Talk:Philistines
they are spoken of as uncircumcised. It would therefore appear that they were not of the Semitic race, though after their establishment in Palestine they adopted the Semitic language of the country. Semitic describes a group of languages and the peoples who speak them, not a group of penises. Someone also thinks the Philistines adopted a new, Semitic language they had not been speaking. Any reason to imagine this? Some links to modern archaeology would be useful in this entry. Anyone interested? Wetman 01:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well the term Semetic is problematic anyway liguists prefer to use Northeast Afroasiatic these days. Perhaps the source being refered to has been misinterpreted? Jews have always understood them to have been descendants of Egypt which of course also spoke an Afroasiatic language. Perhaps the idea is that if they were a founding population of later Helenized isles that they lost their Afroasiatic language in THOSE regions? However as Wetman knows, I would advise anyone to avoid connections of Sea-peoples with the early 12thC.BCE for the time being because of a chronology controversey currently rifting (sometimes violently) the academic community which might sort itself out over the next 50 years. -Kaz
They are described in the Old Testament as an intrusive people that settled in Palestine in the period between the Hebrews' departure to Egypt and their return. What book is being referred to here? This is akin to "I read it in the library." 'Intrusive' is not the word used in the source. Anyone want to come up with something, or would 'immigrant people' do? No one would describe the Hebrews in Canaan as an 'intrusive people'. Does a 7th century text reflecting earlier tribal traditions with a vivid anti-Philistine bias throw authentic historical light on the date of the Philistines' arrival? If it doesn't, it's not history, it's Sunday school... Wetman 03:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I first saw this passage written by Llywrch on the Sea-People's page. As far as I know the whole passage is wrong according to any source. Even the book to which you refer indicates that the Philistines were in the southern parts of Canaan when the Hebrews arrived there. -Kaz
They are described in the Old Testament as people that settled Southern Cannan (sic} prior to the Hebrews' arrival there from the North East. There is no such description in any book of the O.T. Does any knowledgable responsible person want to do some editing here? Wetman 11:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
people called Pulsata or Pulista on Egyptian monuments and the the land of the Philistines (Philistia) with Palastu and Pilista in Assyrian inscriptions. This is repeated from Wikipedia but otherwise "Pulsata" "Pulista" "Palastu" and "Pilista" aren't getting any Egyptian or Assyrian references. Where are these inscriptions then? I think we deserve to know... Wetman 21:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This new text is self-contradictory:
They are called Allophyli, "foreigners," in the Septuagint. In the Books of Samuel they are spoken of as uncircumcised. It would therefore appear that they were not a native people since circumcision is documented as widely practiced in Palestine at the time, although after their establishment in Palestine they adopted the languages and customs of the country.
--If circumcision was customary in Palestine and the Philistines were circumcised, that makes them more likely to be native, not less. In any case, I would have thought that the origins of the Philistines were by now determined by archaelogy without the need to resort to scraps of information of unknown veracity in the Bible. --Zero 22:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Perfectly sensible, Zero. Indeed, if the "foreigners" (allophyli is odd) of the Septuagint (but which book?) are in fact identical with the Philistines, and if the author of Samuel says they were uncircumcized, then we can deduce that the Philistines were not Hebrews and that they were not circumcised. The circumcision that was "customary" was customary among the Hebrews. Deductive logic is not taught in Sunday school apparently. Wetman 23:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have edited this entry with identifed element from Easton's Bible Dictionary. Folks'd better have a look, for this area seems sensitive. Wetman 23:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. I was quoting from memory what I had read about the research of Brian Hesse & Paula Wapnish of the University of Alabama, & when I went back to reread my source, it turns out I misremembered: their work was on the eating of pork or pig's meat, not circumcision. (If I had thought for a moment, I would have realized that there is no good way to determine by archeology whether a population practices circumcision.)
- And to answer Wetman's question from the Talk:Hittites page here about the Philistines: I did go through my copy of ANET3 last night, trying to find an example of the Ancient Egyptian or Assyrian form of Philistine, but I could not find any. (The word appears in that reference only from Egyptian texts, where it is translated without any clue of the original spelling.) I am suspicious about the claimed forms "Pulsata" & "Pulista", since according to the usual rules of how ancient Egyptian is converted to pronounceable English these forms would presume an attested pwlst' or pwls`t` -- which is clearly different from an expected plst. One would have to explain the consonental w & the one or two asperations, which I suspect aren't attested in the Hebrew text. -- llywrch 18:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)