Talk:Rephaite

The Rephaim, and Anak were really the same group. Deut 2:9-22 solves this. They were actually not a race, but an elite faction whose imposing height, distinguished them from lesser men. and they would have intermarried (like egyptians) to continue their physical dominance, which has a scriptual indication of 6 1/2 to 8 ft tall, contrasting the 5'5 average male of the day.

The bible mentions several individual 'giants':

• Arba--renames Hebron,"Kiryat-Arba"c. 1700 bc
• Sheshai--ruler of Hebron c. 1250 bc
• Ahiman--ruler of Hebron c. 1250
• Talmai--ruler of Hebron c. 1250
• Og--Amorite Ruler of Bashen, at Ashtarot & Edrei, has bed 9 cubits long (13 1/2 ft). c. 1200 bc
• Goliath--Philistine champion from Gath. stood 4 1/2 cubits tall (6 ft 7)according to DSS. c. 1010 bc
• Ishbibenob--Philistine from Gath c. 975 bc
• Sippai--Philistine from Gath c. 975
• Unknown Philistine from Gezer, has 24 digits. c. 975 bc
• Unknown Egyptian slain by Benaiah son of Jehoiada, stood 5 cubits tall(7 1/2 ft). c. 1000 bc.

--207.225.65.89 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rephaim and the Titans

The Greeks had their Heroes, Giants, and Titans, born from the union of heaven and earth, Gaia and Uranus. Thus, the Hebrew had their traditions of mighty men (Rapa'm, and Napyl'm), descended from the union of gods and earthly women. That such an ancient tradition was part of the collective Hebrew literature should come as no surprise.

The Hebrew authors used the term "Rapa" loosely to describe famous ancient warriors of antiquity, such as the tribe of Anaq, (Anaq probably a cultic name) known for men of strength and size--that is to say, the tribe of Anaq had "mighty men" (Rapa) among them, and were even associated with the gods, as an explanation for their strength and stature (Numbers 13:33)

King Og of Bashan, (Deut. 3) and Goliath of Gath (I Sam 17) and his four Philistine kinsmen (I Chron 20) were all considered Rephaim. That there were pockets of gigantic men and their clans in Bronze and Iron age Palestine is likely based on a certain degree of historical fact.

Other inspirations for giant legends could also be based on ancient Dolmens and Megalithic tombs scattered around Trans-Jordan and Hebron.

Yet, at the same time, historical giants within the vicinity of Philistia are attested to as late as c. 600 BC, as we find mention in the writings of one, Alcaeus the Lesbian, for he writes of his brother (Antimenidas) fighting as a mercenary under Babylonia, and to much admiration of the Babylonians, he slew a warrior "lacking a handspan of 5 Royal cubits in stature." Antimenidas, probably faught in the seige of Ashkelon, 604 BC, or in some other conflict within Philistia-Judah. Yet Alcaeus himself mentions Ashkelon atleast once in his poems.

For the record, the Babylonian Royal cubit was 20.8 inches, and a span half of that. This indicates that the Giant Philistine slain by Antimenidas, stood about 8-feet tall, (with or without helmet). Such stature correlates with Goliath of Gath, who stood 4 cubits and a span (According to DSS and earliest Lxx), or about 7-feet. --71.215.157.202 23:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rapha'im רפאימ cannot mean dead ones

