# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Philistines

See also Philistines on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​PHILISTINES, the general name for the people of Philistia (Ass. Palaštu, Piliśtu; Eg. p-r-s-t), a district embracing the rich lowlands on the Mediterranean coast from the neighbourhood ​of Jaffa (Joppa) to the Egyptian desert south of Gaza (on the subsequent extension of the name in its Greek form Palaestina, see Palestine).
1. Egyptian Evidence.—The name is derived from the Purasati, one of a great confederation from north Syria, Asia Minor and the Levant, which threatened Egypt in the XXth Dynasty. They are not among the hordes enumerated by Rameses II. or Merneptah but in the eighth year of Rameses III. (c. 1200–1190) the Purasati hold a prominent place in a widespread movement on land and sea. The Syrian states were overwhelmed and the advance upon Egypt seemed irresistible. Rameses, however, collected a large fleet and an army of native troops and mercenaries and claimed decisive victories. The Egyptian monuments depict the flight of the enemy, the heavy ox-carts with their women and children, and the confusion of their ships. But the sequel of the events is not certain. Even if the increasing weakness of the Egyptian Empire did not invite a repetition of the incursion, it could have allowed the survivors to settle down, and about a century later one of the peoples formerly closely allied with the Purasati is found strongly entrenched at Dor, and together with the more northerly port of Byblos treats with scant respect the traditional suzerainty of Egypt. That some definite political changes ensued in this age have been inferred on other grounds, and the identification of the Purasati with the Philistines may permit the assumption that the latter succeeded in occupying the district with which they have always been associated.
The Egyptian monuments represent the Purasati with a very distinctive feather head-dress resembling that of the Lycians and Mycenaeans. Their general physiognomy is hardly Cilician or Hittite, but European. Their arms comprise two short swords, a longer spear, a round shield, and they sometimes wear a coat of mail; a curious feature is their tactics of fighting in a circle of protecting shields. The chariots resemble the Hittite with two crossed receptacles for the weapons, but obviously these were not used by the Purasati alone. On archaeological grounds the Purasati have been connected with the people of Keftiu, i.e. Mycenaeans of Crete, although a wider application of this term is not to be excluded.
See further, G. Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, pp. 461 sqq.; W. M. Müller, Asien u. Europa, pp. 354 sqq.; Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesell. pp. 1-42 (1900), pp. 113 sqq. (1904); H. R. Hall, British School of Athens, viii. 157 sqq., x. 154 sqq.; Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxi. (1909) passim; R. Weill, Rev. archéol., i. 52 sqq. (1904); R. Dussaud, Rev. de l’hist. des relig., ii. 52 sqq. (1905). More recently, A. Wiedemann, Orient. lit. Zeit. (1910), cols. 49 sqq. disputes the identification of Keft with Crete.
2. History.—Biblical tradition, too, has recognized the Philistines as immigrants from Caphtor (Amos ix. 7). They appear in the pre-Mosaic age (Gen. xxi. 32, 34, xxvi.), at the Exodus of the Israelites (Ex. xiii. 17, xv. 14), and the invasion of Palestine. They are represented as a confederation of five cities (Ashdod, Asealon [Ashkelon], Ekron, Gath and Gaza) which remained unconquered (Joshua xiii. 2 seq., Judges iii. 3; contrast Joshua xv. 45-47, xix. 43). The institution of the Hebrew monarchy (c. 1000 B.C.) follows upon periods of Philistine oppression (Judges iii. 31, x. 7, 11, xiii. 1-5; see Samson; Eli; Samuel; Saul; David). The subjugation of them is ascribed to Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 13), Saul (xiv. 47), and David (2 Sam. viii. 1; for Solomon see 1 Kings x. 20); but they evidently recovered their independence, and we find that twice within a short time the northern Israelites laid siege to the border fortress of Gibbethon (1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15). Although this place has not been identified, it is mentioned in a list of Danite cities with Aijalon, Ekron, Eltekeh and Timnah (Joshua xix. 44, xxi. 23), names of importance for the history. Somewhat later the evidence becomes fuller, and much valuable light is thrown upon the part which the Philistine coast played in the political history of Palestine. Gaza, the most southerly and famous of the Philistine towns, was the terminus of the great caravan-route from Edom and south Arabia, with whose Bedouin it was generally on good terms. It was “the outpost of Africa, the door of Asia” (G. A. Smith), the stepping-off point for the invasion of Egypt, and the fortress which, next