joshua 12:4-5). 

 

“Og king of Bashan”, we read, “was the last of the Rephaïtes. His bed was decorated with iron and was more than nine cubits long and four cubits wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites”. Og’s bed was about 14 feet long and 6 feet wide or about 4 meters long and 1.8 meters wide.

Now, that’s a giant!

 

While some ancient Jewish legends can be helpful to the point of being vital, I think that we can take with a grain of salt the one that has King Og clinging to Noah’s Ark:

The Amazing Story of Og, the Giant King of Bashan | Mayim Achronim

“Midrashic texts famously record that Og was the only survivor of the Great Flood, aside from Noah and his family. When the torrential rains began, Og jumped onto the Ark and held on tightly (Zevachim 113b). He swore to Noah that he would be his family’s eternal servant if Noah would allow him into the Ark (Yalkut Shimoni, Noach 55). The Talmud (ibid.) states that the rain waters of the Flood were actually boiling hot. Yet, the rain that fell upon Og while he held unto the Ark was miraculously cool, allowing him to survive”.

 

Was Og the original Procrustes?

 

As Einstein would have said, it is all relative. (Or, as a football guru once remarked: ‘You don’t have to be Norman Einstein to …’).

 

Therefore, when speaking of giants, it needs to be noted that human beings were on average somewhat smaller, or shorter, than are those of our own era.

The Neanderthals, perhaps the long-lived antediluvians, who continued on for a time after the Flood, were not necessarily tall, but they were apparently very strong, with marvellous eyesight far surpassing our own, and with a much longer life expectancy.

 

Again, the walled cities in Canaan that Israel’s spies described as being “fortified and very large” (Numbers 13:28), would be miniscule by comparison with our own cities. But to an invading people lacking siege weaponry, even a relatively small, walled city would loom as formidable.

 

One does not need to be a giant to be very strong.

 

There is no indication, for instance, that the immensely powerful Samson was an actual giant – except in his faith (cf. Hebrews 11:32).


And this man in the 1930’s, who pulled a full bus with his teeth, was certainly no giant.

 

Could you do this?
He pulled this loaded bus along with his teeth. This actually happened in 1935 or 36.

 

The Philistines, not included in the report of the spies - but figuring at the time of Abram, and then, again, at the time of kings Saul and David - appear to have been a tall race, including various giants, such as Goliath.

 

Also needing to be taken into account is the fact that the reluctant spies exaggerated the truth, so that, now: “All the people we saw there are of great size” (Numbers 13:32). 

 

And, again (13:33):We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)”.

 

Any mention of the Nephilim, either then, or today, is bound to attract interest. 

What is the significance of the fact there were giants in those days (Genesis 6:4)? | GotQuestions.org
Genesis 6 records the expansion of the human race and its descent into further corruption. The writer records that there were “giants on the earth in those days” (Genesis 6:4, NKJV) and offers a brief explanation of how that came to be.

 

As humanity multiplied and began to be numerous on the earth (Genesis 6:1), the “sons of God” took wives (Genesis 6:2), and they began to increase. In light of the rapid multiplication of humanity and its evil, God limited the human lifespan to one-hundred, twenty years (Genesis 6:3). Prior to that time, people lived a very long time—even up to around nine hundred years (see Genesis 5). Though lifespans were decreasing on their own, God intervened to limit them greatly. Despite this significant limitation, there were giants (Hebrew, Nephilim) in those days—in the days of Noah. These were mighty men of renown and were apparently the products of relationships between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:4).

 

The giants in those days were extraordinary, leading some to suppose that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 and Genesis 6:4 are fallen angels and not merely regular people. In that theory, these fallen angels took on physical form and procreated with women. The demon-human hybrid DNA resulted in giant size and, apparently, enhanced physical abilities.

 

There are three objections to this theory: First, there is nothing in the text that suggests the “sons of God” are angels. While the phrase can be used of angels (as it is apparently in Job 1:62:1, and 38:7), it is also regularly used of people (e.g., Matthew 5:9 and Luke 20:36). Second, there is no indication that angels are physiologically compatible with women and can procreate with them (unless this is the only instance).

 

Third, the theological implications are significant enough that one might expect some further explanation. Instead, we only see the offspring referred to as “giants” (Nephilim) and mighty, but nothing beyond that.

