Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: gabe AT cascadeaccess.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:52:03 EST


Gabe Eisenstein:

You wrote: “Everything I've read about the Philistines says they arrived in
Palestine in the 12th century. But Abraham visited them in Gen.21 & 26….So
if
historians are right about the Philistines, the Biblical texts are
anachronistic.”

Abraham’s interaction with the “Philistines” is not anachronistic.

You are talking about the classic Philistines, who after the 12th century BCE
are prominent on the southwest coast of Canaan. Abraham is never on the
southwest coast of Canaan. And Abraham has nothing to do with the 12th
century
BCE or any later time period.

John Van Seters, at pp. 53-54 of “Abraham in History and Tradition”, though
trying to de-bunk the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, in fact
nicely explains the situation regarding Abraham and the Philistines. Note
how Van
Seters deftly points out that the “Philistines” with whom Abraham deals have
n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with the classic Philistines you are talking
about:

“Genesis…does not use the term seren, the oldest term for the ruler of a
Philistine city…. Genesis also speaks about a Philistine king of Gerar, but
this
is not one of the five royal cities [of the historical classic Philistines],
and there is no other historical record of a Philistine monarchy at Gerar or
at any other city apart from the pentapolis. Furthermore, when Abraham and
Isaac enter into treaties with the Philistines no other ruler except
Abimelech
(with a Semitic name!) is mentioned. Yet in the book of Judges and in the
stories from the time of Saul and David, the five rulers of the Philistines
always
act in concert.”

Consider now the following pertinent facts.

1. We Cannot Rely on the Name “Philistines”

In Hebrew, the name “Philistines” sounds like “Invaders”. If the
Patriarchal narratives are an ancient text from the mid-14th century BCE (my
view), the
pre-Hebrew author could have used the name “Philistines” to describe the
foreign mercenaries that appeared in Canaan in that period. So we cannot
rely
exclusively on the name “Philistines”, out of context. Rather, what counts
is
whether the people in Abimelek’s land match the description of the classic
Philistines in the rest of the Bible and in secular history. They don’t.

2. Stopping Up Wells

The classic Philistines would never stop up their own wells. That would be
idiotic. Consider now the following key lines of text:

“Now all the wells which his [Isaac's] father's servants had digged in the
days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them
with earth. …And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had
digged
in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them
after
the death of Abraham”. Genesis 26: 15, 18

Certainly the classic Philistines would not sabotage their own wells! The “
Philistines” who stopped up Abimelek’s wells here must, rather, be foreign
mercenaries, or “Invaders”, who were hired by rival princelings to put
pressure
on Abimelek by sabotaging Abimelek’s invaluable water wells. These “
Philistines”/foreign mercenaries/"Invaders" cannot be the classic
Philistines, who
would certainly not have sabotaged their own wells.

3. No Philistine Names

The name “Phicol” comes from Anatolia, and is not a Philistine name. Phicol
is the head of princeling Abimelek’s tiny militia, which is fully consistent
with Phicol being a foreign mercenary/"Invader" whom Abimelek has hired to
maintain Abimelek in power. Only this tiny ethnic militia is composed of
foreign
mercenaries/“Invaders”/“Philistines”. Abimelek himself is a Canaanite.
The classic Philistines were not mercenaries and are never portrayed in the
rest
of the Bible as being mercenaries. “Abimelek” and “Ahuzzath” are west
Semitic names, not classic Philistine names. Based on these names and the
foregoing factors, Abimelek and Ahuzzath must be local Canaanites, who are
using a
tiny number of foreign mercenaries/"Invaders"/"Philistines" to keep Abimelek
in
power, and who have to contend with the fact that rival Canaanites are now
hiring their own foreign mercenaries/"Invaders"/"Philistines" to put pressure
on
Abimelek. None of this makes any sense at all for the classic Philistines.

This situation is entirely redolent of the mid-14th century BCE and the
Amarna Letters, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 12th century BCE or
any
later time period.