in importance to Lachish, barred the maritime road to Phoenicia and Syria. It is necessary to realize Gaza’s position and its links with trading centres, since conditions in the comparatively small and half-desert land of Judah depended essentially upon its relations with the Edomites and Arabian tribes on the south-east and with the Philistines on the west. Jehoshaphat’s supremacy over Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron. xvii. 11, partly implied in 1 Kings xxii. 47) is followed by the revolt of Libnah (near Lachish) and Edom against his son Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20, 22). The book of Chronicles mentions Philistines and Arabians, and knows of a previous warning by a prophet of Mareshah (east of Lachish; 2 Chron. xx. 37, xxi. 16). In like manner, the conquests of Uzziah over Edom and allied tribes (2 Kings xiv. 22, see 2 Chron. xxvi. 7) and over Gath, Ashdod and Jabneh (ibid. v. 6) find their sequel in the alliance of Samaria and Damascus against Ahaz, when Edom recovered its independence (so read for “Syria” in 2 Kings xvi. 6), and the Philistines attacked Beth-shemesh, Aijalon, Timnath, &c. (2 Chron. xxviii. 17 seq.). These notices at least represent natural conditions, and the Assyrian inscriptions now are our authority. Tiglath-pileser IV. (734 B.C.) marched down and seized Gaza, removing its gods and goods. Its king Hanun had fled to Muṣri, but was pursued and captured; Ascalon, Judah and Edom appear in a list of tributaries. Muṣri was entrusted to the care of the Arabian Idibi’il (of the desert district), but continued to support anti-Assyrian leagues (see Hoshea), and again in 720 (two years after the fall of Samaria) was in alliance with Gaza and north Palestine. Assyria under Sargon defeated the southern confederation at Rapiḥi (Raphia on the border of Egypt) and captured Hanun; the significance of the victory is evident from the submission of the queen of Aribi (Arabia), the Sabaean Itamara, and Muṣri. This Muṣri appears to have been a district outside the limits of Egypt proper, and although tribes of the Delta may well have been concerned, its relations to Philistia agree with the independent biblical account of the part played previously by Edom and Arabian tribes (see Mizraim). But the disturbances continued, and although desert tribes were removed and settled in Samaria in 715, Muṣri and Philistia were soon in arms again. Ashdod (see Isa. xx.) and Gath were taken and sacked, the people removed, and fresh colonies were introduced. Judah, Edom and Moab were also involved, but submitted (711 B.C.). Scarcely ten years passed and the whole of Palestine and Syria was again torn with intrigues. Sennacherib (Sargon’s successor in 705) marched to the land of the “Hittites,” traversed ​the coast and, descending from Sidon, took Jaffa, Beth-dagon, Beneberak, Ekron and Timnah (all in the district ascribed to the southern Dan). At Eltekeh (also in Dan) the allies were defeated. Farther south came the turn of Ascalon, Lachish and Libnah; Judah under Hezekiah suffered severely, and its western cities were transferred to the faithful vassals of Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza. The immediate subsequent events are obscure (see further Hezekiah). In the 7th century Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod and Ekron were Assyrian vassals, together with Judah, Moab and Edom—in all, twenty-two kings of the “Hittites”—and the discovery of Assyrian contract-tablets at Gezer (c. 650) may indicate the presence of Assyrian garrisons. But as the Assyrian power declined Egyptian monarchs formed plans of aggrandizement. Herodotus mentions the Scythian invasion and sack of the temple of Aphrodite Urania (Astarte) at Ascalon, also the prolonged siege of Ashdod by Psammetichus, and the occupation of Kadytis (? Gaza) by Necho (i. 105, ii. 157 sqq., iii. 5). But the Babylonian Empire followed upon traditional lines and thrust back Egypt, and Nabonidus (553 B.C.) claims his vassals as far as Gaza. The Persians took over the realm of their predecessors, and Gaza grew in importance as a seat of international commerce. Nehemiah speaks not of Philistines, but of Ashdodites (iv. 7), speaking an “Ashdodite” dialect (xiii. 24); just as Strabo regards the Jews, the Idumaeans, the Gazans and the Ashdodites as four cognate peoples having the common characteristic of combining agriculture with commerce. In southern Philistia at least, Arabian immigration became more pronounced. In the time of Cambyses Arabs were settled at Jenysos south of Gaza (Herod. iii. 5), and when Alexander marched upon Egypt, Gaza with its army of Arabs and Persians offered a strenuous resistance. Recent discoveries near Tell Sandaḥannah (or Mareshah) have revealed the presence of North Arabian (Edomite) names about the 2nd century B.C. On the history of the district see further Jews; Maccabees; Palestine.
