The prototype for what we are calling “Middonim” - a group different from the Nephilim or Gibborim proper - would be the important figure Goliath. The Middonim are a diluted bloodline, already thousands of years separate from their antediluvian ancestors appearing essentially Human in all but their physical size. Typically the Nephilim and Gibborim were direct children, or parents of people also giant in size, but with the Middonim their ancestry often lacks explicit instances of gigantism giving rise to a potential theory of recessive gigantism for groups with high Nephilim genetics.

Important for understanding Goliath’s background is actually the story of Ruth, from the Book of Ruth, where we learn of Ruth’s sister Orpah. Rather than stay with her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi, as Ruth decides, Orpah chooses to instead return to her people, the Moabites. This is all we are given on Orpah from the Book of Ruth, but Ruth Rabbah, a Rabbinic Midrash from the sixth century states “Rabbi Beivai said in the name of Rabbi Reuven: Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is stated: “I have a secret matter for you king. He said: Be silent…”(Judges 3:19)1 We learn from here that Ruth and Orpah were actually daughters of Eglon, Moabite King and leader of a coalition of Moab, Ammon, and Amalek.

The rest of Ruth Rabbah actually goes on to explain the lines in Judges where Eglon stood up when Ehud had a message for him from God (Judges 3:20), rewarding Eglon with his descendant being King David. If this lineage holds true, this actually places David among an already powerful, ancient royal bloodline helping explain him as more than a simple Israelite and why he was battling Goliath.

The narrative between David and Goliath first appears in I Samuel 17 after chapter 16 where we are given a lengthy introduction to David through his father Jesse, the Bethlehemite. To keep the account brief David is chosen to be sent to Saul as a sort of servant. He is called “a mighty man of valor, and a warrior, and prudent in affairs, and a handsome man, and the Lord is with him."2 What should be obvious to a keen reader is the term “mighty” here is not ‘gibborim’ in its plural ethnic group form, but actually the singular ‘gibor’. It is still interesting though that scripture juxtaposes David and Goliath as different types of gibor/gibborim.

After arriving in Saul’s service, David becomes a weapon bearer for Saul, something of a ranking military official, and eventually finds favor in Saul’s eyes. Saul requests David stand before him, and David weirdly ends up playing the harp for Saul helping cure some kind of spiritual malady afflicting Saul.

The chapter closes, and we reopen in the middle of the Philistines assembling their camps for war. In line four we first get mention of Goliath “A champion of the Philistine forces stepped forward; his name was Goliath of Gath, and he was six cubits and a span tall.”3 If earlier Og was about twelve feet based on a height of eight cubits, that would make Goliath a much more realistically sized nine feet with an additional ‘span’ being 3/4ths of a foot - making Goliath just under ten feet tall. This height is absolutely within range of the medical condition gigantism, and as opposed to an antediluvian figure like Og, Goliath has a much more realistic physical size.

The text goes on to describe what Goliath is wearing, and which weapons he is armed with; with Goliath continuing to challenge a ‘champion’ from among the Israelites to settle the war and save the lives of other soldiers. David once again enters as an “Ephraimite” from Bethlehem, one of eight children of his father Jesse. The text diverges to discuss details not critical for our discussion, but Goliath eventually re-enters with the line “And while he was speaking with them, behold, the champion, named Goliath the Philistine, from Gath, was coming up from the ranks of the Philistines, and he spoke the same words (as before), and David heard.”4

No tricks here, the common conception of this encounter is mostly correct; the men flee after seeing Goliath, only David has the chutzpah to accept his challenge and approaches Saul for his blessings in this challenge. Saul gives David provisions, but David - unaccustomed to comfortably fighting in the armor, or using the weapons he is given - takes off the supplies and instead picks up five stones and a sling. David takes his little sack of stones, challenges Goliath, plants one right between the eyes as is commonly imagined, picks up his head dragging it to Saul and seizes victory for Israel routing the philistine forces.

