Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear List,

New Topic,

Based on what Tory has indicated about the mistakes made regarding the
Philistines (Peleset), I am wondering if the Hyksos were Asiatic-Canaanites or
of the first wave of the Sea Peoples. My reasoning is that according to the
Hebrew Text, Israel departed Egypt 430 years from the day that Jacob entered
Egypt. Assuming for the sake of argument (hypothesis) that 1446-5 BC is 
correct
for an early date, then 1446 + 430 = 1876 BC. This would place Joseph at the
reign of Sesostris III. The "new king" who arose over Egypt (Ex. 1:8) would 
be a
Hyksos king NOT an Egyptian Pharaoh called king. Ex. 1:7 does indicate that
Israel had grown exponentially during the period in which they had lived in
Goshen; thus, being a threat to any King or Pharaoh.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tory Thorpe" <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Philistines and anachronisms


>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, "Gabe Eisenstein" <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com> wrote:
>
> > The attempt to make the Philistines of Genesis&Exodus into a different,
> > completely unknown group is motivated only by awareness of the
> > anachronism.
>
> For the so-called arrival of the Peleset (i.e. Philistines) in the southern
Levant during the 12th century BCE there is really nothing but the old Sea
Peoples hypothesis which is now coming under increasing criticism. It is based
on two basic assumptions: (1) that the first mention of Peleset in Egyptian
texts signals the advent of this people-group in the southern Levant; and (2)
that pottery styles can serve as ethnic markers announcing their arrival.
>
> As for assumption 1, that no pharaoh we know of earlier than Ramesses III
seems to make explicit mention of the Peleset would be support of the recent
arrival hypothesis were it not for the fact that the pharaohs rarely made
distinctions between the residents of Pa-Canaan. They were all
Asiatic-Canaanites to most pharaohs. We have reason to believe now, for 
example,
that Merneptah was not the first pharaoh to mention Israel by name. It seems
that honor may actually belong to a pharaoh of the 18th dynasty who mentions 
an
Israel in the proximity of Ashkelon and Canaan (Manfred Goerg). None of the
pharaohs between the 18th dynasty and Merneptah mention Israel yet it appears
that there may have been such an entity in the Levant all that time.
>
> We see in the Medinet-Habu texts of Ramesses III that the Peleset are not
invading newcomers of the Levantine coast. They are mentioned in the Year 5 
text
concerned with the Libyan war and thus they were already residents before the
great Asiatic war of Year 8 and presumably long since Aegeanized due to
continuous contact with the Aegean. What is actually described in the Egyptian
texts for Year 8 is an Asiatic uprising against Ramesses III (not an invasion 
by
Sea Peoples) supported by Hittite satellite states in Cilicia and also Syria.
>
> Turning to assumption 2, much like languages pottery styles are not reliable
ethnic markers. This was demonstrated long ago by Ruth Amiran (1969) with 
Aegean
pottery forms. These were present in the Levant all through the Late Bronze 
Age.
They cannot be safely used as evidence of new ethnic arrivals from the Aegean 
in
Iron I because such wares were already there. But more importantly, there is 
no
evidence any migrants from Cyprus/Aegean styled themselves "Peleset" before 
they
arrived.
>
> At approximately the beginning of Iron I we do have archaeological evidence 
> of
a fresh influx from Cyprus/Aegean (as shown by changes in diet, changes in
architecture, tablewares, etc.) but no monochrome pottery is found in any 20th
dynasty context until the last days of Ramesses VI or later (Finkelstein, 
1998).
Myceneaen IIIC:1b pottery, the so-called hallmark of the Philistines, appeared
only after the reign of Ramesses III (Killebrew, 2000).
>
> So the old arrival hypothesis is currently faced with a dilemma and AFAIK a
consensus has not yet emerged. On the one hand the inscriptions of Ramesses 
III
show that Peleset were already residents of the Levant before Year 5. On the
other hand the distinctive material culture which is assumed to announce the
arrival of the Peleset does not appear until 40 or more years after they were
beaten by Ramesses III in Year 8 (Aharoni, 1978).
>
> If there is a legitimate reason to call any of the newcomers from Cyprus or
the Aegean at the beginning of Iron I Peleset as if none of the pre-existing
inhabitants were calling themselves Peleset before they became a military
concern for Ramesses III it has yet to be found. For that one needs to produce
epigraphic evidence from Cyprus or from wherever one believes the Peleset
originally came which actually mentions the Peleset. Lipinski is one who is
attempting to do this, but as of this writing the name Peleset/Philistim is
associated only with Egypt and the southern Levant in the literary sources.
>
> Keep in mind that the English were calling themselves English before and 
> after
the Normans invaded and became the ruling elite. The newcomers introduced
changes but were not numerous enough to change the language. Thus no 
historical
candidates for the Genesis and Exodus Philistines as somehow distinct from the
Peleset mentioned by Ramesses III need be sought. Put simply, the term
Philistine in Genesis and Exodus might very well be an anachronism but there 
is
to date zero evidence that it is.
>
> Tory Thorpe
> Modiin, Israel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 270.10.18/1937 - Release Date: 02/06/09
11:31 AM
>
>