3. Philistine Traditions.—The interdependence of the south Palestinian peoples follows from geographical conditions which are unchangeable, and the fuller light thrown upon the last decades of the 8th century B.C. illuminates the more fragmentary evidence elsewhere. Hence the two sieges of the Philistine Gibbethon by the Israelites (above) obviously have some significance for Judaean history, but the Judaean annals unfortunately afford no help (see Asa). Again, the Aramaean attack upon Israel by Hazael of Damascus leads to the capture of Gath (2 Kings xii. 17), and this, together with the statement that he took “the Philistine” from Jehoahaz of Israel (ibid. xiii. 22, Lucian’s recension), bears upon Judah, but the statements are isolated. Somewhat later, the Assyrian king Adad-nirari IV. claimed tribute from Edom, Philistia and Beth-Omri (the Israelite kingdom); the curious omission of Judah has suggested that it was then included with the second or third of these (see Jews, § 12). The Philistines naturally had a prominent place in popular tradition, and the story of Isaac and the Philistine Abimelech (Gen. xxvi., cf. xxi. 32) is of great interest for its unbiased representation of intercourse, enmity, alliance and covenant. But it is important to notice that a parallel story (xx.) is without this distinctively Philistine background, and this variation is significant. One account of the Israelite invasion conceived a conquest of earlier giant inhabitants (Anākīm) who survived in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod (Joshua xi. 21 seq., contrast xiii. 3), but were driven out from Hebron by Caleb (Joshua xv. 14, cf. Num. xiii. 22, 28). The Philistines themselves are called the remnant of the Anākīm (Jer. xlvii. 5, so the Septuagint), or as Caphtōrīm replace the earlier Avvim (Deut. ii. 23, see Joshua xiii. 3). Samuel’s great defeat of the Philistines leads to “peace between Israel and the Amorites” (1 Sam. vii. 14), and the migration of the Danites is placed after Samson’s conflicts with the Philistines (Judges xviii. seq.), or is due to the pressure of Amorites (i. 34). Even in David’s fights with the Philistines in Judah, Jerusalem is Jebusite, neighbouring non-Israelite cities are Hivite or Amorite (Joshua ix. 7, 2 Sam. xxi. 2), and his strange adversaries find a close parallel in the semi-mythical sons of Anak (2 Sam. xxi. 16, 18, 20, 22). This fluctuation, due partly to the different circles in which the biblical narratives took shape, and partly to definite reshaping of the traditions of the past, seriously complicates all attempts to combine the early history of Israel with the external evidence. The history of the Philistine district goes back long before the time of the Purasati (c. 1200 B.C.), and if the references to Philistines in pre-Mosaic times are treated as anachronisms, those which can be applied to the 12th-11th century do not at once acquire an historical value. The references of the time of the Exodus, the Invasion and the “Judges”—whatever chronological scheme be adopted—must be taken in connexion with a careful examination of all the evidence. It is inherently not improbable that a recollection has been preserved of Philistine oppressions in the 11th century, but it is extremely difficult to sketch any adequate sequence of events, and among the conflicting traditions are situations equally applicable to later periods of hostility. Biblical history has presented its own views of the Israelite and Judaean monarchies; Israel has its enemies who come pouring forth from the south (1 Sam. xiii. 17, 18), while the founder of the Judaean dynasty has intimate relations with a Philistine king Achish (or Abimelech, Ps. xxxiv.), or, from another point of view, clears the district of a prehistoric race of giants. In the stories of Samson and Samuel, the Philistines are located in the maritime plain, whereas, in the oldest traceable account of Saul’s rise (apparently shortly before 1000 B.C.) they hold Israel (1 Sam ix. 16, xiii. 3 seq., 7, xiv. 1, 11, 21). But there is no historical continuity between the two situations, and the immediate prelude to the achievements of Saul and Jonathan is lost. The biblical evidence does not favour any continued Philistine domination since the time of Rameses III., who indeed, later in his reign, made an expedition, not against the Purasati, but into North Syria, and, as appears from the Papyrus Harris, restored Egyptian supremacy over Palestine and Syria. Upon the (incomplete) external evidence and upon a careful criticism of the biblical history of this period, and not upon any promiscuous combination of the two sources, must depend the value of the plausible though broad reconstructions which have been proposed.
