Iron and Bronze.

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Sep 11 02:04:01 EDT 2002


>At 08:15 PM 9/6/2002 +0200, Ian Charles Hutchesson wrote:
>>> >This seems to be hard to fathom, but the HB/OT knows 
>>> >nothing about the arrival of the Philistines in the twelfth
>>> >century.
>>> 
>>> That's not quite true. Gen. 10:14 and Deut. 2:23 . And Amos 9:7 
>>
>>I'll get back to you on this as I am away from all literature at the
>>moment. 

The basic mention of Caphtor is a red herring to the 
original idea that there was no knowledge of the 
arrival of the Philistines on the coast.

The conquest model of the Hebrews gaining control of 
inland Southern Levant, seems to have bit the dust at 
the archaeological evidence which says that there are 
no signs of intrusive culture in the highlands, but 
that the same culture that was there at the beginning 
of Iron IA was the source of the culture which was 
there later, ie the same culture that faced the onslaught 
of the Philistines et al. (probably including Dan whose 
original territory coincidentally coincided with that 
of Ekron and who still lived in ships according to Jgs 
-- I wonder why --, ie the Dnnym/Denyen), yet that 
culture leaves no written traces of the events which 
led to the ejection of the Egyptians and saw the 
destruction of innumerable cities including Lachish, 
Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, Ta'anach, Beth-Shean, etc. From 
1140 onward, ie after the settling in of the Philistines, 
they pushed inland, even into the Jordan valley. 

What we have in the biblical tradition is not any 
knowledge of the Philistine arrival, but stories of the 
Israelites coming into contact with the Philistines 
who were already in their lands. Joshua 13:3 acknowledges 
the five srnym of the Philistines. Many other cities were 
inhabited by the Philistines for a while, but the five 
obviously became the de facto state of power in the 
Philistine lands It reflects a later status quo.

That the Jewish literature may be aware of the Caphtor 
tradition doesn't change the fact that the anachronism 
regarding the Philistines at Gerar, an integral part of 
the Isaac version of the tale, is in keeping with the 
indications found elsewhere in the tnk, ie that the 
Philistines were in the land, and there before the 
Israelites were -- or at least before any preserved 
cultural traditions.

I'm working on R3's battles with the Philistines 
being circa 1170 BCE while R6 died in 1136. I have 
in mind an article written by Finkelstein on the 
Philistine settlement about 4 years ago.

(And let me add another logically similar anachronism: 
Gen 14:14 talks of Abraham going as far as Dan, ie the 
territory I gather after the migration of the Danites, 
though Dan was born in Gen 30:6, a great-grandson of 
Abraham. The removal of the reference to Dan from the 
passage is difficult, as it will mean the removal of 
other material.

I think a fair case can be put together for a late 
*creation* of many of the traditions, including the 
Gerar stories, the first creation, Melchizedek, table 
of nations...)

>But if I remember correctly the Hebrews believed that Caphtor was
>>located south of Egypt, given its position in the table of nations.
>
>How could you know that?

Straight from Gen 10:13-14. Caphtor was a son of Mizraim. 
Are any of the other sons from outside Africa? Though 
perhaps this may be academic when the text actually says 
that the Philistines came from Casluhim, another son of 
Mizraim. But again, Casluhim, Caphtorim, sons of Egypt 
are from the south.

>>> >Had the Hebrews already been in Southern Levant at that time
>>> >they had to know about their arrival. The texts simply show
>>> >them as being there when the Israelites, as they spread into
>>> >the area, became aquainted with them. This means that the
>>> >stories of Abraham and Abimelek and Isaac and Abimelek post-
>>> >date the arrival of the Philistines, but post-date them by
>>> >far, so that there is no awareness that there were no
>>> >Philistines at the time of attributed to Abraham or Isaac.
>>> 
>>> I think that, at least on some level, they knew full well that the Semitic
>>> named "Philistines" of patriarchal-period Gerar were not the same as the
>>> later Kaphtorian Philistines of Gaza etc. 
>>
>>Why on earth do you think that? There is no evidence for it. 
>
>Just look at the geography. The Philistines and their "pentapolis" are not
>mentioned among the "nations of Canaan" in the Pentateuch. While the
>territory involved is clearly a part of Cannan, they are not "Canaanite".

