In the listing of peoples after the flood the Philstines are put within the greater Egyptian family. Mizrain.
Elsewhere they are said to have come from the land of another subgroup of Egyptians. Capher(sp). There is no doubt in the scholars/audience mind that they thought the Philistines came from Crete and were cousins to Egyptians.
Robert is referring to Genesis 10:13
וּמִצְרַיִם יָלַד אֶת-לוּדִים וְאֶת-עֲנָמִים, וְאֶת-לְהָבִים–וְאֶת-נַפְתֻּחִים.
וְאֶת-פַּתְרֻסִים וְאֶת-כַּסְלֻחִים, אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מִשָּׁם פְּלִשְׁתִּים–וְאֶת-כַּפְתֹּרִים.
I note that not all interpreters are unanimous on how this should be translated, but the most common is:
“And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
and Pathrusim, and Casluhim–whence went forth the Philistines–and Caphtorim.”
However Amos 9:7 states that the Philistines came from Caphtor.
הֲלוֹא כִבְנֵי כֻשִׁיִּים אַתֶּם לִי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, נְאֻם-יְהוָה: הֲלוֹא אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֶעֱלֵיתִי מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וּפְלִשְׁתִּיִּים מִכַּפְתּוֹר, וַאֲרָם מִקִּיר.
“Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?”
The location of this Caphtor is debated of course, since groups of scholars seem incapable of agreeing on anything. Josephus and Maimonides thought Caphtor was in the Nile delta. In the 1800s Caphtor became associated with Crete or Cyprus.
It is also important to remember that the vague term “sea peoples” is used to refer to the Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, Eqwesh, Denyen, Sikil / Tjekker, Weshesh, and Peleset. Scholars aren’t even agreed on whether Peleset refers to the people the biblical masoretic text refers to as Plištim. In fact until quite recently there were some who suggested the Philistines might just be caananites who merely knocked off local copies of Aegean pottery obtained by trade, while others claimed they were completely fictitious. I suspect this new evidence will change that.
Its also strange that when referring to these Plištim the plural of the ethnic name is used and the definite article is omitted. And when the hebrew scriptures were translated into the greek LXX the term “allophyloi” was used instead.
As Robert Drews pointed out
“Not a proper name at all, allophyloi is a generic term, meaning something like ‘people of other stock’. If we assume, as I think we must, that with their word allophyloi the translators of the LXX tried to convey in Greek what p’lištîm had conveyed in Hebrew, we must conclude that for the worshippers of Yahweh p’lištîm and b’nê yiśrā’ēl were mutually exclusive terms, p’lištîm (or allophyloi) being tantamount to ‘non-Judaeans of the Promised Land’ when used in a context of the third century BCE, and to ‘non-Israelites of the Promised Land’ when used in a context of Samson, Saul and David.”
edit fixed a typo that was annoying me.
4 Likes
Some more Biblical archaeology news for those who are interested.
would there be enough interest for a dedicated Biblical archaeology topic?
3 Likes
This was excellent. i’m aware of this city and this is a great staircase. it shows indeed the strenght of these peoples just as the bible said. there must be so much cool things to be found in israel. Because of so much money sent by American tazpapers to Israel i find it a injustice for Israel to , in effect, use that money to pay these researchers. Its very wrong and ruins the fun of finding cool things.
By the way this woman said the bible was not true because of religious.poltical agendas. Thats just a accusation against the writers. how does she know? she doesn’t!
The bible is Gods word and any accurate research will always find the bible supported by real things in the earth.
More precisely she said “Biblical historiography, in particular the books of Joshua–Kings, cannot be considered a completely accurate account of the events described in them, because they are motivated by a theological and — to some extent — a political agenda.” I’m actually comfortable with that. I think we do an injustice to the text if we insist it meet 20th century standards of history or impartial investigative journalism. Bear in mind that the modern academic study of history and methods of historiography were pioneered in 19th-century German universities. Before that history was considered merely a subset of literature.