Considerable stress is often laid upon Goliath’s armour of bronze and his iron weapon, but even David himself has heimet, sword and coat-of-mail at his disposal (1 Sam. xvii.), and suits of armour had already been taken from Mesopotamia by Tethmosis III. Chariots of iron are ascribed to the Canaanites (Joshua xvii. 16, 18, Judges i. 19, iv. 3); but if early references to iron are treated as unhistorical (Gen. iv. 22, Num. xxxi. 22, xxxv. 16, Deut. iv. 20, viii. 9, xix. 5, xxvii. 5, xxviii. 48, xxxiii. 25, Joshua vi. 19, 24) Goliath’s iron spear-head must be judged together with the whole narrative in the light of a consistent historical criticism.
​4. Conclusions.—The Philistines appear in the Old Testament as a Semitic or at least a thoroughly Semitized people. Their proper names show that before and even during the Persian age their languages differed only dialectically from Hebrew. Among the exceptions must be reckoned Achish (Sept. ἀκχους), with which has been compared Ikausu, a king of Ekron (7th century) and the “Keftian” name Akashau of the XIXth Egyptian dynasty. Names in -ath (Goliath; Ahuzzath, Gen. xxvi.) are not restricted to Philistines, and Phicol (ibid.) is too obscure to serve as evidence. The religion is not novel. The male god Dagon has his partner Astarte (qq.v.), and Baal-zebub, a famous oracle of Ekron (2 Kings i.) finds a parallel in the local “baals” of Palestine. Even when the region seems to be completely Hellenized after the Persian age, it is not so certain that Greek culture pervaded all classes (see G. F. Moore, Ency. Bib. col. 3726), although a certain amount of foreign influence probably made itself felt upon the coast-towns at all times. The use of the term ἀλλόφυλοι in Maccabaean and later writings (cf. the contemptuous hatred of Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus l. 26, and the author of Jubilees xxiv. 30 sqq.) correctly expresses the conditions of the Greek age and the Maccabaean wars, and naturally any allusion to the situations of many centuries previously is quite unnecessary. Similarly, the biblical evidence represents the traditions in the form which they had reached in the writer's time, the true date of which is often uncertain. Antagonism between Philistines and Israelites was not a persisting feature, and, although the former are styled “uncircumcised” (chiefly in the stories in the book of Samuel), the term gained new force when the expulsion of uncircumcised aliens from the sanctuary of Jerusalem was proclaimed in the writings ascribed to Ezekiel (ch. xliv.).
In fact the question arises whether the history of the Philistines is not that of a territorial designation, rather than that of the lineal descendants of the Purasati, who, if one of the peoples who took part in the events of the XXth Dynasty, may well have bequeathed their name. The Mediterranean coast-land was always exposed to incursions of aliens, and when Carians appear as royal and temple guards at Jerusalem (2 Kings xi. 4), it is sufficient to recall old Greek traditions of a Carian sea-power and relations between Philistia and Greek lands. Even the presence of Carians and Ionians in the time of Psammetichus I. may be assumed, and when these are planted at Defneh it is noteworthy that this is also closely associated with a Jewish colony (viz. Tahpanhes, Jer. xliii. seq.). Although the Purasati appear after the 15th–14th centuries, now illuminated by the Amarna tablets, their own history is perhaps earlier. But there is no reason at present to believe that their entrance caused any break in the archaeological history. The apparently “Aegean” influence which enters into the general “Amarna” period seems to begin before the age of the Amarna tablets (at Lachish), and it passes gradually into later phases contemporary with the Israelite monarchy. There is a fairly continuous intercourse with external culture (Cypriote, early and late Greek), and, if Gath be identified with Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi, Bliss and Macalister, who excavated it, found no trace of any interruption in its history. Only at Gezer—perhaps Philistine, 2 Sam. v. 25—has there been found evidence for a strange race with several distinctive features. Bricked vault tombs were discovered containing bodies outstretched (not contracted); the deposits were of an unusually fine character and comprised silver, alabaster and even iron. The culture appears to find Carian and Lydian parallels, and has been ascribed provisionally to the 13th–10th centuries. So far, however, of the cities lying within or immediately exposed to Philistine influence, the discoveries at Gezer are unique.
