Jim, Please try to be less verbose. That's all I have to say about that.
GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) On 20/04/2013, at 4:06 AM, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob Acosta wrote: “It is my opinion that the word "Philistine" was used by the ancient Hebrews in the same way the word "barbarian" was used the the Romans. We of course know the "barbarians" were specific groups of people, Goths, Ostrogoths, Huns, etc. …I point out the fact that the Philistines of Abraham were a monarchy, its ruler given the title of Abimilech, while the Philistines of later times were a confederacy of five cities each with their own ruler. This disparity alone is a clear indication we're discussing two separate groups of people with differing styles of government.” I agree with most of that. “Philistines” started out as a generic name for invaders or foreign mercenaries or barbarians: new arrivals to Canaan with a military bent. I agree, and here I even think that the majority of scholars agree, that the Philistines in the Patriarchal narratives are a completely different people than the classic Philistines, with the latter being the Philistines of the rest of the Bible but not of Genesis; the Patriarchal narratives hearken back to an earlier day. My only point of minor disagreement is as to the name “Abimelek”. It should be noted at the outset that this is a virgin pure west Semitic name, having nothing whatsoever to do with the historical classic Philistines of later date. At Genesis 20: 2, that name is spelled: )BYMLK. Linguistically, I would analyze the interior yod/Y as being a xireq compaginis, which functions as a modern dash that connects, yet separates, the two parts of this name: )B -Y- MLK. The name then means: “[Divine] Father -- King”. Since that name is simply saying that the divine father is king, there’s no necessity that the bearer of the name himself be a king. I see Biblical Abimelek as being a mere princeling, not a true king. Now compare the following name at Amarna Letter EA 154: 2: a-bi-mil-ki. I see that as being identical linguistically to the Biblical name. In cuneiform, the Hebrew word ab/)B could be written as a single cuneiform sign, as we see in the name ab-di-a$-ta-ar-ti at Amarna Letter EA 63: 3. So here, where we don’t see ab as a cuneiform sign, a-bi is setting forth -i- as the xireq compaginis. -mil- is a relatively rare cuneiform sign in the Amarna Letters that has two consonants, which of necessity must be separated by a generic vowel. The last consonant, kaf/K, must be rendered in cuneiform as being followed by a generic vowel. The long and the short of it is that these two names appear identical to me in all ways, so that on the linguistic front as to their names: Biblical )B -Y- MLK = historical a-bi-milk-ki. I myself go further than that and assert that Biblical Abimelek and the Abimelek of the Amarna Letters are one and the same person. Historical Abimelek lived on an island just off the far northwest corner of Galilee/GLYL. The defective spelling of GLYL is GLL and, in my opinion, the Late Bronze Age spelling of GLL was GRR [or, per the Egyptian way, KRR, at item #80 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in Canaan]. The two Abimeleks are the only two people in the Bible or the Amarna Letters who are always complaining about contested access to water wells. If the two Abimeleks are one and the same person, that would then entail that Biblical Abimelek had been appointed to his position in GRR/GLL/GLYL/Galilee by Pharaoh, with the Pharaoh being Akhenaten. That consideration would have the important consequence of even more closely linking the two wife-sister ruses to each other: the first is as to Pharaoh himself, and the second is as to a princeling whom Pharaoh recently appointed to his position. The overly-flowerly language of the two Abimeleks is similar in pleading their cases. “Abimelek…said, Lord, wilt thou slay a righteous nation? …[I]n the integrity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this.” Genesis 20: 4-5 “Should the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, give water to drink to the servant of Mayati [Akhenaten’s oldest daughter Meritaten, who in Year 13 had become the leading lady of Egypt when Nefertiti was unable to bear a son], then I will devote myself to his service and that of Mayati, my mistress, night and day. …The king is the Eternal Sun, and I am the loyal servant of the king, my lord.” Amarna Letter EA 155: 24-29, 47-54. Although in a long series of Amarna Letters historical Abimelek complains about virtually everything under the sun, he never once says that there’s not even enough water for his sons, or otherwise mentions having sons. That is consistent with Abimelek possibly having the same problem that Abram had and that pharaoh Akhenaten had: not yet having succeeded in siring a son by his beloved original main wife #1. Indeed, I see the information in the Amarna Letters written by Abimelek as being consistent with the Biblical account of Abimelek in Genesis. The main problem in the past has been linguistic: Abimelek has a west Semitic name, yet analysts have thought that the Bible mandates that Abimelek himself is a Philistine, whereas Philistines would not be expected to have west Semitic names. The answer to that longstanding problem is that the Bible says that Abimelek is “king of the Philistines” [Genesis 26: 1, 8], not that Abimelek himself is an ethnic Philistine. The Bible says also that GRR was “the land of the Philistines” [Genesis 21: 32, 24], that “the Philistines” envied Isaac [Genesis 26: 14], and that “Philistines” had stopped up the wells that Abraham had previously dug [Genesis 26: 15, 18]. The ethnic Philistines in Genesis are people like Phicol with a non-west Semitic name; Phicol was a foreign mercenary/“Philistine”, being “the chief captain of his host” [Genesis 21: 32], on whom Abimelek had become reliant. Abimelek was “king of the Philistines” in the somewhat ironic sense that Abimelek had hired foreign mercenaries to protect his land; Abimelek himself was not an ethnic Philistine. GRR/Galilee was the “land of the Philistines” in that at that time [as we know from the Amarna Letters], foreign mercenaries were being invited in along the coast of Lebanon and the northwest corner of Galilee in response to the deteriorating security in the area [though such foreign mercenaries ultimately just made the security situation worse]. When Genesis 26: 15, 18 tells us that “Philistines” had sabotaged the valuable water wells that Abraham had previously dug in Abimelek’s land, those particular Philistines are foreign mercenaries who had been hired by Abimelek’s rivals in southern Lebanon to upset Abimelek’s water supply. I see the foregoing analysis as resolving the longstanding Biblical mystery as to how someone with a virgin pure west Semitic name like “Abimelek” could be said at Genesis 26: 1, 8 to be “king of the Philistines”, when the Philistines themselves would certainly not be expected to have west Semitic names. Abimelek himself was not an ethnic Philistine, but rather he had become dependent on the Philistines/foreign mercenaries/barbarians [with non-west Semitic names like “Phicol”] in trying to maintain a water supply from the mainland of GRR/Galilee. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
