Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Walter,

You are facing the common problem found when attempting to deal with biblical 
matters in a coherent manner. People deny evidence for reasons that only seem 
to be related to a belief in the special position of the literature in the 
bible. The bible isn't wrong, therefore the other information must be wrong. 
Then follows all sorts of rationalisations.

The Philistines are not really a part of that wave of people who came in such 
force that they brought down Hatti, Cyprus, Kode, Karkemish and took lower 
Palestine from the Egyptians, so this rationalisation goes. No, let's make 
them something more manageable. They were a slim minority who became the 
ruling elite on the Palestine coast and really spoke a Semitic language, 
notwithstanding the fact that the few examples of Philistine writing is 
similar to Linear A which was found in Crete, where Hebrew tradition locates 
the Philistine origin, ie Kaftor. Why do these Semitic speaking Philistines 
introduce Greek pottery forms into local Palestinian production of pottery -- 
rather than using the local forms? Why do they introduce non-Semitic burial 
customs?

The problem is made more complex for we know that, while there were diverse 
groups involved in this dynamic movement from western Anatolia and the Aegean 
around to the Levant, the bible is only conscious of one, the Philistines, 
though we have Egyptian records of another group of the sea peoples in 
Palestine as well centred on the city of Dor where in fact there are Greek 
harbour works. These people, the Tjekker (as you note), were also mentioned 
in Ramses III's account of the struggle with the sea peoples. So, not only 
were there Philistines, but also Tjekker and probably others who have 
unfortunately left no historical traces. But because the bible only mentions 
the Philistines we may ignore the Tjekker as they are not our problem, 
isolate the Philistines from them and then claim that the Philistines were 
not part of the sea peoples. Bimson ignores the Tjekker. Drews probably 
ignores them as well. They are merely an inconvenience.

One should note other inconveniences while we are here. We have documented 
primary evidence that other groups of sea peoples actually were used by the 
Egyptians as mercenaries. The Sherden, for example are depicted a few 
generations earlier as Egyptian mercenaries. The Philistines use a form of 
pottery sarcofagus known from Egypt. Where did the Philistines get their 
Egyptian style pottery sarcofagus without having been exposed to the Egyptian 
culture that used them? Another group of sea people were involved with the 
Libyans during the time of Merneptah -- again primary documentation. The 
Egyptians clearly had a lot of experience of the sea peoples since the time 
when they first had relations with the Aegean. The Peleset, found in Hebrew 
in two forms (the other being Perizzites -- supposedly to do with villages, 
but there's no root to support the notion), are depicted on the walls of 
Madinat Habu in a similar manner to the other sea peoples, ie in Aegean dress 
with Aegean weapo!
ns. Nevertheless, people want the Philistines to be Semitic, so they either 
deny that the Peleset were the Philistines or they redefine the Philistines 
to suit their purposes.

The approach is well documented: deny, or subvert the data.

(It's not important that Trude Dothan is someone who actually has specialised 
in the study of Philistine archaeology, published *the* reference on 
Philistine archaeology and can truly be said to be one of the few experts in 
the field.)


Cheers,


Ian