According to the biblical traditions the Philistines are the remnant of Caphtor (Jer. xlvii. 4, Amos ix. 7), and the Caphtōrīm drove out the aboriginal Avva from Gaza and district, as the Horites and Rephaim were displaced by Edom and Ammon (Deut. ii. 23). These Caphtōrīm, together with Ludim (Lydians) and other petty peoples, apparently of the Delta, are once reckoned to Egypt (Gen. x. 14). By Caphtor the Septuagint has sometimes understood Cappadocia, which indeed may be valid for its age, but the name is to be identified with the Egyptian K(a)ptar, which in later Ptolemaic times seems to mean Phoenicia, although Keftiu had had another connotation. The Cherethites, associated with the Philistine district (1 Sam. xxx. 14, 16, Ezek. xxv. 16, Zeph. ii. 5 seq.), are sometimes recognized by the Septuagint as Cretans, and, with the Pelethites (often taken to be a rhyming form of Philistines), they form part of the royal body-guard of Judaeah kings (2 Sam. viii. 18, xv. 18. xx. 7, 1 Kings i. 38, 44; in 2 Sam. xx. 23 the Hebrew text has Carites). However adequate these identifications may seem, the persistence of an independent clan or tribe of Cherethites-Cretans to the close of the 7th century would imply an unbroken chain of nearly six hundred years, unless, as is inherently more probable, later immigrations had occurred within the interval. But upon the ethnological relations either of the south Palestinian coast or of the Delta it would be unsafe to dogmatize. So far as can be ascertained, then, the first mention of the Philistines belongs to an age of disturbance and change in connexion with movements in Asia Minor. Archaeological evidence for their influence has indeed been adduced, but it is certain that some account must be taken also of the influence by land from North Syria and Asia Minor. The influences, whether from the Levant, or from the north, were not confined to the age of Rameses III. alone, and the biblical evidence, especially, while possibly preserving some recollection of the invasion of the Purasati, is in every case late and may be shaped by later historical vicissitudes. It is impossible that Palestine should have remained untouched by the external movements in connexion with the Delta, the Levant and Asia Minor, and it is possible that the course of internal history in the age immediately before and after 1000 B.C. ran upon lines different from the detailed popular religious traditions which the biblical historians have employed. (See further Palestine: History.)
For older studies, see F. Hitzig, Urgeschichte der Philister (1845), with the theory of the Pelasgic origin of the Philistines; K. Stark, Gaza u. d. philist. Küste (1852), and (with special reference to earlier theories) W. Robertson Smith's art. in Ency. Brit., 9th ed.  (S. A. C.)
* ↑ "Philistine," as a term of contempt, hostility or reproach, appears first in English, in a sense equivalent to "the enemy," as early as the beginning of the 17th century, and later as a slang term for a bailiff or a sheriff's officer, or merely for drunken or vicious people generally. In German universities the townsfolk were called by the students Philister; they were “outsiders,” the enemy of the chosen people. It is supposed that this use arose in 1693 in Jena after a “town and gown” row in which a student had been killed and a sermon preached on the text “the Philistines be upon you, Samson” (see Quarterly Review, April 1899, 438, note, quoted in the New English Dictionary). “Philistine” thus became the name of contempt applied by the cultured to those whom they considered beneath them in intellect and taste, and was first so used in English by Carlyle, and Matthew Arnold (Essays in Criticism, “Heinrich Heine,” 1865) gave the word its vogue and its final connotation, as signifying “inaccessible to and impatient of ideas.”—[Ed.]
* ↑ So the Papyrus first published by W. Golénischeff (Rec. de travaux, xxi. 74 sqq.), on which see A. Erman, Zeit. f. aegypt. Sprache, pp. 1–14 (1900); W. M. Müller, Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesell. pp. 14 sqq. (1900); J. H. Breasted, Hist. of Eg. pp. 513 sqq.; Historical Records, iv. 274 sqq.; H. W. Hogg, in the Theolog. Series I. of the publications of university of Manchester, p. 90 seq.
* ↑ See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, chs. ix. seq.; and M. A. Meyer, History of the City of Gaza (New York, 1907). For the traditions associating Gaza with Crete, see the latter, Index, s.v. Minos; the resemblance between the Minaeans of South Arabia and Cretan Minos has afforded grounds for all kinds of speculations, ancient (Pliny vi. 157) and modern.
* ↑ Between the central Judaean plateau and the latter lay the “lowlands” (Shěphēlah), a district open equally to Judaeans and Philistines alike.
