Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

George:
 
1.  You wrote:  “Van Seters…argues that the Philistines in the patriarchal 
narratives have nothing to do with the Philistines we know of from 
archaeology 
and other history.”
 
That was precisely my point.  N-o-t-h-i-n-g  matches at all.  Hence no 
historical anachronism.
 
2.  You wrote:  “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.”
 
Note the dodgy logic of Van Seters there.  If the Patriarchal narratives are “
late”, as you and Van Seters and virtually all secular scholars claim is the 
case, then certainly any “late” author or authors would have known the 
characteristics of the classic Philistines!!!  Yet there is  n-o-t-h-i-n-g  
characteristic of the classic Philistines whatsoever in the Patriarchal 
narratives.
 
3.  You wrote:  “Van Seters would not argue that the Philistines in the 
patriarchal narratives are Canaanites, as you seem to be suggesting.”
 
No, no, no.  I did not say that.  The only ethnic “Philistine” in the 
Patriarchal narratives who has an individual name is Phicol.  Phicol is not a 
classic Philistine, but he is a foreign mercenary/“Philistine”, who does not 
have a 
west Semitic name and is not indigenous to Canaan.  The name “Phicol” comes 
from Anatolia, which is where most of the foreign mercenaries came from in 
the 
mid-14th century BCE.
 
Princeling ruler Abimelek, by contrast, is a Canaanite, not a “Philistine”.  
Abimelek is derisively called “princeling ruler of the Philistines” by the 
Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives, meaning “you are only the 
princeling ruler because of the foreign mercenaries/“Invaders”/“Philistines” 
you 
have hired to prop you up”.  Similarly, Abimelek’s land is derisively called “
the land of the Philistines” by the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal 
narratives, 
meaning “you wouldn’t be able to obtain access to the water wells on the mai
nland if it wasn’t for the foreign mercenaries/“Invaders”/“Philistines” you 
have hired to gain access to those invaluable water wells”.
 
Neither the foreign mercenaries/“Invaders”/“Philistines” in the Patriarchal 
narratives (Phicol and his small ethnic militia), nor the classic Philistines 
of later date, are Canaanites.  But Abimelek was a Canaanite, with that 
virgin pure west Semitic name of his.
 
In order to try to locate Abraham’s Abimelek somewhere in the general 
vicinity of where the classic Philistines lived, scholars have adopted the 
erroneous 
view that GRR/Gerar was located somewhere in the general vicinity of Gaza.  
However, even Anson Rainey readily admits that there’s nothing in secular 
history prior to the common era to support that scholarly gambit:
 
“Gerar is never mentioned in any non-biblical source and its role as the 
principal city in the western Negeb during the ‘ancestral period’ is fraught 
with 
difficulties.”  “The Sacred Bridge”, p. 114
 
GRR/Gerar in fact is KRR, being #80 on the Thutmosis III list, meaning GLyL/ “
Galilee”.
 
Likewise, there is no ancient inscription prior to the common era that 
attests the name “Qadesh” in the Negev or Sinai Deserts.  Rather, Qadesh at 
Genesis 
20: 1 is the well-attested historical Qadesh in Upper Galilee.
 
Everything about Abraham’s Abimelek matches historical Abimilki of Tyre in 
the Amarna Letters of the mid-14th century BCE (including the presence of 
foreign mercenaries and desperate attempts to gain and maintain access to 
water 
wells on the mainland), and  n-o-t-h-i-n-g  in Genesis matches the classic 
Philistines.  There is no historical anachronism here for a Late Bronze Age 
historical Patriarchal Age.
 
4.  You wrote:  “Also, could you tell us the reasoning behind  "Philistines" 
(PL$TYM) meaning "invaders"?”
 
My pleasure.
 
David Boxenhorn, who lives in Israel, has written that the word “Philistines”
/PL$TY may come from the Hebrew word “to invade”/PL$:
 
“Philistine…is not a Philistine word:  It's a Hebrew word.  …Philistine in 
Hebrew is P'lishti (פלשתי).  … So what does it mean? The root of P'lishti is 
p-l-sh [PL$], which means invade.  So Philistine simply means:  invader.”
 
_http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055422.php_ 
(http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055422.php) 
 
If we go back to the Bronze Age, being the Patriarchal Age, before Hebrew as 
a written language is attested, we find in the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis 
III list that a T is a common west Semitic suffix meaning “city”.  Possibly a 
final T was construct state, or feminine, or plural, or feminine plural.  Who 
knows, way back then?  But PL$ + T could mean “Invade City”.  The final 
yod/Y in the Hebrew rendering would mean “-ine” or “people”, etc.  So PL$ + T 
+ 
Y would mean “the Invade City people”/“Philistines”.  That is an apt 
derogatory nickname for these foreign mercenaries who showed up in Canaan in 
the 
mid-14th century BCE, with such nickname being created by a west Semitic 
speaker 
(the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives) in the mid-14th century BCE.
 
The Egyptians later called some of these foreign mercenaries “peleset”.  “
Peleset” makes no sense in Egyptian, and hence may be based on west Semitic 
PL$TY, which makes perfect sense in archaic Hebrew.
 
Then later, the classic Philistines, a completely different people, were 
called by the Hebrews by this old derogatory nickname:  PL$TY.
 
It does seem clear in any event that PL$TY/peleset is coming from either west 
Semitic-speaking natives of Canaan or from Egypt, and is a name imposed upon 
these foreign people.  As such, it is not surprising that it would be of a 
derogatory nature.
 
We see that PL$TY could easily be a derogatory west Semitic nickname for 
small numbers of fighters (and their families) who came into northernmost 
Canaan 
in the mid-14th century BCE as foreign mercenaries.  They weren’t literally “
invaders”, in most cases, as they were usually invited in by local Canaanite 
princelings as foreign mercenaries.  But they became alarming nevertheless to 
most Canaanites, as once these foreign mercenaries moved their families into 
Canaan, it was hard to see them leaving.  Though small in number, these 
foreign 
mercenaries, oddly often called “Sea Peoples”, are an historical fact in the 
mid-14th century BCE.
 
There is no scholarly agreement as to the etymology of “Philistines”.  The 
above views of mine may be wrong.  But that just reinforces the key fact 
here.  
The name “Philistines”, out of context, does not ensure that a text is 
talking about facts from the 12th century BCE or later.  It is very possible 
that 
the name “Philistines” was created by a Hebrew wordsmith in the mid-14th 
century BCE (my own view of the matter), and originally was a derogatory 
nickname 
for foreign mercenaries (not for the later classic Philistines), meaning “
Invaders”.
 
In order to show an historical anachronism in the Patriarchal narratives, 
what would be needed is to show some facts on the ground in the post-13th 
century 
BCE period of secular history that show up, anachronistically, in the 
Patriarchal narratives.  The presence of the mere name “Philistines”, 
standing 
alone, out of context, proves nothing at all about dating the Patriarchal 
narratives, one way or the other.  As you yourself insisted on another 
thread, the 
context is the key.  Here, the context is that  n-o-t-h-i-n-g  that is said 
about 
the “Philistines” in the Patriarchal narratives matches anything that we know 
about, or that the later Hebrews thought of, the classic Philistines who date 
to the 12th century BCE and later.  Nothing.  That in turn suggests that the 
Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives knew nothing whatsoever about the 
classic Philistines, who were not yet in existence.
 
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)