 

Others have suggested that the sons of God might be people possessed by demonic beings. As in the other view, the phrase sons of God would still refer to fallen angels. While this view would resolve the physiological implications, there is nothing in the text that would suggest this possibility.

 

A third view is that there were giants in those days simply because humanity hadn’t been fully genetically corrupted—everyone was big and tall and mighty—and God intervenes to shorten human lifespans. This theory takes the biblical account at face value, that these sons of God were simply men. In any case, there were giants in the land at this time before the flood and “afterward” (Genesis 6:4). There were still giants during the time of Israel’s conquest of Canaan (Numbers 13:33) and David’s time (1 Samuel 17:4–7). If these Nephilim were superhumans resulting from demonic and human cohabitation, it seems they would have died in the flood (Genesis 7:21–23). The fact that they were still around after the flood is either evidence that the fallen angels performed the same act again at some point after the flood, or it is another indicator in support of the third view that these giants on the earth from time to time were exceptional, but not superhuman. ….

[End of quote]

 

The view that (fallen) angels are able to have offspring with human beings seems metaphysically ridiculous. However, it is apparent from the story of Sarah in the Book of Tobit, that these malevolent entities are not beyond lusting after human persons. Asmodeus, described as “the worst of demons”, and jealous of the beautiful Sarah, will bump off seven consecutive of her husbands, until young Tobias, guided by the healing archangel Raphael, will come and save the day.

 

The girl had been driven to the verge of suicide (Tobit 3:10).

 

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Were any Old Testament prophets from Galilee?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“[The Pharisees] replied, ‘Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it,

and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee’.”

 John 7:52

  

Some years ago the question was asked:

biblical basis - What prophets came from Galilee? - Christianity Stack Exchange

 

What prophets came from Galilee?

 

According to the Pharisees at the time of Jesus, no prophet ever came from Galilee.

And I suspect that these nit-pickers of Scripture would have been perfectly correct in their knowledge of, and insistence upon, this. 

 

However, the suggestion is made in the following discussion that the Pharisees were actually wrong when they claimed that no prophet came from Galilee.

And so we read:

 

This question talks about how in John 7:52, the Pharisees claimed that "no prophet comes out of Galilee." The accepted answer discusses how commentators often point out the Pharisees' mistake, and N.T. Wright points out that "both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee." In addition, I found this link, which says that 5 prophets came from Galilee: Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha. BibleStudyTools.org has an article with a discussion about how Micah, Elijah, and Jonah being from Galilee, and how Nahum and Hosea could possibly have come from Galilee.

 

Which prophets are from Galilee, and how do we know? 

 

An associated question, what is the source of the uncertainty surrounding this question? Perhaps I could word the question, what is the (Biblical and archeological) basis for saying that these 5 prophets are from Galilee?\

 

1. Jonah from Gath-hepher

 

2 Kings 14:25 "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher."

Wikipedia on Gath-hepher says it is in modern-day Galilee (maybe that's what it is saying?). Joshua 29:13 describes more where this place is.

 

2. Micah from Moresheth

 

Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

BibleAtlas.org doesn't mention Galilee at all in the article on Moresheth, nor does Wikipedia in their article on Moresheth-Gath. Wikipedia says Moresheth = Moresheth-Gath.

 

3. Elijah from Gilead

 

1 Kings 17:1 "Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.'"

2 Kings 15:29 actually seems to differentiate between Gilead and Galilee, which suggests that Gilead is not contained within Galilee.

Wikipedia on Gilead makes no mention of Galilee, and the Bible Atlas also seems to differentiate Gilead from Galilee by saying that in Gilead there is "the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee."

 

4. Elisha

(I don't know the basis).

 

5. Hosea

(I don't know the basis).

 

I would like to see the basis for 4 and 5 (Elisha and Hosea) being from Galilee, and I would like to see how we can know 1-3 are actually from Galilee. I would also be interested if there are any other claims that additional prophets are from Galilee. My questions stems from the fact that none the verses say explicitly from Galilee, and I have seen almost nothing supporting the connection between the city mentioned and Galilee. Pardon my lack of knowledge in biblical geography. Perhaps it is obvious that these cities are contained in the region that is Galilee. There may also be a notable difference between the geographical boundaries in Galilee between the Old and New Testament timeframes or even within the Old Testament timeframe, which contains several thousand years of history on its own.