רפאימ cannot mean dead ones. at least not in hebrew. for that matter the root for dead/death-mwt is the same in just about all semitic languages: amharic/tigrigna mot-ሞት (with the 2nd literal being absorbed by the "o" sound attached to the "m") arabic مات-mat/موت-mawt aramaic maut/mout-ܡܘܬ hebrew mowt-מות. The dead ones would be מותימ see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mot_%28Semantic_god%29 also the רפא this root in hebrew is associated with healing the world to heal is לרפא. if anything רפאימ would mean the healers. cf. the angel Raphael רפאל http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Raphael_%28archangel%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.202.199 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment above is frankly incorrect, and misunderstands the evidence in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ugaritic texts. Yes, the Heb. root mwt does in fact mean die/death, but obviously this is not the only term that can be used to speak of the dead or the inhabitants of the world of the dead. See Isa. 14:9, 26:14,19; Ps. 88:11; Prov. 2:18, 9:18, 21:16; Job. 26:5; possibly 2Chron. 16:12, where we may read “Repha'im,” i.e. "dead ancestors," as opposed to Rophe’im, “doctors”). All of these texts clearly indicate that the term rp'm is being used to indicate the spirits of the deceased, or inhabitants of Sheol. The idea behind the use of the root rp' (heal) here is the notion that these deceased "spirits" (or whatever you want to call them) were thought to possess beneficent powers for living humans, hence the broadly ancient Near Eastern practice (which is amply attested archaeologically and in texts such as the Heb. Bible) of making libations and food offerings at the burial sites of ancestors. This is my first shot at editing a Wikipedia page, and I did not actually intend to just flat out delete the previous entry--it was an accident due only to my inexperience, for which I am somewhat sorry--but the previous entry contained wrong information, was unorganized, and did not touch on any of the important points which are, I think, now listed in the entry! -rapi'uma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapi'uma (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ammonites?

I am sure that Ammonites is supposed to read Amorites!!!Michaelwild (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I presume the same. It certainly shouldn't link to the extinct sea creature! I've changed the link, pending correction by someone more knowledgeable. MikeEagling (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. See Ammon.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Making a hash of things

@XJJRosebrook:. This is re: my recent edit and your recent revert. I accused your most recent edit of "making a hash of things." Here's what I mean.

In the first sentence, which should lead with the word "Rephaite," because that's the article title, you've instead substituted "a Rephaim," which is grammatically impossible, because "Rephaim" is a plural word.

In the second sentence, you've messed up the grammar again: They are . . . "are known."

You've removed the reference to Scott Booth's work, without explanation.

You've added a reference to "contemporary Jewish thought" to the first sentence. The article isn't about "contemporary Jewish thought."

You've renamed the "Canaanite People Group" section "First Use in the Hebrew Bible," when the section isn't about the first use of the term in the Hebrew Bible -- it's about the use of the term throughout the Hebrew Bible. To that section, you've added some unsourced speculation about Repha'im's (there goes the grammatical error again) being either "a celestial being, or an ancient creature."

This sentence: "Repha'im's being referenced as "shades" or "spirits" can be found in the following chapters, and verses from the Hebrew Bible, and any credible translation of it." is editorializing in a way that is not appropriate to Wikipedia.

With no explanation, you've pulled out the reference to Ar of Moab, and to the synonyms Zamzummim and Emim.

You refer to an interpretation as "stretched out."

You've removed the quote by Gabriel Levin without explanation.

This is precisely what "making a hash of things" means. Alephb (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I welcome you in changing the grammar, and perhaps re-adding those sources back, but keep the headings. And keep my material from the Jewish Virtual Library. For the Rephaite, you're incorrect. Repha'im would be singular, and Repha'im's would be plural in that context. Rephaite would be considered an alternative spelling of the word, or translation. Rosebrook (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Rephaim is plural. Rephaim's is incorrect. Randomly deleting parts of the article without explanation is bad editing. Randomly adding your unsourced opinions to the article is bad editing. The only sensible thing to do at this point would be to revert your edit, and then start over. Maybe, if you work slowly and carefully, changing one thing at a time, you would be able to edit productively. An even better idea would be to edit on subjects where you are more competent than this one. Alephb (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you speak Hebrew? This is the only disagreement we have, and you will not revert my edits so abruptly. I will report your edit-warring if you do. How about you just comply with my compromise? Rosebrook (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I speak enough Hebrew to know that you're way, way out of your depth here. Alephb (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the recent edits. I compromised. Now add your sources back, but keep the headings please. It's a compromise. Rosebrook (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you screw up ten things, and then we compromise and correct five of them, the article is still degraded. A policy of compromise with incompetence just leaves us with half-competent articles.

