Rephaim in Ashtaroth Karnaim

“The giants were on the earth in those days.” They were called by seven names: Eimim, Refa’im, Giborim, Zamzumim, Anakim, Avim, Nefilim.” Bereshit Rabbah 26:7

We mentioned a list of enemies against Chedorlaomer in his war, which includes non-giant groups we will cross off the list: “The Rephaim in Ashtaroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim, the Horites in their mountain Seir (until the plain of Paran along the desert), the Amalekites in Kadesh at the site of Ein Mishpat, and the Amorites at Hazezon Tamar.” We also mentioned a second list of giants from Bereshit Rabbah, but we will cross out the groups discussed, as well as the groups on the first list: “They were called by seven names: Eimim, Refa’im, Giborim, Zamzumim, Anakim, Avim, Nefilim.” This second list thus adds the Zamzumim - probably identical to the Zuzim - as well as the Anakim and Avim.

Effectively, while the giants go by many names, other than the broad titles of Nephilim, Gibborim, and Rephaim the other four/five terms - Zuzim/Zamzummim, Emim, Anakim, Avim - will appear as sub-groups of giants rather than terms implying a broader title. It is interesting that we have four groups, possibly corresponding to the four giant’s slain by David’s army, but it is a tenuous correlation. We know previously those giants were all “descendants of the Rephaim”, but many of the references to the other giant groups will use the term Rephaim to dually describe them in addition to their own sub-tribe names.

Also from Bereshit Rabbah we are given an etymology for the term Repha’im “Refa’im – as anyone who saw them, his heart would become soft [rafeh] like wax.”¹ Hard to know exactly what the sages meant, but usually the term ‘heart’ is a double encoding of the term ‘understanding’ meaning the conscious processing of truth, or wisdom. Potentially, the softening refers to a leading toward heathenry while the wax is an inversion of the concept, viewing man as the flame of a candle, melting man and bringing him lower through the physical ‘body’ of the wax rather than upwards as the flame - the ‘ish’. This definition would align completely with all our previous understandings of both Nephilim, and Giants, as individuals who mislead man's heart through his bodily desires and idolatry.

From the Radak we could pull some more etymological information from an alternative term similar to Rephaim: “Le-ha-rafa (להרפא). My master, my father, of blessed memory (Sefer Ha-Galuy entry רף), writes that this noun refers not to a female but to a male: it is akin to Refa’im—[a people] consisting of giants (Deut 2:11)—the singular of which is Rafa. When the text says le-ha-rafa, it is as though it had said la-‘anaq (=to the giant), with the hei functioning to make it definite. In two places in this context, rafa is spelled with an alef (vv. 6, 8), whereas in the book of Samuel it is spelled with a hei (2 Samuel 21:20); for the letters alef, hei, vav, and yod interchange.”² We can already see that Radak connects the terms Anak and Rapha as nearly identical, interchangeable terms for giants, but implies that Rapha is more of a grouping of giants rather than a specific giant group.

This interchange between letters could help us analyze the alternative forms of Rapha: “רפא” and “רפה”. The first root has more of an indication of “healing the souls of the afterlife”, with the afterlife here being the concept of “Sheol”.³ The latter root is more of a ‘weakness’, or a powerlessness to affect the world of the living either due to their lack of status or loss of life.⁴ Both of these follow the Hebrew terminology, and line up with the earlier definition given from Bereshit Rabbah for a “softness like wax”.

Alternatively, we could analyze this etymology relative to other near eastern languages. In Akkadian we have the term ‘rabu’, which is a prince, possibly showing their lesser status than the Nephilim who were not princes, but full leaders such as Nimrod.⁵ Regardless it is clear in Akkadian they have defined physical status as real beings, not mythological. Another language closely related to Hebrew is Ugaritic where we find the term ‘rpum’ which denotes a semi-deified deceased ancestor.⁶ These ancestors come from within Ugaritic sources such as the ‘Rephaim Text’⁷ where this imagery as lost ancestors in the underworld would fully align with the previously understood etymologies.

This Ugaritic cognate is critical to understanding who the rephaim might be, with scholars such as Lewis concluding a link to the dead, or dead royalty.⁸ In Lewis’s detailed study of Ugaritic ritual funerary texts he concludes within Ugarit’s cult of the dead there were beings called ‘rapi-uma’ translated to something like ‘the long dead’ as well as the malak-uma, more recently dead kings.⁹ This would not only give us evidence for Rephaim culturally in the near east, but shows how they were actual figures from the past and not just some mythological ancestor.

We can find evidence for this theory all across the Torah where the term Rephaim in later eras is translated completely differently from a “group of people” and operates as a proper term for something related to the dead. “Gehinnom from beneath quaked for you, toward your arrival; it aroused for you the giants, all the chiefs of the earth; it caused all the kings of the nations to rise from their thrones.”¹⁰ “The dead shall not live, slackers shall not rise; therefore, You visited [upon them] and You destroyed them; You have put an end to any memory of them.”¹¹ “Will You perform a wonder for the dead? Will the shades rise and thank You forever?”¹² “But he does not know that shades are there; her guests are in the depths of the grave.”¹³ All of these references to shades, the dead, and even lost royalty seem to all hint at the same concept of once powerful leaders who are now weak, possibly dead and in the underworld.