Furthermore, do the accounts of Joshua and Kings claim to be a completely accurate account? If they do not make that claim for themselves I don’t feel any pressure to make such a claim on their behalf. I note that Joshua 9:27 when speaking of the Gibeonites remarks “And that is what they are to this day.” implying that the account has been written quite some time later. Likewise 10:27 speak of large stones “which are there to this day.” 14:14 mentions that “Hebron has belonged to Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite ever since”, again implying a compilation date much later than the events described. Something similar in 15:63, 16:10.
I don’t believe they claim to be complete accounts either. In particular Kings often states after its account of each ruler, “As for the other events of X’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of…” So it seems by its own admission to be merely a summary.
Having said that,it was while I was reading Exodus that I had the experience which shattered my faith in atheism. I firmly believe that all scripture is God-breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. But no, some of the older bits may not be as completely accurate as a modern archaeologist might wish.
By the way, here’s another snippet you might like: Goliath's birthplace reportedly unearthed below Philistine city of Gath - Israel News - The Jerusalem Post
6 Likes
I am idly curious.
1 Like
Really, do you mind if I ask why? As powerful as it was for me I readily admit that as an unverifiable personal anecdote it has minimal value as an apologetic argument so I wouldn’t normally bother sharing it in such a sense. I was once very embarrassed when I found out someone I didn’t even know had posted my story to alt.atheism (without even asking) as if it were some sort of “proof”.
2 Likes
Pure idle curiosity, as I said. Mostly, I wonder whether it has anything to do with Exodus. Also, I do wonder what “faith in atheism” means.
These books of the bible are created by GOD. Not man. YES they are completly accurate and uES they mean to be believed in as accurate. obviously. people can say its made up but how do they know?
every shovel there helps the biblical case of accuracy.
How were these books created by GOD and not man? That is such a ridiculous statement. They are not even self consistent. It is obvious that these books are just ancient myths and legends written by an ancient people. Nothing more.
If that were true, why does archeology keep verifying its historicity?
1 Like
Because these texts were written by men in the language and culture of the time. There are ancient writing by ancient people all over the world. All written using the technology, the language, and the culture of the time and place they were written it. Most are about over 10,000 different Gods. Archaeology keeps showing more and more. Archaeology doesn’t find the Torah at Gobekli tepe or in Mayan ruins. All writing are in their proper place and time going back to the drawn of writing long before the bible that you think is created by God.
None of that affects the inspiration of scripture.
1 Like
Wait a sec. How do you know they are nothing more? I mean, beyond the assumption that there is no God, do you have evidence that they are nothing more?
5 Likes
You daren’t suggest he is biased!! 
Well, in my mind, bias is an issue, it’s pretty pervasive. We always interpret the world through the lens of our experiences and our cultural and genetic inheritance, the best we can do is be self-aware and try to remove the influence of bias.
However, in this particular case I’m more interested in dichotomous thinking. Either the Bible is purely the work of ordinary men on par with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad and has no more authority or divinity than any other ancient myth or proverb, or it’s "poof"ed by God into existence millenia ago with 21st century historical/scientific exactness and perfection, no dirty man-hands involved. Think Dawkins vs. the King James-only crowd.
I think there are many more careful ways of looking at inspiration and origin of the Bible. It could be it’s myth and legend and exactly what God intended it to be, for instance. I’m not picking sides, I just think it’s far from “obvious”.
5 Likes
What I meant was, of course he’s biased. We all are, and have confirmation biases in accord with our worldviews. Not all biases are wrong, though, and in general, a Christian one is closer to the overall scope of reality than a non-Christian one (but my bias made me say that 
). That’s also why, in an academic and sociologic sense of the word, atheism is a religion.*
2 Likes
You’re right. I should have said, “Nothing more to me”
3 Likes
And archaeology is a science.
I can appreciate though, why an atheist wouldn’t see more, it does seem at times like a ancient story written by ancient people. If I was in charge I would maybe have done it differently, but I’m not God so…
I think archeology is fascinating and I think it can only help us understand the Bible more, so I say the more the merrier.
As always, I think scientists have to be careful to not speak authoritatively beyond what the science actually says, either by distinguishing clearly between what they say is science and interpretation or by just leaving it at the science and letting others interpret.
2 Likes