The next chapters deal with the political fall out of this event for the royalty of Israel, but is mostly irrelevant to our discussion of giants and Goliath other than the strange parading around of Goliath’s sword as a battle relic. The political fallout is vast, but ultimately the philistines are still constantly raiding and causing problems for the Israelites throughout this period. Despite having slain Goliath, David doesn’t “end the war” but is thrown in a continual series of events that threaten his life.

Possibly necessary for this discussion is the strange story later in Samuel 27 where David, fearing for his life at the hands of Saul, decides to flee to the Philistines? He goes to a man named “Achish”, son of the King of Gath and obviously the prince. Even weirder, David is given the city of Ziklag by Achish showing more than just a friendly relationship, but one of deep trust. The narrative continues with more political intrigue, and more Philistine x Israelite combat, but what is critical to pull from this is a question: “Why did David trust a Philistine King?”

II Samuel 18-23 introduced a band of six hundred ‘Gittites’ following a man named Itai, who appears to be oddly loyal to David despite David’s own insistence that he cannot protect him and his people! Itai continues on as a general of David’s army, showing a possible bond between these people resulting from David’s time in Gath. To this day, the story of Itai has inspired many in Israel to use the name as a sign of loyalty to ‘Israel’, in other words the house and people of David. Through Itai’s loyalty, we see how Gittites in particular - like the King of Gath, Achish - had a very strange relationship to the Israelites.

Leave a comment

Enter II Samuel 12-22 where a new war with the philistines breaks out over David seemingly gathering up the bones of Saul and Jonathan from where they were slain by the Philistines. Clearly, the Philistines did not like this and in line 15 start a war with Israel:

“Again war broke out between the Philistines and Israel, and David and the men with him went down and fought the Philistines; David grew weary,

and Ishbi-benob tried to kill David.—He was a descendant of the Raphah; his bronze spear weighed three hundred shekels and he wore new armor.—

But Abishai son of Zeruiah came to his aid; he attacked the Philistine and killed him. It was then that David’s men declared to him on oath, “You shall not go with us into battle any more, lest you extinguish the lamp of Israel!”

After this, fighting broke out again with the Philistines, at Gob; that was when Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, a descendant of the Raphah.

Again there was fighting with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, whose spear had a shaft like a weaver’s bar.

Once again there was fighting, at Gath. There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all; he too was descended from the Raphah.

When he taunted Israel, Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei, killed him.

Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.”5

A few questions present themselves from this text. We are told about four strange figures all seemingly descendants of Raphah, in other words the Rephaim. The text excessively indicates these four men’s giant stature, although it’s not exactly clear from the narrative the nature of their relationship other than the connective Raphah. The Gemara contains a discussion of the battle between David and Goliath. “These four were born to Harafa in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants” (II Samuel 21:22). The Gemara asks: What [are the names of the four siblings mentioned here?] Rav Ḥisda said: They are Saph, and Madon, Goliath, and Ishbi in Nob (see II Samuel 21:16–20).”6

From the Gemara we learn three things. First, each of these men are siblings, second their mother is named Harafa, and the third brother’s name is ‘Madon’ helping certify that earlier theoretical title I proposed for the “Middon/Maddonim”. The question becomes who is the Harafa, and what is the genealogical lineage of these ‘giants’? We can answer that by digging into the Rabbinic literature for Goliath.

Turning again to the Gemara: “It is written that Goliath’s mother was: “Harafa” (II Samuel 21:16), and it is written: “Orpah” (Ruth 1:4). Rav and Shmuel. One said: Her name was Harafa, and why is she called [by the] name Orpah? Because everyone came at her from behind [orfin] her, i.e., sodomized her. And one [of them] said: Her name was Orpah, and why is she called [by the] name Harafa? [It is] because everyone threshed her like groats [harifot], i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and so it says [that this word means groats:] “And the woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth, and strewed groats [harifot] thereon” (II Samuel 17:19).”7

We learn that Harafa is actually Ruth’s sister Orpah, connecting all of these events and possibly giving an explanation for David’s close relation to Orpah’s children. David was, at the least, a 2nd, or 3rd cousin of Goliath and the other brothers. In some sense we are witnessing a genealogical dispute over kingship in the land of Canaan, with competing claims of royal lineage. Remember, both David and Goliath are related to Eglon, the unified monarch of the land previously. They would be some of the better qualified candidates to unify the kingdom once again, and it is through this narrative we are shown why exactly David was in close contact with various Philistine figures.