[End of quote]

 

Here six Old Testament prophets are identified as potentially arising from Galilee: namely, Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Micah, Elijah, and Elisha – except that they didn’t.

First of all, regarding these six prophets listed above, they are actually only four: namely, Elijah, Elisha, Micah and Hosea (= Jonah/Nahum).

 

We can immediately run a line through Elijah, who was from Gilead, not Galilee (I Kings 17:1): “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead …”.

 

And we can immediately run a line through Elisha, who dwelt not very far from Gilead (I Kings 19:16): “And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah …”.

 

And we can immediately run a line through Micah, who was from Judah (Micah 1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth …”.

 

That leaves us with just our one, composite prophet, Hosea = Jonah/Nahum.

He was a prophet of the tribe of Simeon, largely a Judah-located tribe: 

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(3) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

He was the great prophet “Isaiah son of Amoz [Amos]” (Isaiah 1:1), or Amaziah:

Amoz | The amazing name Amoz: meaning and etymology , who was the “Amittai”, father of Jonah (Jonah 1:1).

And we know from Tobit 14:4 that Jonah was Nahum.

 

So, now, it really boils down to how to reconcile the geography of Jonah, “Gath-hepher” (2 Kings 14:25), with that of “Nahum the Elkoshite” (Nahum 1:1) - while all the while keeping in mind that this was a composite prophet of the tribe of Simeon?

 

It seems altogether impossible!

 

However, I have already covered much of this geography in various articles.

 

The fact is that our composite prophet, Isaiah (Hosea), as the Simeonite Uzziah now governing “Bethulia”, “… the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23: Douay), moved about from one end of Israel to the other, and even beyond the borders of Israel.

 

As Isaiah, for instance, we potentially find him fleeing the wrath of King Ahaz and heading northwards into Galilee:

 

Isaiah took his family north to escape the wrath of king Ahaz

 

(3) Isaiah took his family north to escape the wrath of king Ahaz

 

I suggest that the family may have taken up residence there in what would become known as Capernaum, from Kfar Naum (כְּפַר נַחוּם), literally, ‘Nahum’s village’, named after the prophet himself as Nahum (a Simeonite):

 

Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

 

(3) Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

 

Capernaum’s ancient name may have been Jonah’s “Gath-hepher”.

 

But Jonah did not hail from there, nor was he a Galilean prophet.

 

Nor, again, did he, as Nahum, hail from Al Qosh (“Elcesite”), a location near Nineveh in Assyria.

No, he simply dwelt there for a time while being Jonah in his mission to Nineveh.

 

Conclusion

 

None of Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Micah, Elijah, Elisha, came from Galilee.

 

The Pharisees were quite correct in this matter.

 

Elijah (Gilead), Elisha (close to the Jordan River), Micah (Moresheth, Mareshah), Hosea (= Jonah/Nahum), a Simeonite from Judah (cf.  Amos 7:12: ‘‘Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah’), all hailed from locations to the south of the land of Galilee.

 

Whence that name, Capernaum?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“So then, comparing the antitype with the type, even as Herod sought to destroy

the Divine Child whose birth might be supposed to endanger his throne,

so Ahaz, from a different motive indeed, may have sought to destroy

the typical Immanuel, the prediction concerning whose birth

foretold the ruin of Judah at the hands of Assyria”.

 Charles Boutflower

 

If, as is generally thought, the name of the famous town is derived from Kfar Naum (כְּפַר נַחוּם), literally, ‘Nahum’s village’, then I can think of only two prophets Nahum who could possibly have inspired it.

 

One of these was the prophet Nahum, who was Jonah (cf. Tobit 14:4), the man of God who hated Assyria.

The other was the pious and prayerful Nehemiah, whom I have identified as the better-known prophet Daniel:

 

Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel

 

(5) Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel

 

The two names, Nahum and Nehemiah, both being derived from the verb נחם (naham), ‘to be sorry or to comfort’, are, obviously, closely related:

Nehemiah | The amazing name Nehemiah: meaning and etymology

 

I would quickly disqualify Nehemiah – even when extended, as Daniel – as having had any meaningful association with Capernaum. The prophet went into Babylonian captivity at a young age (Daniel 1:1-6) and lived out his glorious life in exile (1:21): “And Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus”.

 

Apart from his return to Jerusalem in that propitious year (Ezra 2:2), he had visited Jerusalem very briefly on two other occasions: firstly, “in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes” (Nehemiah 2:1), who was Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, and, secondly, in the 32nd year of that same “king of Babylon” (13:6).

