Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Ian,

Do I detect some irony in your first couple of paragraphs? I think you 
ought to make this rather clearer for the benefit of those on this 
list who are learning English. But I agree with you when you write 
"People deny evidence for reasons that only seem to be related to a 
belief in the special position of the literature in the bible." Yes, 
this is indeed the approach of those scholars who reject evidence in 
the Bible when they accept other historical sources which are no 
better attested.

Thank you for your testimony concerning Trude Dothan. She or he is 
doubtless a great scholar and authority. But, as you have said so many 
times on this list, we should not accept authorities for what they are 
without looking at the primary evidence.

But in the main part of your post you are trying to knock down a straw 
man which, as far as I can tell, you yourself have erected. Does 
anyone doubt that the Philistines of the Iron Age were deeply 
influenced by both Aegean and Egyptian culture? That is not the same 
thing as proof that they are pure-blooded Aegeans, they may well have 
been a mixture, or simply have taken over the name of the Semites they 
displaced. Just like we British have a largely Germanic culture and 
language because we are mostly not the descendants of the ancient 
Britons but of immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia, but the name 
"British" survives from that previous period. It is just impossible to 
prove that the name "Philistine" was not used in Canaan before Rameses 
III, that it was not already the name of a Semitic or other group in 
Canaan.

And even if this could be proved, it would tell us nothing about the 
historicity of the Exodus events or of the dating of the narratives, 
except that the latter were edited at some time after the 12th century 
BCE to replace an obsolete ethnonym by the well-known but 
anachronistic "Philistine".

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Exodus, Philistines, contra Bimson & Drews
Author:  <MC2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    03/02/2000 12:33


Dear Walter,

You are facing the common problem found when attempting to deal with biblical 
ma
tters in a coherent manner. People deny evidence for reasons that only seem 
to b
e related to a belief in the special position of the literature in the bible. 
Th
e 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 
fo
rce that they brought down Hatti, Cyprus, Kode, Karkemish and took lower 
Palesti
ne from the Egyptians, so this rationalisation goes. No, let's make them 
somethi
ng 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 t
hat the few examples of Philistine writing is similar to Linear A which was 
foun
d 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 t
hey introduce non-Semitic burial customs?

The problem is made more complex for we know that, while there were diverse 
grou
ps 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 h
ave Egyptian records of another group of the sea peoples in Palestine as well 
ce
ntred on the city of Dor where in fact there are Greek harbour works. These 
peop
le, the Tjekker (as you note), were also mentioned in Ramses III's account of 
th
e struggle with the sea peoples. So, not only were there Philistines, but 
also T
jekker and probably others who have unfortunately left no historical traces. 
But
 because the bible only mentions the Philistines we may ignore the Tjekker as 
th
ey are not our problem, isolate the Philistines from them and then claim that 
th
e Philistines were not part of the sea peoples. Bimson ignores the Tjekker. 
Drew
s probably ignores them as well. They are merely an inconvenience.

One should note other inconveniences while we are here. We have documented 
prima
ry 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 
sarcofag
us without having been exposed to the Egyptian culture that used them? 
Another g
roup 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. 
Th
e Peleset, found in Hebrew in two forms (the other being Perizzites -- 
supposedl
y 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 
ar
chaeology and can truly be said to be one of the few experts in the field.)


Cheers,


Ian



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.