The Gemara goes on to explain why Orpah’s descendants will fall into the hands of David’s, but importantly next passes on a teaching from Rava “Rava taught: As a reward for the four tears that Orpah shed [in sadness] over her mother-in-law, she merited four mighty warriors descended from her, as it is stated: “And they lifted up their voice and wept again” (Ruth 1:14).”8 For Orpah’s mourning of Naomi, she merits the birth of the four brothers!

Much of this information is reaffirmed in Ruth Rabbah with some additional information “Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Orpah walked forty paces with her mother-in-law [before leaving], and [therefore] her descendant’s [sentence] was in abeyance for forty days, as it is stated: “The Philistine approached morning and evening [and stood for forty days]” (I Samuel 17:16). Rabbi Yudan in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Orpah walked four mil with her mother-in-law, and four mighty men came from her, as it is stated: “These four were born to the giant [harafa]”(II Samuel 21:22).”9

Let us turn to a lengthy story about David and the Philistines that is too tantalizing to pass up: “One day David went to hunt with a falcon [liskor bazzai]. Satan came and appeared to him as a deer. He shot an arrow at the deer, and the arrow did not reach it. Satan led David to follow the deer until he reached the land of the Philistines. When Ishbibenob saw David he said: This is that person who killed Goliath, my brother. He bound him, doubled him over, and placed him on the ground, and then he cast him under the beam of an olive press to crush him. A miracle was performed for him, and the earth opened beneath him so he was not crushed by the beam. That is the meaning of that which is written: “You have enlarged my steps beneath me, that my feet did not slip” (Psalms 18:37).”10 We begin seeing the early signs of a struggle between these relatives, and an emerging hatred between the two groups. We are also told of a miraculous event where David is saved by Hashem from being crushed alive.

Continuing: “He mounted the king’s mule and arose and went to the land of the Philistines. The land miraculously contracted for him and he arrived quickly. As he was progressing he saw Orpah, Ishbibenob’s mother, who was spinning thread with a spindle. When she saw him, she removed her spindle and threw it at him, intending to kill him. After failing to do so, she said to Abishai: Young man, bring me my spindle. He threw the spindle and struck her at the top of her brain and killed her.”11

The Talmud obviously is aware that David is able to “miraculously contract” in the land of the Philistines, showing a deeper awareness that to even have land and form contracts clearly implies a more noble origin for this narrative. We are next told directly that Orpah is the mother of Ishbibenob, and that she throws a needle at David trying to assassinate him, and in failure of this attempt loses her life to David’s servant Abishai.

Once again continuing “When Ishbibenob saw him, he said: Now they are two, David and Abishai, and they will kill me. He threw David up in the air, and stuck his spear into the ground. He said: Let David fall upon it and die. Abishai recited a sacred name of God and suspended David between heaven and earth so that he would not fall.”12 This line almost extrapolates on the previous miracle where David’s life is saved, but this time an even crazier narrative arises of David being tossed up into the air, and Abishai reciting the name of God to temporarily suspend David in animation “between heaven and earth” so that he would not fall!

Slightly later in the Gemara: “Ishbibenob pursued them, intending to kill them. When they reached the place named Kuvi they said: The name of the place is an abbreviation for the phrase meaning: Stand and battle against him [kum beih]. When they reached a place called Bei Terei, David and Abishai said: With two [bitrei] cubs they killed the lion, meaning they expected to be successful. They said to Ishbibenob: Go find Orpah, your mother, in the grave. When they mentioned his mother’s name to him and told him she died, his strength diminished, and they killed him. The Gemara notes: It is after this that it is written: “Then David’s men took an oath to him saying: You shall not go with us to war anymore and you will not douse the lamp of Israel” (II Samuel 21:17).”13 This isn’t that important for our purpose, but the Talmud’s deep comedy is on display when it tells of David and Abishai taunting Ishbibenob over killing their mother previously!

