Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>]

You cannot use the word Palestine for Canaan or Israel and be correct , if 
you wish to refer to the land the Phillistines "raped and plundered" you 
should put Canaan , before Moses and Israel after , God wont like you 
calling his land Palestine .

doug belot


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
To: <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?


> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1935 - Release Date: 4/02/2009 
4:35 PM