Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

George Athas:

 

You wrote:  “Jim, Please try to be less verbose. That's all I have to say about that.”

 

We would all like to know, and learn from, your view of the longstanding Biblical mystery that my post addressed.  In your opinion, why is a person with a virgin pure west Semitic name, )BYMLK [“Abimelech”], portrayed as being “king of the Philistines” at Genesis 26: 1, 8, whereas we would expect an actual Philistine, such as “the chief captain of his host” at Genesis 21: 32, to have a non-west Semitic name like PYKL [“Phicol”]?  In that connection, is it a pure coincidence that Biblical Abimelek in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis has the identical name as the historical Abimelek of the Amarna Letters [such as Amarna Letter EA 155], and that the Amarna Letters refer to foreign mercenaries being present along the coast immediately north of Galilee?  I presume that you reject my proposed solution, which sees those two Abimeleks as being one and the same person [a native west Semitic princeling appointed as the new ruler of Tyre/Sur by pharaoh Akhenaten, who in Year 13 was relying on foreign mercenaries for contested access to water wells on the mainland of northwest Galilee], sees Biblical GRR [“Gerar”] as being the Late Bronze Age spelling of “Galilee”, and sees those foreign mercenaries referred to in the Amarna Letters as being the Biblical “Philistines” [including Phicol] who are referenced in the Patriarchal narratives [as opposed to the classic Philistines of later date, who are referenced in later books of the Bible].  What is your view of this longstanding Biblical mystery?

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois