Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Jim,

You are employing Van Seters' argument in a way which he would disagree with. 
Yes, he argues that the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives have 
nothing to do with the Philistines we know of from archaeology and other 
history. But he concludes that the narratives are, therefore, from a much 
later time when the classic Philistines were known. These classic Philistines 
were then projected back into the patriarchal narratives. As such, Van Seters 
would not argue that the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives are 
Canaanites, as you seem to be suggesting. He would say they are simply a late 
projection back (a retrojection?) and, therefore, ultimately a fictional 
element in the stories. That's how Van Seters argues.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of this view - I just wanted to point 
out that you might be misconstruing Van Seters' argument, or else are 
employing him very eclectically.

Also, could you tell us the reasoning behind  "Philistines" (PL$TYM) meaning 
"invaders"?


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au