James,
I'm not sure if you realise, but there are very few people (if any) who seriously challenge the idea that the Philistines are the Pereset of Ramesses III's account of the invasion of the Sea Peoples in c.1176 BC. Not only is it a good linguistic match between Egyptian and Hebrew, but the archaeological record supports the identification (see the production of Mycenean IIIB ware in the Levant). This is a basic datum of the historical record. It actually provides a very firm external point of verification for the Philistines, making the hypothesis I described previously anything but circular reasoning. Only if you reject the Philistine=Pereset identification could you possibly see it as circular reasoning. And if you do reject the identification, you'd have to show good reason why - which would probably have to take the form of newly discovered evidence. The hypothesis stands on good solid ground - not a 'shaky foundation' at all. It's not 'my' theory - it's the basic wisdom of
the academy at the moment.
It seems you have a bit of history to brush up on, James. Before then, you might want to think again about lambasting some of the most basic ideas in the field.
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.