4. Abimelek Is Way Too Gallant

Abimelek is portrayed as being the most gracious Gentile in the entirety of
the Patriarchal narratives. No mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrew or Jewish
scribe
would portray their long-time rivals, the classic Philistines, in such a
flattering manner.

Here are some of the gallant words that the author of the Patriarchal
narratives puts into Abimelek’s mouth, words that no mid-1st millennium BCE
Hebrew
would ever put into the mouth of a despised rival classic Philistine leader:

“And Abimelech said [to Abraham and Sarah]: 'Behold, my land is before thee:
dwell where it pleaseth thee.'” Genesis 20: 15

“And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of
his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou
doest.
’” Genesis 21: 22

“And Abimelech charged all the people, saying: 'He that toucheth this man
[Isaac] or his wife [Rebekah] shall surely be put to death.'” Genesis 26:
11

“And they [Abimelech, Phicol and Ahuzzath] said: 'We saw plainly that the
LORD [YHWH] was with thee [Isaac]; and we said: Let there now be an oath
betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee”.
Genesis 26: 28

Conclusion: The “Philistines” in Genesis Are Not the Classic Philistines

The geography of Abimelek's people in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis never
touches any land dominated by the classic Philistines, much less mentioning
any of the classic Philistines' five grand cities. "Abimelek" and "Ahuzzath"
are west Semitic names, not Philistine names. “Phicol” is not a Philistine
name either. “Phicol” is an Anatolian name, and Phicol, the leader of a tiny
ethnic militia, is the only named person in the Patriarchal narratives who is
a
foreign mercenary/“Invader”/“Philistine”. Abimelek, with that classic west
Semitic name, is a local Canaanite, not a member of the classic Philistines,
and not a “Philistine” in the Patriarchal narratives either.

N-o-t-h-i-n-g that is said about the "Philistines" in the Patriarchal
narratives matches anything we know about the classic Philistines, nor does
it match
in any way the Hebrews' negatively biased view of their rival neighbors on
the coast of southern Canaan in the rest of the Bible.

In a word, the "Philistines" in the Patriarchal narratives simply cannot be
the classic Philistines. Nothing matches! The 1st millennium BCE Hebrews
and
Jews knew the classic Philistines well, and would never have described the
classic Philistines in such a manner as is done in the Patriarchal
narratives.
Though the n-a-m-e "Philistines" is the same in the Patriarchal narratives
and in the rest of the Bible, with the rest of the Bible clearly referring to
the classic Philistines on the southwest coast of Canaan in the post-13th
century BCE time period, nothing but that name "Philistines" matches in any
way,
shape or form to either Abimelek's people, or to the "Philistines”, in the
Patriarchal narratives.

Despite their n-a-m-e, the "Philistines" described in the Patriarchal
narratives simply are not the classic Philistines. Abimelek and his people
are
Canaanites, not the classic Philistines, who have hired a small number of
foreign
mercenaries/"Philistines", with rival Canaanite princelings likewise having
started to hire a small number of foreign mercenaries/"Philistines".

Gabe, in order to substantiate your claim that the Philistines in the
Patriarchal narratives are anachronistic, you would need to show something
about the
Philistines in the Patriarchal narratives, beyond merely the name
“Philistines”
, that matches the classic Philistines from the 12th century BCE and later.
In fact, there is n-o-t-h-i-n-g that matches. You will not be able to
point
to anything in the Patriarchal narratives regarding the “Philistines” that
evidences any knowledge of anything from the post-13th century BCE period.
The
author of the Patriarchal narratives knew absolutely nothing about the
classic Philistines, who had not yet come into existence. Instead of just
repeating
the name “Philistines”, you would need to point to something in the text
that shows knowledge of the classic Philistines. Van Seters’ quote above
cuts
the opposite way he wants it to. It shows that the author of the Patriarchal
narratives knew nothing whatsoever about the classic Philistines.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page