[b-hebrew] Philistines
George Athas
George.Athas at moore.edu.au
Thu Feb 5 17:21:55 EST 2009
Jim,
You are employing Van Seters' argument in a way which he would disagree with. Yes, he argues that the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives have nothing to do with the Philistines we know of from archaeology and other history. But he concludes that the narratives are, therefore, from a much later time when the classic Philistines were known. These classic Philistines were then projected back into the patriarchal narratives. As such, Van Seters would not argue that the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives are Canaanites, as you seem to be suggesting. He would say they are simply a late projection back (a retrojection?) and, therefore, ultimately a fictional element in the stories. That's how Van Seters argues.
I don't want to argue the pros or cons of this view - I just wanted to point out that you might be misconstruing Van Seters' argument, or else are employing him very eclectically.
Also, could you tell us the reasoning behind "Philistines" (PL$TYM) meaning "invaders"?
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list