 

The prophet Nahum, a Simeonite largely located in Israel, looms as a much better candidate, potentially, for having a meaningful association with Capernaum.

 

Tobit’s extension of Nahum to include Jonah, yet needs the far more significant extension, in the context of this article, of Nahum-Jonah as Isaiah.

On this, see e.g. my article:

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(8) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

Vital to this reconstruction is the brilliant insight of Charles Boutflower, that, analogous to the flight of the Holy Family from the enraged king, Herod, the typifying family of Isaiah may have had to flee to northern Galilee (he will suggest to Nazareth) to escape the wrathful king Ahaz of Judah. On this, see my latest article:

 

Isaiah took his family north to escape the wrath of king Ahaz

 

(8) Isaiah took his family north to escape the wrath of king Ahaz

 

….

 

If on the above grounds we are led to look upon the typical Immanuel as Isaiah’s own son, a very interesting deduction follows: viz. that within a year or two of Immanuel’s birth Isaiah must have left Jerusalem for a while and gone to live in the now desolated land of Israel. For it is predicted of Immanuel that when he is a young lad two principal articles of his diet will be butter and honey: chap. vi. 15. And then, a little further on in the same chapter, it is explained that this being obliged to depend on butter and honey, will be a consequence of the Assyrian invasion: that owing to the depopulation of the country, the land will go out of cultivation, and what is now vineyards and cornfields will become thickets ; but that there will still be pasturage for cattle, and the wild bees will still lay up their honied stores, so that “butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.” Now since this description of Immanuel’s surroundings in his early boyhood’s years does not apply to Judah and Jerusalem, but does apply to the land of Israel, and especially to northern Israel, the presumption is that Immanuel while still a young lad was taken by his father to live in the northern kingdom, and into that part of the kingdom whose inhabitants had so lately been carried captive.

What was the reason for a prophet, whose heart was so centred in Jerusalem, leaving the Holy City and going to live in the desolated land of the Ten Tribes? In all probability it was the wrath of Ahaz. When Isaiah confronted Ahaz and bade him ask a sign of the LORD his God, the young king’s evasive answer showed that he was afraid of the prophet ; and as he listened to the terrible denunciations from the lips of Isaiah of the woes that were coming on his country because of the line of policy which he had secretly resolved to pursue, fear must have ripened into dislike and hatred. So then, comparing the antitype with the type, even as Herod sought to destroy the Divine Child whose birth might be supposed to endanger his throne, so Ahaz, from a different motive indeed, may have sought to destroy the typical Immanuel, the prediction concerning whose birth foretold the ruin of Judah at the hands of Assyria. …. In this case it would not be long safe for the prophet and his son to remain in Jerusalem. But whither shall he go when he leaves the Sacred City? To Ahaz he has spoken of Syria and Israel as forming one land though under two kings. …. This is because these two powers have for the time being made themselves into one: “Syria is confederate with Ephraim,” literally “resteth on Ephraim.” In the long-ago days “Ephraim departed from Judah’’—to use the prophet’s own words—and now her land is one with the Syrians. But the days of Ephraim’s existence as a separate kingdom are soon to come to an end. Within a few short years Ephraim “will be broken in pieces that it be not a people.” …. And with this disappearance of the kingdom of Ephraim before his mind the prophet seems to have hailed the thought that the land occupied by the two Jewish kingdoms, so long divided politically, was by Divine intention, no less than by nature, one land. Hence, when telling how the flood of Assyrian invasion will sweep over both kingdoms, he speaks of the two countries, thus for a time submerged, as “thy land, O Immanuel,” and Thine in all its “breadth.” …. If, then, our prophet must leave Judah, he need not leave Immanuel’s land: he will go into that part of it which has just been placed under the rule of Hoshea … and for greater safety he will go into that district which lies furthest off from the capital of king Ahaz: he will “withdraw into the parts of Galilee”. …. That Galilee, whose name is so endeared to us Christians, was then a deserted region, its inhabitants having been recently taken captive to Assyria. Their sad fate had fixed itself indelibly on the prophet’s mind. Nevertheless, the Spirit had revealed to him that there, where the first blow had fallen, the bright light of happier days, the days of the Messiah, should first dawn. ‘‘For there shall be no gloom,” he writes, ‘‘to her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” …. Many of the inhabitants of Galilee, as the previous context shows, had been “driven away into thick darkness’’; the darkness of a hopeless captivity. The present population was scanty; but in the Messianic age, as the prophet foretells, Jehovah will “multiply the nation’’ and thus “increase the joy”: a joy so great that it can only be compared to the rejoicing before God at the harvest festival, or to the dividing of the spoil after some signal victory. For Assyria’s oppressive “yoke” and heavy “burden” no longer rests on the nation: the taskmaster’s “staff’? no longer descends on its “shoulder.” …. The foe have been put to flight as on that day when the countless hosts of Midian fled before the sword of the LORD and of Gideon. They have vanished from the scene, and soon all the vestiges of hateful war shall vanish likewise. Those long-laced boots, in which the warriors of the enemy strode proudly amid the tumult … their thick, close-fitting tunics, now dyed yet deeper with blood … shall make fuel for the fire. …. And the pledge of all this is before his eyes as he looks at his own Immanuel. Immanuel! the type, surely, of the long-promised Davidic King! “For unto us,” he cries, ‘‘a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder’’—his royal robe fastened at the shoulder marking him as the Divinely constituted Ruler— “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,” fount of all political wisdom and sagacity ; ‘‘Mighty God,” his people’s all powerful deliverer; “Everlasting Father,” the father of his subjects, whose reign shall know no end; and then, last and best of all, because most desired in that sad day of domestic troubles and foreign invasion, “Prince of Peace”: peace, internal no less than external: peace, the fruit of righteous rule and good government: peace, ever on the increase with his ever-extending sway. How fondly does the prophet dwell on this closing note! “Of the increase,” he cries, “of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall perform this.” The zeal of Jehovah, His jealousy for His people, ensures all. He is pledged to help them by this God-given name, Immanuel.