Ultimately we see a narrative between all these Rabbinic sources that confirms this royal connection between David, and the four sons of Orpah. Given that Ruth and Orpah are not giants themselves, it begs the question who is the father? He must have implicitly been a giant himself, and we are never told anything other than he is a “Rapha”. Rapha though is quite clearly a shorthand for Raphaim, lacking the plural ‘im’ suffix. We know this because of Chronicles where much of this story is repeated “Now it came to pass after this that a war arose in Gezer with the Philistines; then Sibbecai the Hushathite smote Sippai of the sons of Raphaim, and they were vanquished.”14 Rapha here is actually Raphaim, meaning these terms are supposed to be the same making it unlikely “Rapha” is the name of their father, but mostly a title.

Now, identities of these brothers is really not important, and neither is their father, given that he must have been a ‘giant’ aka a Rephaim, in other words a later version of the Nephilim closer to the “Middonim” status we have pointed out previously.

There is a dispute that arises in the Rabbinic literature around the era of the Rishonim. Kicking this off is Rashi who openly does not believe Goliath the Gittite is the same as Goliath the Philistine! “Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the staff of his spear was as [thick as] a weavers’ beam. I believe that Goliath the Gittite is not identical with Goliath the Philistine. One reason is that there [I Sam. 17:23] he called him Goliath the Philistine. Another reason is that above it is written: “... then Sibbecai the Hushathite smote Sippai of the sons of Rapha,” and also below it is written: “and he too was born to Raphah.” Since he does not mention that Goliath the Gittite was a son of Rapha, it proves that he [Goliath the Gittite] was not her son.”15

What Rashi does here is delineates the two Goliaths, one a Gittite from the city of Gath, the other a ‘Philistine son of Rapha” who would obviously be the giant Goliath. Frankly, it’s not actually important if the Gittite was Orpah’s son, but it makes less sense than if he was her son given his inclusion of the narrative slaying the brothers of Goliath.

The dispute arises from the Radak, who actually closely followed and held to Rashi’s interpretations, but dissented here with a different reason saying “Elhanan son of Jair [killed] et Laḥmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite. Now Goliath the Gittite is the same as Goliath the Philistine—after all, the text says there that “his name was Goliath, the Philistine of Gath” (1 Sam 17:23)—and it was not Elhanan who killed him, but David (1 Sam 17:49–50)! So there remains something elusive about the verse in [2] Samuel. “The Bethlehemite” who “killed Goliath the Gittite,” however, indeed refers to David. Here also, in fact, when the text says et Laḥmi, it means: with the Lehemite, that is, David. Still, it was Elhanan who killed [Goliath’s] brother: perhaps the reason it mentions David also is that he assisted in the killing. So there it reports the death of Goliath, whom David killed, whereas here it reports the death of his brother, whom Elhanan killed. But Targum Jonathan renders the verse in [2] Samuel as follows: “David son of Jesse of Bethlehem, weaver of the curtains of the Holy Temple.”16

The possible explanation for all of this might be the earlier story from the Talmud Sotah where we learned Orpah was raped by philistine men. When the Torah says “son of Gath” perhaps it is hinting at Orpah’s promiscuity and birth of Goliath through intercourse with multiple men, making him literally a “son of the city” rather than a specific individual! This doesn’t really explain away the possibility of two Goliaths, but may explain the differing name choices making it a moot discussion. The point of bringing this dispute is to say that identifying a figure of Goliath from history might be more challenging than figures from earlier eras given not just the cultural prevalence of the name, but also the Rabbinic failure to certify this possible ‘two Goliaths’ theory from Rashi. Let’s actually look at the etymology for the name Goliath.

Next time we will further analyze Goliath, and his ancient origins. Thank you once again for reading.