They are apparently viewed as Hamitic, as the Canaanites were. 
I don't think the Hebrews could have confused the two groups, 
so one couldn't make the Philistines depend on the Canaanites. 

>The Philistines of Abimelech live in the western Negeb, while the
>Philistines of Joshua and later live along the coastal plain and the Shphelah.

The Gerar area suffered from the Philistines like most of the 
rest and it's only about 15 kilometres from Gaza. I don't 
understand your point.

>>> I suspect that the use of the title "Philistine" for Abimelech
>>> and friends is just another anachronism, caused by the (later) 
>>> reference to the Ziklag area as "Philistine-Land". 
>>> As is evident from many examples, this kind of anachronism, 
>>> even when blatently obvious, did not bother the biblical 
>>> authors.
>>
>>And suggests late writing.
>
>I never said otherwise. I'm not trying to defend a Mosaic authorship of the
>Pentateuch. What i am saying is that the writers/redactors/editors had more
>of a sense of history than you give them credit for.

What evidence makes you think that?

>>> >The Philistines, who were definitely from Greek or Luwian
>>> >background, were even placed within Ham, as though they 
>>> >were semi-autochthonous.
>>> 
>>> Not exactly. Read Gen. 10:14 again. They are not "descended" 
>>> from Ham, but rather "came out" from "there". 
>>
>>They came out of Caphtor who was a son of Egypt and thus a descendent of Ham.
>>
>>> This is a 
>>> reflection of the Philistines' political ties to Egypt, either in the 
>>> days of Ramses III or at the time of writing.
>>
>>The Philistines had no political ties with Egypt. They simply attempted to
>>invade ... They simply dispossessed the Egyptian holdings in Southern Levant,
>>which stratification clearly indicates. Any relationship with the Egyptians
>>was purely de facto.
>>
>
>Not if you read the graet Haris papyrus, and not according to
>archaeological evidence, which suggests that Egyptians and Philstines (or
>other so-called "sea peoples") co-existed in parts of Canaan at least until
>the latter part of the 12th century. Though the Egyptians didn't invite
>them, they did end up accomodating them and using their services. Only
>after the final Egyptian retreat c. 1100 did the Philistines become
>independant agents. To the Canaanite/Israelite, it may well have seemed
>that they came as a part of the Egyptian administration.

Pap Harris 1 has the stuff by R3 about housing the Philistines 
in his garrisons. This is political talk out of the side of 
his mouth to say that he had lost control of the entire coast.

As the Philistines et al. moved inland the Egyptians also lost 
the rest. The last indication was of the presence of R6 circa 
1140 BCE. Your information doesn't reflect the archaeological 
data. The Egyptian controlled towns suddenly started 
manifesting Philistine pottery above the destruction level 
containing Egyptian artifacts. As the highlands offered nothing 
of value to the Philistines they didn't bother about them. They 
had all the prize lands and natural resources from the coast 
into the Shephelah.

>> Remember that Kittim is a son of Javan, yet Kition was not founded until
>>the tenth century BCE and didn't become a well-known 
>
>"Well known" to whom? To Heroditus? Or to the Judahites? How would you know
>what they knew?

What the Judahites knew but didn't write, we can never know. 
We attempt to understand what we can from the evidence 
available for a picture of the period.

Kition was relatively small until the Persian period, living 
in the shadow of the superior numbers of Greek cities. The 
Persians relied on the Phoenicians on the island for 
administrative purposes and Kition thrived, gaining from 
their prized position. It was during this period (c.470) that 
Kition reached its peak, hence my statement about being well- 
known.

>entity until the Persian period, when the Persians gave it scope to come
>out of the shadow of the Greek cities (though kittim were known from the
>Arad ostraca and have been hypothesized as soldiers or traders, but what
>the activities of the kingdom of Arad might have to do with Jerusalem I
>don't know).
>
>What "kingdom of Arad". We're talking about the 6th century. Arad was a
>Judahite border outpost.

Yes, sorry, you're right. I confused two periods.

We have a mention of kittim at Arad at the turn of the 7/6th 
century. It was a parenthesis. (But then the rest, regarding 
the lateness of the table of nations, is another parenthesis 
now, so it's omitted.)


Ian







More information about the b-hebrew mailing list