As soon as somebody else shows up who understands the subject matter and Wikipedia standards well, they will most likely revert to this version of the article, before you started messing things up. It's basically inevitable sooner or later. What we have right here might look like a disagreement between you and me at the moment, but it's really a disagreement between you and Wikipedia's standards. The version you keep restoring is flawed in enough different ways that you really shouldn't expect people to meet you halfway on this. Alephb (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just add your sources back, but keep my edits in tact. Blend it. It’s a compromise. Shalom! Rosebrook (talk) 22:09 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not compromise around here. We say what the reliable sources as per WP:RS say, and if one or more generally reliable sources is promoting a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE we act accordingly. So far as I can tell, XJJRosebrook has removed at least one source which meets RS standards without any prior discussion, added unsourced material to the article, including some material which seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL BALL which appears to jump to conclusions about an emerging view. None of that is acceptable as per policies and guidelines here. I strongly suggest XJJRosebrook become familiar with our content guidelines.If he can produce sources meeting WP:RS standards for material which he seems to add, at this point, I suggest he indicate them on the talk page here and seek and get consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS before seeking to add it again. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:John Carter, that user is no longer with us. Alephb (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Shorten description per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Size description of Rephaite

Whatever the situation re the Rephaites actual size, there is no description nor any reference to Rephaites being giants or of unusual size in Genesis 14:5 or Genesis 15:20. This error should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.187.134 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll just take care of this myself. I will now eliminate the false reference to giants re Genesis 14:5 and 15:20. 108.195.187.134 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Its inferred from the use of the word in places such as 2nd Sam 21:20 2601:19B:4600:5D84:C58D:59A:F10D:143F (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad Scholarship in the Article

There are errors in this article. It seems as though the author ventures off into a conspiracy theory of why the Hebrew root can have different meanings in the context of healing and the dead.

"The Heb. root רפא means “heal”, and thus the masculine plural nominalized form of this root may indicate that these “deceased ancestors” could be invoked for ritual purposes that would benefit the living"

This statement has little credibility. Where is this form of the word used and according to which Hebrew scholars can it be interpreted this way?

"The many references to repha'im in the Hebrew Bible in contexts involving Sheol and dead spirits strongly suggests that many ancient Israelites imagined the spirits of the dead as playing an active and important role in securing blessings, healing, or other benefits in the lives of the living."

Again what credible commentary is this supported by? The Old Testament expressly forbids "dead seeking" aka necromancy (Deuteronomy 18.11). Further the references to the dead in connection with Sheol such as Proverbs 9:18 and 2:18 and Isaiah 14.9-11 and other places do not support this.

"Isa 26:14  Dead ones do not live; departed spirits do not rise; because of this You visited and destroyed them, and caused all memory of them to perish."

The use of the word in connection with the dead does not support what the author is saying.The author seems to be suggesting a conspiracy theory of how the text was altered to hide some previous ancestor worship cult. This is at best a fanciful explanation for the different uses of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4600:5D84:C58D:59A:F10D:143F (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, the first quote is referenced by R. Mark Shipp. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21. 2002 p. 121: "It is also possible that the distinction here is not between the Rephaim and non-Rephaim dead kings, but rather between the rpim qdmym (Ulkn, Tr 'limn, Sdn w Rdn, Trmn; the “ancient Rephaim”) and the more recent Rephaim (Ammishtamru, ...",

by Matthew J. Suriano The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of ... 2010 p160 "Unlike the texts from Ras Shamra, however, Israelite literature negatively portrayed the Rephaim in order to undermine a politically potent element that was otherwise embraced in Ugaritic tradition. The equation of the Rephaim as dead ..."

and Brian B. Schmidt Israel's beneficent dead: ancestor cult and necromancy in ancient ... 1994 p267 "The Ugaritic rp 'um are repeatedly invoked as confirmation for the existence of both a living and dead biblical Rephaim. De Moor's theory comprises the most compelling and thoroughgoing proposal to date."

The second quote is referenced by "On the role of the dead and burial customs in ancient Israelite society and the cultures of the ancient Levant generally, see L. Bloch-Smith's Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead (Continuum, 1992).

Your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY SOURCES is considered to be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Editor2020 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)