Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>   Finally, in response to commens on the Philistines.  1.  It is only a
>hypothesis, Ian, that prs in Egyptian reocrds refer to the PLST, since
>Egyptian often used a "R" for an "l".  So the notin that Egyptian
>records identify precisley the Philistines and when they showed up is
>only probable and ot at all certain.  

Sorry, Ken, but this seems like clutching at straws. You'd like to imply
that the people indicated at Medinet Habu may not be the Philistines
because the Egyptians were ambivalent on the r/l. Let's forget about the
Helladic cultural artifacts that suddenly appeared on the Philistine coast
in the eleventh/tenth centuries, artifacts in keeping with those indicated
on the outside north wall of Medinet Habu. It is really intriguing to see
all the writhings that people go through when faced with fairly
straight-forward facts, Ken.

>2.  I don't know where youget the
>estimate of "infintessimally small" for suggesing that the coastal
>inhabitants were referred to as PLST before the Sea Peoples invaded, but
>I would suggest that there's little basis to make any kind of estimate
>in that regard.  It is a reasonable hypothesis that explains the data
>without resorting to some idea that the editor was an idiot, calling
>people that everyone would know were not Philistines by the name
>Philistines. 

I don't understand your thought, Ken. The archaeological evidence shows the
arrival of people called peleset (and others) in the twelfth century. You
seem firstly to be arguing that coincidentally people of the same name
lived in the same area, which I would say has an infinitessimal
possibility. But then you go on to say something about the editor being an
idiot...? And why should this idiotic editor necessarily know that the
people who lived in Philistine lands several hundred years before they
arrived? The writer of Daniel seemed to have problems with historical
information. I wouldn't call that writer an idiot. Judith has
Nebuchadnezzar as the king of the Assyrians. Wrong with regard to history,
but Judith was not doing history of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Antiochus IV,
who was king of the Assyrians.

>3.  PLST is used in the TaNaKh on more than one occasion in
>a more general sense, such as "foreigner."  

Terms sometimes go from the specific to the more general. (Just consider
the Kittim.) What examples do you have in mind?

>4.  You did not really deal
>with the possibility, or even probability I think, that the final editor
>of Genesis used PLST in case his/her audience was potentially unfamilar
>with who lived in the coasal region beforehand.  

I can't see what this has to do with the hypothetical Philistines of Gerar.

>I'm sure I can find
>places, right here in California, whose previuos inhabitants wen byames
>neiher you Ian nor I know.  Would it help ou if I told you to meet me at
>the palce the abcs lived, if you'd never heard of he abcs?  Nope.  SO
>why is that unreasonable for Genesis?  

Perhaps you should check out Gen26:12-22 about the Philistines.


Ian