There is an interesting series of archaeological sites dotting the region of Canaan specifically of megalithic monuments dating back between 8000-2700 BCE. The most notable of these is actually one of the younger sites called Rujm el Hiri, an ancient monument of concentric basalt stone circles with a tumulus (grave) at the center. Archeologists date this sites to the Early Bronze Age II period between 3000-2700 BCE¹⁴, and appears to have been part of a calculation of solar astronomy. Possibly for cultic sun worship of Tammuz and Ishtar¹⁵, calendrical purposes¹⁶, or even astronomical observations, the site has enough monumental working that it implies a serious importance for the people who lived there year round.

Whatever this site was, it’s pretty likely a settlement in the same vein as Gobekli Tepe, another megalithic site in Anatolia, and we are looking at what is some kind of centralized location for what was probably a royal dynasty ruling over some tribe. The circular shape of the site has led modern Israelis to name it “Gilgal Refa’im”, the former term ‘gilgal’ being Hebrew for circular, or wheel, and the latter being an obvious reference to the Rafa’im. Here the term is used as “spirits” or “ghosts” which actually might allude to the function of the site’s tumulus as a grave, but ultimately calls back to the many biblical allusions to the Rephaim as “spirits of the dead”. Nephilim as “fallen”, in a sense of fallen warriors, would also harken to this same imagery potentially implying to the readers of this story “hey you know those places where the fallen warriors are buried? Those are the sites of Nephilim/Gibborim/Refaim, etc”.

While the name “gilgal rephaim” sounds enticing, it’s a much later name given to the site based on correlations to the technical term rather than the biblical rephaim. However, it’s possible they do share a connection. Much earlier sites such as Murayghat or Atlit Yam are as old as 8900 years, but show completely different structural megaliths. Atlit Yam is a stone circle, but doesn’t share the concentric features of Rujm el-Hiri, and neither does Murayghat. While Murayghat is on land in Madaba, Jordan - essentially the territory of Moab - Atlit Yam is actually off the coast of israel, submerged underwater. Many such sites like this exist where the human populations tended to congregate around coastal low lying areas. It’s impossible to know how many sites might actually be under the coasts given this effect, but we can clearly see a pattern of ancient megaliths built by civilizations before our contiguous human populations that might have given rise to ancient peoples' understanding of these sites specifically within Canaan.

All of these sites really correlate to an effect of ancient, long dead souls from the past who may have had descendants into the period of Judges, but long disappeared by the 2nd temple period. There is a tendency to overestimate the mythological value of the Rephaim in the same way scholars may over mythologize the Rapi-uma in Ugaritic systems. While there is a ‘mythological’ quality in their presence of the underworld, or Sheol, the functioning of these groups was literal, with forces beyond our understanding giving rise to their critical importance in biblical events. Their usage as less of a group themselves, but more of a category of groups operating in a similar vein would help explain how this was understood within its ancient historical context.

We will conclude with an excerpt from Ramban on the actual land of the Rephaim, extracted from a longer discussion on Deuteronomy that will form the basis for much of our Rabbinic evidence over the coming sections: “Thus the land of Rephaim was very large, and from it, Moab and Ammon took their lands. The balance remained for the Rephaim themselves, for Og, who dwelled in Ashtaroth, was of them, as is stated, ‘and they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim.’ And in the Book of Joshua it is written, ‘and cut down a space for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim.’ Therefore, Scripture says of the border of Moab and Ammon that it is “accounted to the Rephaim,” [still calling them “Rephaim,” the name by which they were originally known]. The Moabites and the Ammonites were the ones that changed [the name of the Rephaim] to other names: [the Moabites calling them] Emim and [the Ammonites calling them] Zamzummim.”¹⁷ Let us analyze these name changes to understand exactly why these groups had differing titles.

1. Bereshit Rabbah 26:7

2. Radak on I Chronicles 20:6:3

3. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles A. Briggs C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907/2013) [BDB], (CD-ROM), 9242.

4. Kohler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 2002. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill [HALOT]. (CD-ROM), 8014.

5. Lewis, Theodore J. 1999. "Dead." In Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 223–231.

6. Rouillard-Bonraisin, Hedwige. 1999. "Rephaim." In Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 692–700.

7. KTU 1:20–22

8. KAI 13.7-8, 14.8, 177.1; CTA 6.6.46-52, CTA 20-22 = KTU 1.161.

9. T. J. Lewis (professor of Hebrew Bible at Johns Hopkins University), Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Scholars Press, 1989)

10. Isaiah 14:9

11. Isaiah 26:14

12. Psalms 88:11

13. Psalms 9:18

14. Negev, Avraham; Gibson, Shimon (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518.

15. Aveni, Anthony F. (2001). Skywatchers. University of Texas Press. pp. 323–324.

16. Aveni, Anthony and Yonathan Mizrachi 1998 The Geometry and Astronomy of Rujm el-Hiri, a Megalithic Site in the Southern Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(4):475-496.

17. Ramban on Deuteronomy 2:20