* ↑ Cf. Gaza and Edom against Judah in Amos i. 6, and, for the part played by Damascus, the later vicissitudes under the Nabataeans (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 13. 3). It is difficult to date the alliance of Syria and Philistia against Israel in Isa. ix. 11 seq. (on the text, see the commentaries).
* ↑ Peters and Thiersch, Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (1905).
* ↑ Thus, the capture of Gezer by Egypt (1 Kings ix. 16) was presumably only part of some more extensive operations, but their relation to Shishak’s great Palestine campaign is uncertain; see A. Alt, Israel u. Aegypten, pp. 19-38 (Leipzig, 1909). It would be unsafe to infer much from the Eg. reference to the “messenger (wpty, meaning ambiguous)” of Canaan and Philistia (Bull. Mus. Cairo, i. 98).
* ↑ The inhabitants of Ascalon besieged by Rameses II. are represented as Hittites. For an attempt to treat the pre-Mosaic references as historical, see A. Noordtzij, De Filistijnen (Kampen, 1905).
* ↑ See on these, W. M. Müller, Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesell. p. 39 seq.; G. F. Moore, Ency. Bib., art. “Philistines,” col. 3720 seq., and cf. H. W. Hogg, op. cit. p 91. For the suggestion that the “Philistines” have in certain cases taken the place of another ethnic, see S. A. Cook, Crit. Notes on O. T. History, pp. 43 seq., 127 seq., 131 seq., 136 seq., 144; cf., from another point of view, T. K. Cheyne, Decline and Fall of Kingdom of Judah (1908), pp xx. sqq.
* ↑ The introduction of iron has been ascribed to about 1000 B.C. (Macalister, Quart. Statem. p. 321 [1905], as against p. 122 [1904]; H. Vincent, Canaan d’après l’exploration récente, p. 235 seq.). It need hardly be said that the height and might of Goliath must be regarded in the same way as Num. xiii. 32; Deut. ii. 11. The men of the heroic age are giants, as were the ʽAd and Thamud to the later Arabs.
* ↑ See further, F. Schwally, Zeit. Wissens. Theol. xxxiv. 103-108. A few Hebrew words have been regarded as Philistine loan-words, so notably pillégesh, “concubine” (παλλακή, παλλακίς, Lat. pellex), and seren (τύραννος) the title applied to the five lords of the Philistine confederation; seren otherwise means “axle,” and may have been applied metaphorically like the Arab, ḳoṭb (W. R. Smith). On the other hand, a common origin in Asia Minor is also possible for these words.
* ↑ In the prophetical writings the Philistines are denounced (with Ammon, Moab and Edom) for their vengeance upon Judah (Ezek. xxv. 15–17). With Tyre and Sidon they are condemned for plundering Judah, and for kidnapping its children to sell to the Greeks (Joel iii. 4–8; cf. Amos i. 6–12; 1 Macc. iii. 41). They are threatened with a foe from the north (Jer. xxv. 20; Isa. xiv. 29–31; see Zephaniah), as also is Phoenicia (Jer. xlvii. 2–7) upon whom they depend (cf. Zech. ix. 3–8). Judah is promised reprisals (Zeph. ii. 7; Obad. 19), and a remnant of the Philistines may become worshippers of Yahweh (Zech. ix. 7). The historical backgrounds of these passages are disputed.
* ↑ See J. L. Myres, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxvi. 84 sqq. (1906); especially pp. 108, 127 sqq.
* ↑ This is suggested by the recent discovery at Phaestos in Crete of a disk with evidence for a native script; see A. T. Evans, Scripta Minoa (Oxford, 1909), pp. 22 sqq.; E. Meyer, Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy for the 21st of October 1909.
* ↑ See R. A. S. Macalister, Quarterly Stat. of the Palestine Explor. Fund, pp. 319 sqq. (1905), pp. 197 sqq. (1907), and J. L. Myres, ibid. pp. 240 sqq. (1907). On the other hand, H. Thiersch would connect the painted pottery of Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi, &c., with the Philistines (Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst. col. 378 sqq., Berlin, 1908); cf. also H. R. Hall, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxi. 235.
* ↑ v. 13 seq. may be a secondary addition “written from specially intimate acquaintance with the (later ?) Egyptian geography” (J. Skinner, Genesis, p. 214).
* ↑ See D. G. Hogarth, Ionia and the East, pp. 28 seq. (Oxford, 1909); Evans, Scripta Minoa, pp. 77 sqq.