         It will be seen from the above that we may reasonably suppose that the prophet Isaiah, leaving Judah because of the wrath of Ahaz, went with his son Immanuel into the land of Israel, and to that part of the land which was furthest off from Jerusalem, and to which his sympathies were so strongly drawn when he uttered his lament over the fate of Zebulun and Naphtali, and his glorious song of exultation over the bright future which awaited that now darkened region. Thus it was in Galilee that the early years of Immanuel must have been spent. And this may seem to point forward to our Saviour’s peaceful home at Nazareth, just as His early ministry “by the way of the sea,” i.e. the Sea of Galilee, and the coming of the bright Gospel Day is foretold, as St. Matthew assures us, in this very passage.” The hint of a withdrawal into Galilee contained in the words which form the heading of this chapter, appears to have been lost on king Ahaz, or, if noticed by him, may possibly have been welcomed as giving some hope that he would soon be rid of this troublesome prophet. Fear and dislike were probably the predominating feelings in his breast. There was, therefore, no urgent haste for the prophet to leave Jerusalem at once. Accordingly, he was no doubt there at the time when Immanuel was born, and also a little later, when at Jehovah’s command he wrote on a large metal tablet … “with the pen of a man,” i.e. with an ordinary graving-tool, but according to some translators “in ordinary characters,” FOR MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ. …. This was done in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was “Uriah the priest,” presumably the high priest: … the object being, as Cheyne points out, that when the prophecy involved in the name should be fulfilled, two men of rank would be able to testify to its genuineness. But may there not also have been a further object, viz. that the tablet might speak for the prophet in his absence? For though he still remained on at Jerusalem nearly a year longer until the birth of his third son, when the name written on the tablet was explained to mean that before the newborn child should be able to call its parents, the crisis, which began with the invasion of Judah by the armies of Syria and Israel, would end with the carrying off by the king of Assyria of the spoils of those two kingdoms; yet when that event took place he was gone, leaving behind him the tablet and the word of two reliable witnesses to vouch for the genuineness of the inscription and of the prophetic oracle enshrined in that long uncouth name. ….

 

Rather than Nazareth, though, I would like to propose that Isaiah and his family fled to the remote northern region of Capernaum, and that it was due to Isaiah’s sojourn there, as Nahum, that the place traditionally came to be called Kfar Naum (כְּפַר נַחוּם), ‘Nahum’s village’.

 

Much later, around the C2nd BC, this remote location had developed into the thriving fishing town as we know it from the Gospels.